"Surprise Christmas Present......." Topic

I suppose it might be worth mentioning that a Dutchman was at Wagram – one of the Orange boys (I won't say men to avoid confusuon with Northern Ireland, which is Irish or British depending on your point of view). I think he was the uncle of the one at Waterloo.

Then of course, Bohemia was pretty much German populated in its western half and Prague was a German city at the time – their descendants are the Sudeten Germans, who were outside Germany and Austria in 1938. Varnhagen von Ense, author of a famous memoir of Wagram was a Pomeranian (so about as Prussian as Blucher), who volunteered as a Fahnrich with IR19, although he does say most men spoke Czech. The Fahnrich who saw what really happens with a gun was with IR42, who recruited from Saaz, right in the western point of Bohemia) and his memoir is in German. I know this was I cannot read Czech!

'In the preface to the first volume of this work, I made clear what was to be its central theme. It was to demonstrate by reference to source material in the German language the full role of the German nation in this final act in the overthrow of Napoleon Bonaparte,a role often underplayed in English-language literature. This theme has been continued throughout this second volume.' (page 336-vol 2)

It seems PH really believes there was a German nation during the Napoleonic period?

'History, particularly that written in the English language, regards the Duke of Wellington as the victor of Waterloo. However, if that victory is to be attributed to any one man, then surely it has to be Field Marshal Blucher.' (same page)

Yeah, you wish!

'Even leaving those parts of Wellington's army furtherest from the front out of the reckoning, the burden of the operations of the 15-19 June still fell on the Prussians. The Prussian army corps as a whole marched a good deal further in those critical days of this campaign and fought more actions.' (pages 337-338)

'These facts are indisputable and show on which nation the bulk of the effort to secure a lasting peace in Europe actually fell.' (page 338)

There's that 'nation' again!

'The most convincing evidence in support of the case that it was the German nation that contributed the most to the Allied victory in 1815 is the analysis of casualties given in this work.' (page 338)

Hold on a minute. Read that again. We have the German nation yet again but also an actual contradiction, when he states that it was an 'ALLIED' victory! So basically, it wasn't a German victory after all, it was just a selling ploy. Hold on, wait a minute, he changes his mind again.

'Waterloo was, in fact, primarily a German victory in which both the British Army and the Duke of Wellington played a secondary, supporting role.' (page 338)

Er, even if we agree that they played a secondary, supporting role, surely PH's own statement proves that it was an ALLIED victory because the Prussians didn't do it alone! As if they could anyway. Napoleon licked them a few days earlier to prove that! On their own, no chance. They NEEDED their Allies. TWO armies beat the French at Waterloo. One alone could not do it. Some people should really try accepting the facts and get over it.

Kevin

Great posting! However, I doubt it will make any difference. I fear some people only want to hear agreement, they can't take challenges or disagreement. That would upset their cosy little world. Keep those volley's a firing!

The Romans termed the Germanic tribes Germanic. The tribes termed themselves by their tribal name, eg the Cherusci and the Marcomanni etc. They were not a German nation in any way, which is why they ended fighting each other – no sense of Germaness – just primitive tribal rivalry. Do try to keep up.

King Hell's mother-in-law has got an awful lot to answer for. Why couldn't she have bought him socks?

John,

Excellent catch. Seems like you found the applicable petard with which to hoist upon.

You're also correct on what the Germanic tribes called themselves and each other. The Dacians were also a Germanic tribe who called themselves Dacians, which is also what the Romans called them.

And many of the Germanic tribes served the Romans as auxiliaries and eventually front line troops.

There is a very pronounced line between ethnicity and nationality.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Or a nice jumper with a reindeer on it?

Are dueling pistols being presented soon? This is a lot of arguing over a easy to be defined point. A striped tie and shirt?

Skip,

Agree-except whose 'definition' is to be accepted? And how do you stop the ridiculous personal comments that don't need to be added here? Seems to me that sometimes they are the point of the exercise and nothing else matters-and that is a shame.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Or after shave? Maybe some Old Spice?

Dr Websters 1860 Dictionary – German – n – a native of Germany; and by ellipsis, the German language.

