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

Definition of 'marplot'

One who frustrates or ruins a plan or undertaking by meddling.
-Webster's Dictionary

That seems to fit the bill if one chooses to pursue that way of behaving. If LWF had actually provided useful information instead of going into the attack mode in his postings, I wouldn't have said anything. It just gets a little tiresome after awhile…

K

10th:

Still moving the goalpost, eh?

Quote; "Unfortunately for you, what you have posted here has nothing at all to do with what I have been saying and is not contributing to the discussion."

Quote; "However, the point is I didn't make an error and backed up what I said with evidence from current sources from recognized scholars."

And because I question some of 10th's assertions made in this thread and pointed out his refusal to reply to legitimate counterpoints made by Antonio and Bill he replies with an ad hominem (another logical fallacy). I am a "marplot" and am "meddling." Also he claims I am "attacking?" (logical fallacy of using self-sanctimony to draw attention away from the issue at hand).

An finally you assert that I provided no useful information. Now you engage in deflection. You are attempting to reframe the context in order to draw sympathy and make me out to be a "marplot" that should be ignored.

10th's claim that he "didn't make an error" cannot stand until he logicially responds to Antonio's and Bill's post. If he chooses to not respond, well . . .

And, by the way 10th, there is no longer a Napoleonic History Board. I AM a wargamer and this site is The Miniatures Page and I do contribute. I am not a "meddler" here, but what are you?"

"One World Cup and Two World Wars! do-da, do-da"

Great argument – not – I should like to add that Germany (not Prussia) won three WC and three EC. Stood an additional four times in the WC finals as well as three times in the EC final. And is one of the most pacifist countries since WW2…

I find PH's books to add great value to the topics they discuss. And German(ic) troops did indeed contribute significantly.

Dear Mr Kiley,

I am afraid your responses are disapointing and not very clear at all I'm afraid. Nobody said was that there was a united Germany in 1815.

You're all wrong. There never was a united "Germany". No Prussians, Nassauers, Hanoverians etc thought of themselves as "German". Except maybe the King's German Legion.

People from that part of Europe might have thought of themselves as Deutsch, but not "German". And maybe the area in general was thought of as Deutschland, but certainly not as "Germany". The latter is an English word, as far as I know.

Of course, I have no source for this at all. It is just common knowledge ("received wisdom"?). Maybe I'm wrong though, and the Deutsch did talk about a concept of "Germany"? Maybe the Latin name "Germania" hung round a long time after the Romans (after all, Latin was used extensively by academics, churchmen etc)?

Sometimes looking at the name of a place in its own language is instructional. Take Austria, for example. Literally, the name means "Eastern Empire".

Literally now, yes, but actually the word Reich refers originally to "the Marches" or defended edge of a nation. Austria was the main bulwark against assorted eastern and Balkan tribes. It was protecting the eastern edge of, erm, Germany!

LWF has now completely confused Kevin as he has quoted Elting using the word!

@ raynamhab

OT

And is one of the most pacifist countries since WW2…

Having your cities incinerated from the sky, and finding your big scary army can't do diddly to stop it, kinda does that to you.

Arthur Harris and Curtis LeMay didn't win the war, but they made sure of the peace.

Take Austria, for example. Literally, the name means "Eastern Empire".

Well, it does in modern German, yes, but I'm not sure it always did. Austria and Australia both come from the same Latin root meaning, roughly, "southern". In Austria's case ISTR this related to the prevailing winds and in Australis's was a truncation of "terra incognita australis" – "unknown southern land".

Contrary to the mythology, 80% of German industry was still standing in 1945.

Unlike 600,000 dead civilians, Dave, who hadn't grasped that by about 1942, war was something that no longer happened only to other people.

My point is that we don't need to applaud Germany for having been pacifist since 1945. The big change of heart only happened when they had the cr@p bombed out of them.