The Dacians were not Germanic, but an Indo-European people most closely related to the tribes in Ukraine and northern Greece. They occu[pied much of modern Romaina, where until recently there were significant Saxon (ie: German mostly from the Rhineland) settlements, amongst whom was Melas. After reunification, the German government gave return residency rights to all Germans, which brought many from these settlements in Romania and places as far east as the Volga back to Germany. Their ancestors had been settled out in these areas in the late mediaeval period and it is said that the story of the Pied Piper of Hameln had its roots partly in those settlers leaving Germany proper.

I don't want this to develop into a ancient German history thread, but I believe the term Indo-Euorpean related to a language connection, as much to a movement of races or original races. And, although it was accepted as a term concerning a possible connecting language, in 1813, the term was not accepted in Germany. Probably because the term was known formally as Indo-Germanic, which suggests that the Dacians origin may have been Germanic. But I believe nothing is definite on this and there are various opinions, based on new evidence and theories etc, which differ wildly and probably always will do. Anyway, let's please move away from pre and post the Napoleonic period, as interesting as they may be to some people. After all, this is a Napoleonic Discussion board.

Gazzola:

Per 10th's comment "Excellent catch. Seems like you found the applicable petard with which to hoist upon."

You are hereby hoisted with your own petard. Your posts are valuable in one sense. You have demonstrated an excellent grasp of historical fallacies. You just keep finding the facts that support your preconceived notions while ignoring contrary evidence and you too can become a paragon of historical misapprehension. I'm glad that you consider 10th as such an authoritative historical source and support him (his other main supporter is conspicuously absent from this thread). You at least give a slight indication at times that perhaps you are in error on a point and thus have not crossed over to the dark side with Darth Incorrigible.

Dear 14 Bore,

There certainly were natives of Germany long before 1815. They were a group of people united by common descent, culture and language which is the OED definition of nation. That there was no German nation state has not been claimed by anybody here and is a straw man argument for its own sake.

Can you recommend a wargaming forum?

Bill

Bill- Sorry no I can't.

The Best of Top Gear. That's a good present for your son-in-law.

I bought my brother-in-law a bottle of port.

An electric screwdriver is always useful. But maybe he's already got one of those?

Least We Forget

So let me get this right. If I disagree with someone or know or believe that something is wrong and can provide facts that might prove something said was incorrect, I have gone over to the Dark side? Wow! What sort of a world do you really want? People who know something is wrong must remain silent? Let those who lie and twist things carry on wasting our time. Let those who can't cope with those who dare to disagree with them remain unchallenged? If that's going to the Dark side, so be it. Personally, I think the force is with me. Shame it is not with you. Now where's me Light Sabre!

John,

LWF is merely being a critic without much behind him to back up what he wants to say or do. I'd just ignore him. We don't even know who he is…

By the way, I have a light saber… ;-)

Sincerely,
Kevin

Keven- would that then be a more defined rapier?

Dear LWF, 14 Bore, Imperiale etc.,

Although I have yet to experience the Dog House, I have an alternative idea that might also be useful. What I suggest is a separate board, perhaps the 'I am Napoleon' board might do but the name is less important than how it works, which is this. Messrs Hofschroer, Kiley and all their little helpers would be 'committed' to this board immediately and their access to the rest of the site prohibited. They would be free to push goal posts around all day, hurl abuse at each other and construct futile arguments, and compete for the last word which by itself would keep them occupied indefinitely I expect. They would have to remain in the 'asylum' until they got better and it was safe to allow them out into the wider community again. We normal people would be able to visit the 'asylum' for our amusement and see how the treatment was going.

The benefits are clear. It would certainly mean that those of us concerned with life and death matters such as wargaming would be able to do so without interruption but the prospect of being sent to join them would be a far greater deterrent against unacceptable behaviour across the site than the Dog House.

I haven't drawn up a list of specific offences yet, but using the word 'Hoffie' would certainly be near to top :-)

Yours Sincerely

Bill

Or slippers? If she wasn't sure what size feet he's got she could always have asked his wife.

PH's position with regard to critique is that, if you have read his book but disagree, however mildly, with any detail of his premises or conclusions, you deserve no more than insult.

If someone won't defend their position, the logical inference is that they can't. I infer that the comments I've offered are correct, and that PH knows they're correct, widely held and very hard to refute* – and is angry about the matter.

The wider point, I suspect, is that PH's claim to note rests on the idea that he is somehow putting over a different and noteworthy view. He'd have people believe that, until he set pen to paper, English writers understated the Prussian contribution.