Kevin

Your main points of argument

There wasn't a united Germany until 1871, and I believe most Germans were Bavarians, Wurttembergers, etc. first, and Germans second.

Not relevant, because no one but you has even suggested the united Germany before 1871 argument, so why keep repeating it.

Bavarians can still be Bavarians and Germans etc, no argument there either, again your point.

The Saxon mutiny – no argument, no relevance i can see

The only argument i see that is left is the term German instead of Allied.
Well PH still recognizes that they were allies, again no one disputes that, he even uses the term allied at some point, no problem, but why use the term allied when his whole theme is the Germans and their contribution?

So to repeat what several posters through this thread have stated – PH uses the term German to collectively name all the German soldiers who contributed to the victory over Napoleon in 1815 as a subtitle to his book, the main theme of which was to describe the contribution of the Germans and therefore he calls it the German victory, fair enough he is entitled to call it that, his view, his opinion, you argue against, your opinion, your view, there can be no end to argument based on opinions, its just a book subtitle, so maybe you need to move on to something more substantially wrong with PH's books.

So perhaps we can move this away from this silly Germans existed or not argument, do you have anything more substantial to disagree with about PH or his books?

sorry but I thought the posts by LWF were quite reasonable and he has nothing to apologize for.

'sorry but I thought the posts by LWF were quite reasonable and he has nothing to apologize for.'

I'm shocked.

I agree, Graf … this has got to be one of the silliest arguments we've seen here (and we've had a few of those!).

As 'German' can mean both generally German, and specifically only the nation of Germany, then both sides are right. PH (presumeably) knew which of these definitions he meant by the word "German". So arguing about which you think is the most correct definition is meaningless.

However, I do agree subtitling the book "The German Victory" does sound a bit stupid. As both the Waterloo battle and the campaign were Allied victories, perhaps the book could have better been subtitled "The German Contribution to the Victory" – though I guess that has less of a ring to it.

And, LWF, I agree, nothing I can see to apologise for, either.

Kevin, you may not like or agree with what LWF has posted, but it was all very polite and reasonable, just like a discussion on TMP should be, perhaps on another occasion he has upset you.

Arteis, yes I was thinking that subtitle, but I'm sure PH wanted to make more impact, ans looking at the size of threads when PH is involved, he was right.

Kevin

It is no use talking to those wearing historical blinkers and earmuffs. They just WANT to believe there was a Germany. No matter what you say or how many period maps you show them displaying the Confederation of the Rhine states etc, they will only see Germany because, sadly, that's what the poor dears want to see! To be honest, I think they know the truth but just want to keep on baiting you? Ignore them.

I am glad I have been too busy to enter this fight but it seems the same people are continuing to attack Kevin for his facts as usual.

Gazzola, you have debated this thread so well, I applaud you.

I suppose I will get attacked now for taking a side, as usual.

So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

DAF

It depends on the size of the pin.

About three. Or maybe two fat ones…

Dear Gazolla,

I realise that I am only repeating my self but nobody has disagreed with Kevin that there was no German 'nation state' or a 'united Germany' in 1815 or claimed that one existed. But that has no relevance to Mr Hofschroer's argument and the discussion here has been about the use of the word 'German' as an adjective to describe the victory in 1815 which is quite different. Anyway there are at least two reasons I can think of for why we don't call the Confederation of the Rhine the Confederation of Germany. The first is because Confederation of the Rhine is how Rheinbunde/Confédération du Rhin translates into English and in the second it would confuse it with The German Confederation (Deutscher Bund) which was formed by the Congress of Vienna in 1815. There certainly was a Germany and Germans in 1815 and had been for centuries. The terms were used and understod by those who did so – no question about it.

To refocus on this turgid discussion though I tend toward the 'Allied Victory' rather than the 'German Victory' though I understand the latter argument and accept that other peoples' perceptions and opinions vary but if disagreeing with anybody or questioning their arguments is perceived as baiting then perhaps discussion forums are not best suited to those individuals' temperaments.

'He loves to cite secondary sources to support his points and counter the points of others. Out of context secondary source citation only confuses the issue.'

LWF,

Here is some of the source material that I have on Germany and the Germans, some of them I have cited in this thread. Perhaps you can show using these volumes which citations are 'out of context?' Have you read any of these? If you have, please show me where I have quoted out of context as you assert.

Sincerely,
K

-The Politics of the Prussian Army by Gordon Craig

-The Germans by Gordon Craig

-The Formation of the First German Nation-State 1800-1871 by John Breuilly

-19th Century Germany: Politics, Culture and Society 1780-1918 edited by John Breuilly

-The Rise and Downfall of Prussia 1600-1947 by Christopher Clark

-Sword and Swastika by Telford Taylor

-A History of Prussia by HW Koch

-A History of Modern Germany 1648-1840 by Hajo Holborn

-The German Officer Corps by Karl Demeter

-History of Germany 1780-1918 by David Blackbourn

-The Enlightened Soldier by Charles White

-History of the German General Staff by Walter Goerlitz

-The Impact of Napoleon: Prussian High Politics, Foreign Policy, and the Crisis of the Executive by Brendan Simms

-The Struggle for Mastery in Germany, 1779-1850

'sorry but I thought the posts by LWF were quite reasonable and he has nothing to apologize for.'

'Kevin, you may not like or agree with what LWF has posted, but it was all very polite and reasonable, just like a discussion on TMP should be, perhaps on another occasion he has upset you.'

'And, LWF, I agree, nothing I can see to apologise for, either.'

Mark and Roly,

Both of you are kidding, right? Here are examples of what LWF has posted on this thread-these comments are condescending, rude, inaccurate, and not polite in any way of looking at them:

‘It doesn't matter to 10th Marines that the Romans used the term Germania and Magna Germania (birthplace of Arminius) or that the HRE was called Sacrum Romanum Imperium Nationis Germanicæ in Latin for a long, long time before 1871 came around.'

‘Schnurfel, good luck on using reason, logic, supporting evidence, or any other form of discourse to get 10th to admit that he might possibly be incorrect.'

‘I am waiting to see how he sidesteps your latest reposte. I would make a bet with you for which method he will use.'

‘10th cannot speak nor write German, but knows German history so well (or perhaps Deutschen historie nicht sehr gut!)'

‘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.'

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

‘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.'

‘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.'

‘I got $10 USD USD on who pushed the "tell the teacher" button on von Wint.'

‘Antonio and Bill: Good points. 10th is, as noted by some other posters in this thread, "trying to move the goalposts." He is using a variation of the false dilemma logical fallacy ("reframing the question"). He will redefine your counter arguments into a definition of his own choosing and conveniently argue that his points are "stronger."'

‘Bill, the reason that you have "difficulty following" his arguments is because they incorporate "special pleading." He loves to cite secondary sources to support his points and counter the points of others. Out of context secondary source citation only confuses the issue. You can always "find what you are looking for" to support your assertions in secondary sources.'

‘You are not accepted as an authority in the field and thus you cannot make such claims based on your authority.'

Seems to me you overlooked a few things before you posted, or you're merely ignoring what you don't want to see. However, it is also apparent that opinions diverge on what is rude, sarcastic and hypocritical.

K

Mein gott Was zur Hölle geht hier ab?

Geschichte?
Nein!

Und Wer viel bier trinkt Kriegspiel gut
Vergiß mich nicht.

P.S. If the late Col. Elting used the word "Germany" in his "A Military History and Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars" that is good enough for me.

Er… Kevin, those books you mentioned: are secondary sources! So why should LWF feel obligated to apologize for saying that you only quote 'secondary sources'?