The problem with this is that anyone widely read in the subject – and by widely read, I mean they've read at least one title in English on Waterloo – will know that this claim is actually wholly bogus. Nobody's been able to cite any such English-language writer who understates the Prussian contribution. Even Bruce Quarrie called Waterloo a Prussian victory.

So among people who actually know something, i.e. the TMP massive, PH is held in regard as a researcher and translator, but nothing more than that.

This is obviously not enough for him. The essence of PH's problem is that he's basically a wargame geek who aspires to be a populist historian. He writes attention-grabbing stuff that sounds good up to a point, but only to people who know nothing about the subject matter. People who don't know much tend to agree with him, and people who do tend not to. He's a kind of Erich von Daniken figure in a way – people who had studied the Mayas thought his Egyptology was pretty convincing, people who'd studied Kalahari bushmen thought he knew a lot about Stonehenge, and people who'd studied neither believed the whole lot.

The difference is that one suspects E von D was happy to be a hack as long as he could make a living. PH, in contrast, wants respect for doing so, and gets very annoyed when it's not forthcoming.

It's probably available somewhere, but people who have read books other than his own on Waterloo are the wrong place to go looking for it.

In the same way, if he wants to be thought of an internet wit, he'd go down a storm among 7-year-olds. Among the grown-ups, not so much.

Have you considered typing "poo" in block capitals, Peter? That'll show them, eh?

* edited 12.49

Incidentally Kevin, keep on keeping on – I don't always agree with you but I've never known you resort to sockpuppetry or insult. On TMP that is something of an achievement.

Skip,

Do rapiers light up and make a noise when activated?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Perhaps one of those scrapers for clearing ice off the windscreen of your car? He's probably already got one but you can never find it when you need it, can you? And they make them with a mitten attached to keep your hand warm.

4th C,

Thanks very much for the compliment-it is much appreciated. It seems, though, that disagreement with some folks is tantamount to evil thought and action. That really is too bad, don't you think?

Sincerely,
Kevin

You can also get those gift boxes of beers from around the world. Some of them come with a fancy glass. I think Marks & Spencer's had them. Or it might have been Tesco's.

Stapps tried to stab Napoleon in 1809 and when taken for execution, he shouted "Liberty for ever, Germany for ever". I suppose the fear of the scaffold can make you delusional then.

Electric nose hair trimmers. I admit, it's not a very exciting present but let's face it most chaps of a certain age could do with them and it's a lot safer than scissors. (And if your mother-in-law did buy them for you then you could always get your own back by buying some for her next year)

Too bloody late now. We can only hope she buys him a gaudy jumper for his birthday.

Amen to that.

Dave,

I take your point, but exactly the same sentiments can be heard today about the supposed "Arab nation". There isn't one. There is an Arab ethnicity, but it encompasses Israeli ethnicity too. Which countries the Arab "nation" actually comprises, whether those nominally in it regard themselves as in it, whether they are Arabs first and (eg) Egyptians second, whether all who aspire to be in it should be allowed to be in it, whether's it's desirable at all because of who would dominate it, and whether everyone agrees on who else should be in it are lot less clear, and variable over time.

Saddam Hussein called on the solidarity of the Arab nation when he was being invaded by Americans, but was jolly glad there wasn't any in evidence when he was invading Kuwait.

The parallels to the German "nation" of 1815 seem quite helpful.

So for me, the PH idea of German-ness is undermined by the vagueness of the notion of the day, and the inapplicability of the notion we have now. In either event the point is trivial because there was no "German" position for or against Napoleon at the time. There were people who thought there was or should have been, no doubt.

In 1815 I suspect you could have found quite a few more Prussians who thought Waterloo was a Prussian victory than you could have found Germans who thought it was a German victory.

I have no idea if PH has replied to my previous posts, because I have him stifled, but it seems unlikely. I can understand someone not bothering to reply because they're busy, but to take time out and then act like a 5-year-old is odd. I guess immaturity is its own reward, but I wouldn't know.

21e I suppose began the German angle and Kevin was in with his objection in the next post, taking a technical angle. Indeed, with German troops of all descriptions on one side, Waterloo was the first victory involving most of the German states since way back in mediaeval times. Likewise, calling it a German victory puts a better perspective on events – it was not just the Prussian army with its new Rhineland component, but assorted Germans in Wellington's army and at a strategic level, the Austrian army marching towards France. Arguably, it was Germany's formal creation in 1871, which started the process of the German contribution being ignored.