Still nothing for LWF to apologise for, that I can see, Kevin. LWF's comments are about your style of debating (for example, your sidestepping or ignoring opposing arguments, and your quoting of secondary sources as bible). Though his comments do get a little more edgy as his frustration becomes more evident.

But, whilst they are edgy, LWF's comments don't appear insulting, certainly no more than you would expect in, say, a high school debate.

They are actually very polite in contrast to the insulting personal attacks that your normal arch-nemesis continually slings at you. While in general I support the gentlemanly way you deal with that other guy's personal attacks, I do think his many-years-long campaign of sniping at you has (quite understandably) caused you to "bunker down" and refuse to look dispassionately at anyone else's arguments/evidence/conclusions, or self-critically at your own.

Kevin

Like I said Kevin. Blinkers and earmuffs. I'm still waiting to see a map displaying a Country named as Germany during the Napoleonic Wars. Lovely ones of the Confederation of the Rhine states, Bavaria etc, but no Germany. Of course it is okay to use the term 'Germans', and we all seem to agree that the 100 Days campaign was not a 'German' victory, so really the thread should have ended a long time ago. During the Napoleonic Wars it is obviously correct to term Bavarians as Bavarians and Prussians as Prussians, when referring to individual states, but also collectively as Germans. Just not a Germany. Surely the case is now closed?

Arteis – actually, I had to put up with years of sniping at my work and claims that I had used the "wrong sources". I know Kevin is very fond (as here) of claiming personal attacks, but I have not made them. Pointing out the illogicality of an argument, its defective sourcing and that someone has not read what they claim to have read (a point I raised against Bowden) goes to the nature of the argument being advanced.

I am not anyone's archnemesis – that Kevin's work has been shown up as the second hand nonsense, which it is, simply by looking at what the original sources say is not down to me, but his own failings in the first place.

As you can see just above, all the books listed saying that "Germany" is only a valid description from 1871 are in English and written in the light of events of the 20th century, not a reflection of the state of things in June 1815. There is not a single german book amongst them – simply because all German works will refer to Germany and its eastern Marches as such (incidentally, Austria is not derived from anything southern, but is just a Latinisation of the contemporary Ostra'archi, which was 11th century German!

@ XV

nobody has disagreed with Kevin that there was no German 'nation state' or a 'united Germany' in 1815 or claimed that one existed. But that has no relevance to Mr Hofschroer's argument

I'm not sure I buy this, to be honest. If someone uses the term German in any other than a geographical sense, it opens up the question of what "German" meant then and what the writer using it wants us to make of it now.

It seems clear to me that for this term to work, you'd need a consistent contemporary idea of what Germany was. The idea of there being such an idea of a Germany in 1815 is questionable.

First, there were clearly at least three different ideas of what Germany was: a loose confederation headed by Austria, a tighter federation controlled by Prussia, or the actual extant position of a group of more-or-less independent German-speaking populations, located between Alsace and north-west European Russia. These are all mutually exclusive.

Second, the allegiances of those various Germans were patently local, rather than pan-German. At no time did all Germans fight on the same side. The nearest to this happening was 1812, when unfortunately they were all (except the KGL) fighting alongside the French. In 1805 you had pro-French, anti-French and neutral Germans. In 1806-7, 1812-4, and 1815 you had the same again, though there were no pro-French Germans (just neutrals) because it only lasted 100 days.

This doesn't look much like an emergent German consciousness to me; it looks like a mosaic of local agendas.

Third, having passed that hurdle, you'd next have to show the "German" contribution to be independently decisive. This fails the most elementary test you can chuck at it – how many French did the Prussians actually defeat? About 43,000 at Wavre and Plancenoit. How many did the Anglo-allies beat? 62,000. Whose contribution was more decisive? Neither, both, because the question is silly.

The point appears in any case to be trivial. Claiming Waterloo as a German victory isn't any more rational than claiming it as a British victory, the difference being that PH actually does make this claim, while no British historian does. The British interest in Waterloo stems from the fact that, with the possible exception of D-Day, it's the most decisive battle at which British troops have fought.