The Arabs started as one empire in the 7th century and then broke apart, spending long periods under foreign domination, so maybe events in Tunis this week may mean a new Arabia in 200 years time. Wars with Israel involving many of these states have always been called "Arab-Israeli" wars and there are still some difficult loyalties around the edges – the Shi'ite Arabs in Iraq are more closely aligned to Iran than any Arab nation, while the Iraqi Kurds are not Arab anyway.

Anyway, before I end up back in the DH for politics, to suggest that Germany only existed from 1871 is just contrary to fact unless you are taking an extraordinarily literal political view and really trying to perpetuate the idea that Germany is still really just an extension of militaristic Prussia. That Kevin claims this and yet, claims to have learned to read the language in gothic printface, does not sit well together.

Peter's main aim was to throw light on the German material related to the battle – whether it was Prussian, Hanoverian or whatever. It makes sense to subtitle the book in a way to get people dioscussing that angle.

Dear Dave Hollins

PH's MAIN aim was sell his book. I'm guessing that he knew what effect the SILLY title would have. I mean, who would have bought if it said an ALLIED victory, even though he contradicts himself and states it was an ALLIED victory in his own book. I don't think he believe his own arguments, to be honest. And yes, it would be nice to think he wanted us to look at Waterloo and the contribution of the Prussians etc, from a different or fresh angle, but really, most Napoleonic enthusiasts already know the part they played. It was just a selling ploy. Accept it with grace,

Dear XV Brigada

Perhaps those who make silly postings like yours should be sent elsewhere. You obviously can't stand people disagreeing with each other. So why read the posts, unless you have a blinkered view on the Napoleonic period. Don't fret though because you won't be alone. But people do tend to disagree and have their own views. That's why forums are popular, to debate and discuss things. Anyway, let's get back to discussing something Napoleonic. Think you can mange that?

John,

A subject that might be interesting and on the same general topic is the organization, loyalties, and function of the Confederation of the Rhine.

I've always been interested in Wurttemberg, Baden, Hesse-Darmstadt, along with some of the other states, and, having lived in Germany twice, it became more interesting to me. Perhaps others would be interested as well?

Sincerely,
Kevin

Gazzola:

"People who know something is wrong must remain silent?"

You have concisely and lucidly summed up the 10th Marines--Gazzola school of history. You "know" what is "wrong." It is wrong because you say it is wrong. What you say is true because you say it. Therefore, there is no need to change your mind. Therefore you must repeat the "truth" over and over while ignoring or sidestepping contrary evidence.

So, the many who are wrong (those that do not agree with 10th--Gazzola) should remain silent and quit "picking on" the bearers of the truth.

Bill (XV Brigada): Your idea is well-intentioned, but the egos of the acolytes of historical "truth" are too big and there is not yet enough computing power to house them. Besides, they must continue to tell everyone the truth.

P.S.

Gazzola: per your reply "PH's MAIN aim was sell his book." Of course 10th's MAIN aim for his books is to convey "truth" is it not? You really should think before you post such retorts.

LWF,

As I tell my students, there is no such thing as historical 'truth'-there are facts that can be assembled and then a conclusion can be made from them.

Henry Adams said it best: ‘The historian must not try to know what is truth, if he values his honesty; for, if he cares for his truths, he is certain to falsify his facts.'

So, no, I don't write to convey 'truth.' I assemble facts, make a conclusion, and the reader is left to make up his mind.

Perhaps, now, you will refrain from putting your words and thoughts in others heads trying to divine others' intentions. Don't be so presumptuous as the assume you know what others believe or are thinking, especially on the internet from behind a relatively safe keyboard. I have found that what goes around comes around, especially to those who accuse people of whatever they wish and know nothing about it.

K

10th:

I can't leave my relatively safe keyboard to travel the long distance to chat face-to-face (too much time and expense for such a small gain).

"So, no, I don't write to convey 'truth.' I assemble facts, make a conclusion, and the reader is left to make up his mind."

I'm glad that you believe that. Just keep repeating it and click your heels together.

You realy should become a wargamer. You could have all your painted French miniatures arrayed for battle and charge forth and defeat those dastardly Germans (err I mean Prussians).

Dear Least We Forget

Wow! You really are deluded, aren't you? Worse, you throw your own faults onto others.

And you really think PH is concerning with telling the truth? Really? You have conveniently ignored the fact that he CONTRADICTS himself in his own book. WAKE UP MAN! Stop letting people fool you, although that seems easily enough going by your postings! But if you have actually read his books, you will see he states, every so cleverly, that he wants everyone to consider it a German victory, then, as I say, contradicts himself and calls it an ALLIED victory. So he wants us to think it is a German victory, but he really thinks it is an Allied victory. This all suggests that he is not really clear himself on anything. And I'm beginning to doubt he really cares about the Prussians or the German states of the period, or what people consider about the campaign, or in progressing the Napoleonic period in any way. He just wants us all to buy his books, which obviously worked, so well done him on that score. But again man, WAKE UP! Stop looking in the mirror and talking to yourself. See the real world for a change.

You say to Kevin that you try to assemble facts, make a conclusion and leave the reader to make up his mind. That sounds brilliant. But does that mean you collect the same facts as PH, who you give the impression that you admire, in that you count which nation had the most troops and most killed, to work out who won the victory? If that is the way you want to go and if it satisfies you, go for it. But don't expect others to be so stupid.

I'm sorry that the German thread petered out, which I have the feeling upset you because it didn't go the way you wanted and the 'Germans' lost – again! But I'm sure another Prussian, sorry, German thread will come up that might excite you. In fact, why don't you make one? How about How good were the Confederation of the Rhine regiments? Or, if Napoleon had them at Waterloo, would he have won? There you go, easy, isn't it. Go on, go on, you know you want to.

Kevin

Yes, it would be nice to have some discussion on the Confederation of the Rhine. I'm interested and can't wait for Gill's Eagles books to be available again, which hopefully won't be that long. It is being reprinted but I think it was so popular they may not have printed enough. Lets hope it will be available soon. But I fear such an interesting thread would probably be attacked as soon as you mention the word 'German'. Oh dear! I've said it now. Incoming!

Dave –

Good points and a lot of the ambiguities around the current idea of an Arab Nation apply equally to previous iterations of the German one, do they not?

There is an Arab ethnicity, an Arab geographical locale, an Arab League and several Arab economic groupings, notably OPEC and the GCC (OPEC from the outset included a south American country yet in common parlance is inaccurately still often taken to mean "Saudi Arabia plus a few other Arab nations").

The term "Arab-Israeli" makes sense in only some of these contexts, and none in others. When we speak of "Arab" here I suspect we really use the term as shorthand for "Arab League", because some Arab League forces fought Israel. The actual composition of the AL changed over time, however, and for a long time excluded one of the main aggressors against Israel, because they had made peace. It includes countries not in the Arab Gulf, and of course excludes two that are. Arab League members have also fought and invaded each other.

Why they called themselves that – geography, locale, ethnicity, or ultimate political ambition – needn't detain us. But if you wanted to assert that there was no Arab nation in (eg) 1967 you would be right. If you wanted to assert that the various Arab-Israeli wars weren't "Arab" defeats in the wider sense, because they only comprehended a minority of Arab nations, you'd also be right.

This is why, analogously, it is rational IMHO to question the idea that there was a "German" character to 1815, and to question what people at the time meant when talking about Germans. One has to look at 1815 through the lens of post-1871 to an extent because there are so many problems with the idea of a generally-understood conception of "Germany".

This POV, however politely articulated, seems to send PH into a fury. It's unedifying and pretty immature.

Gazzola:

You really need to get a grip on yourself.

quote "Wow! You really are deluded, aren't you? Worse, you throw your own faults onto others."

You commit major fallacies of logic here: Mere assertion without any evidence and making ad hominem affronts. It's okay--I'll continue to help you on your learning journey by pointing them out.

quote "And you really think PH is concerning with telling the truth? . . . WAKE UP! Stop looking in the mirror and talking to yourself. See the real world for a change. . . But does that mean you collect the same facts as PH, who you give the impression that you admire, in that you count which nation had the most troops and most killed, to work out who won the victory? If that is the way you want to go and if it satisfies you, go for it."

Hmmm, did I say PH was "telling the truth" or that I "admire him?" No, but I did point out that you made an accusation against PH (i.e. his motive, "MAIN aim," was selling his book), but fail to apply the same standard of accusation to other writers such as your buddy 10th Marines. You also seem to not understand that publishing is a business and has to make a profit.

quote "But don't expect others to be so stupid." I usually do not, but after reading your reply I am reconsidering my position.