Taken together with his other writings, it's hard to avoid the impression that PH is on a lonely crusade to rehabilitate post-1871 Germany's international reputation by linking the generally beneficial outcomes of 1815 with "Germany"'s intervention.

All Germany's other wars have been wars of aggression with her neighbours, which in the last century visited around a quarter and a third of a billion casualties upon them. That's a lot to apologise for.

Waterloo fits to a tee a revisionist agenda of pointing to a time when Germans actually did something altruistic and, for once, weren't the bad guys invading and pillaging their inoffensive neighbours. The latter is the problem – if 1815 had been 100% a German affair, with no British, Dutch or other allies involved, Germany would probably now be perceived as the bad guys for having won. When Germany plays France at football, who are most non-Germans rooting for? Exactly.

For the PH agenda to work, the great irony is that he needs the other nations to have been there too.

'Er… Kevin, those books you mentioned: are secondary sources! So why should LWF feel obligated to apologize for saying that you only quote 'secondary sources'?'

The issue is not the secondary sources comment, but the 'out of context' comment:

'Out of context secondary source citation only confuses the issue.'

I'm merely asking two things: First, has he read the material cited in my postings and two where or how is it out of context? I believe that is a reasonable request.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Whether you agree with it or not, 4th Cuirassier's metaphor (?) is absolutely top-notch: 'a mosaic of local agendas'.

I've never heard that metaphor before, and I can see it having quite a few applications – from Napoleonic history through to meetings in the board room at work!

Thanks for a cheering moment!

And I salute you, Cuirassier, for always having the best-written arguments here (again, whether one agrees with them or not).

The causes of the world wars are rather more complex than you suggest and it would be about UK schooling standard to look at that period in simplistic terms – would Hitler have got to power had Versailles not been so tough (the post-WW2 settlement recognised the harshness of it)? What have other nations done, which they are not so proud of? What about N's wars themselves and the devastation they wrought across Europe for 15 years (and the Revolutionaries for the preceding 8)? France has never really recovered since.

However, it is certainly true that Naps and much other history been viewed through the prism of the 20th century, such that the Germanic and Russian records virtually vanished from popular writings from about 1900 to about 1990. The French version of events has dominated all the Continental wars, much as the French version of Spain and 1815 has been smothered by the British version. Even Petre, who did use Germanic material, is an N-worshipper and bigs him up in what was a reflection of the political balance of the time. By the time we get to Quarrie's wargames books, It was nice of the Continentals to turn up and you can still see a certain cowering in Germanic writings into the 80s.

PH led the way in digging up Prussian material, which instantly showed how wrong the Ruling Theory was – teddies have been coming out of prams ever since. he has been on the receiving end of a frankly rather bizarre campaign since 1995 – can you believe that the latest FE carries YET ANOTHER item on the detail of one letter written around the time of Waterloo? I soon found the same thing with the Austrian record and of course, several people have written in German and English about Austria (the Hungarians have joined in too). The result of that is that 1809 is probably the most popular campaign for enthusiasts after 1815 now. Prussia had an image problem, but people like Oliver Schmidt and von Wint are getting that side out, while the Confederation was broken open by Gill. Barriers have come down and the Russian record has appeared in works by alex M and the Zschmodikovs. It is now possible as DD&S have shown to write comparative pan-European works.

It is thus rather out of date to rerun WW2, German guilt and a sole reliance on English-language works whenj discussing Naps. Indeed, the whole point of PH's subtitle (from the starting of the opening of Continental materials) was to show that he was putting into English what had been cointributed by the Germanic peoples, whom some on here still affect to despise some 16 years later.