By the way, did you read 10th's admonition above? quote "Perhaps, now, you will refrain from putting your words and thoughts in others heads trying to divine others' intentions. Don't be so presumptuous as the assume you know what others believe or are thinking, especially on the internet from behind a relatively safe keyboard. I have found that what goes around comes around, especially to those who accuse people of whatever they wish and know nothing about it."

I don't expect that 10th will come on and berate you for your comments. Birds of a feather flock together. In fact, he will probably congratulate you on your civility, demonstration of logic, skirting the issue, unwavering support, and the gall of responders to question you.

4thC, LWF, etc,

I think the example of the Arab nation is a poor one. Arab nationalists will also disagree. A nation and a nation state are not necessarily the same thing and there are many stateless nations, the Kurds, the Baloch, the Basques and so on. Hofschroer's use of the term was accurate enough and I think the issue of a nation state is a red herring. The etymology is not the issue but Hofschroer's view that the victory was a German one and in order to confront this it is necessary to challenge his evidence rather than his conclusion.

Frankly I wouldn't recommend it because you know what will happen.

The term 'deluded' is one straight from the Hofschroer lexicon of abuse. How ironic is that? It is getting hard to know who is Hoffie and who is not.

Yours sincerely

Bill

Least We Forget

Firstly, my apologies for thinking you thought PH was telling the Truth. Yes, my mistake. As if anyone could think that.

Publishing has to make a profit. Never! You are too fond of putting people down, from the safety of your keyboard! Different when you are on the receiving end, isn't it? And of course publishers have to make a profit, but does that mean it doesn't matter what lies or false hype is made, as long as they get enough suckers to buy their titles? Perhaps you don't mind being a sucker?

And again, you seem to be upset about my supporting someone else's point of view? Why? It is a fact of life that people will have different views to your own and support those you may not support yourself. You really should be used to that by now, especially on this forum. So why moan so much? I have my views on Napoleonic matters, you probably have yours. Others have different views. We talk, we debate, we argue, we learn. So please, don't be so upset. Enjoy the Napoleonic postings. I do hope you produce one. Make a change, wouldn't it!

Dear XV Brigada

PH's conclusion is a summing up of the contents of his two Napoleonic titles, what his overall aim was and what he believes his books, his research and source material means. Some of his work is very welcome, as stated by many others and I agree. However, although he tries to suggest that we could consider it a German victory, based on all this, because it might convince him, although, to be honest, I'm not too sure on that, he then (sorry to repeat it) contradicts himself and calls it an Allied victory. Surely, if someone is trying to convince people to look at something from a different angle, which is good, but also consider it a German victory, which is a sad step backwards, you don't then say it is an Allied victory, do you, not if you really believe in what you are trying to persuade others to believe? Perhaps people have been to harsh on PH, I don't know, but most of us, I assume can only go by his works and postings. I have nothing against the man personally because I have never met him, although I know that, not knowing the person doesn't seem to matter to some people attending this site. But please, as I requested to Least We Forget, who also seemed very upset, why not, instead of attacking and picking on people, try posting something Napoleonic for a change, you know, like the original poster did. Go on, give it a go. You'll feel much better for it and so will those reading it. Happy posting.

Good God, I leave for a day and it's like a word blizzard… Everybody who has been using strawman arguments is accusing people of using strawman arguments. (That's so trendy.)

Gazzola, who kept urging everybody to "move on" and stop arguing, is still going strong. (I guess "move on" actually meant: "Stop arguing with me; I want the last word!")

Kevin is still 1st and Ten, with the old sidestep and "Show me where I ever said this [insert some unrelated non-sequitur] !" sanctimony, and vague threats of vengeance in the days to come.

Steven is still fooling everybody into thinking that he's Peter Hofschroer. (See, now if Shane were here, he'd have sniffed him out days ago.)

And the O.P. who innocently started it all, appears to have been Dawghoused for calling for the release of a Burmese political prisoner….

I've lost track of the rest of it. Carry on.

Schnurfel,

Am now totally confused I know Peter Hofshroer and the debate that is taking place but you have now introduced Steven who is he and as you say I have definitely lost track.

Serge