The mosaic of local agendas is an interesting idea, but its existence before, during and after formal unification means it does not demonstrate anything. These local agandas tend to exist until there is a common enemy. Scotland was four kingdoms before the English started to invade. Indeed "Angleland" is an interesting example. Its dominant people came in the 5th and 6th centuries and lived in a patchwork of kingdoms until the Vikings showed up, but it was the 12th century before central authority was established and the UK (to use its proper names depsite the Yanks insisting on calling the whole state England) has only existed since 1801. Englishness is a concept, which really only appears every couple of years for a major football tournament as otherise, the identities remain very regional in a way that smaller nations rarely have. So, where do you start/end calling anything "English". When you talk about "German", what happens between 1948 and 1989, when Prussia proper was in the "enemy" Soviet bloc?

The idea that Germanness did not exist pre-1871 is only run to belittle the country and its people, in particular its culture (a point made last eyar by the BBC). Those who do it should perhaps recognise that WW2 ended 65 years ago.

Dear 4th,

OK. It seems clear enough to me though that Mr Hofschroer's allusion was to the German soldiers in Blucher's and Wellington's armies. I certainly didn't get any other message when I read his books and I definitely didn't get an impression of a mission to rehabilitate post-1871 Germany. If you get another impression that's fine but for an idea of what was meant by Germany in 1815 there is the Atlas by A Le Sage (Emmanuel de Las Cases) Paris and London 1801- 1813 in which 'Allemagne Politique en 1808' which shows the Confederation of the Rhine, Prussia, Austria etc.

The soccer fans I know support either England or anybody playing France :-)

Bill

Dear 10th,

I don't understand what your list of books is meant to show.
If it is still to do with the argument about there being no German nation state could I just point out again at the risk of being repetitive that this is not what the argument is about.

If we are not to proceed in two apparently parallel universes could you to make the case that the 75000 German soldiers or whatever the number actually was in Blucher's and Wellington's army do not deserve to have the success of the 100 Days attributed to them. I have yet to be entirely convinced one way or another but am interested to read any and all well constructed arguments.

I always thought that they thought of themselves as, "Germanic" at this time and not a Nation of Germans" until 1871?

excuse my ignorance but I do not know this very clearly.

Some of the arguments advanced here would suggest that germany is still not a proper state – given that large German populations live outside the existing state, notably in Switzerland, Austria and Alsace.

@ Dave

The causes of the world wars are rather more complex than you suggest

Well, except I'm not suggesting it. What I'm suggesting is that "The German Victory" reads at times like it's trying to refute / revise just such a simplistic picture of post-1871 German history.

The idea that Germanness did not exist pre-1871 is only run to belittle the country and its people

I hope it doesn't appear that I'm doing that. All I am really suggesting is that the pre-1815 idea of Germany was not so much non-existent as vague, even at the time. It has since been fogged by / appropriated to serve many ex post facto agendas. Thus I'm doubtful whether you can really attach German-ness to very much, circa 1815, with great confidence – arguably not even to a geographical area.

The analogy with England versus Britain is interesting, especially since it's not just Americans who default to using England and Britain interchangeably. The French and Germans do it too. I'm not sure what it establishes about 1815 though.

@ Arteis: Very kind of you. It is a complex question and I think worth taking the time to think through what one wishes to say…!

Dear Dave Hollins

I don't think anyone has disagreed that there was a sense of Germaness amongst the people of the various Germanic states, during the Napoleonic Wars, or before or after it, so stop diverting the thread!. But I repeat – no matter how much you try to butter it up, and you really are trying to lay it on thick, aren't you, there was no Germany. Just accept it and move on. After all, there was a Germany later, so that should be enough to satisfy you. You also appear to suggest that we should only consider German books, in terms of anything relating to Germany or anything Germanic. In short, besides attacking Kevin, an American author, you now insult all authors who mention or wrote about anything Germanic or a Germany in English! You should be ashamed of yourself. At least the other posters are willing to accept other people's views, whereas you want us all to think like you – worse, believe what you do! There was no Germany Dave, during the Napoleonic Wars. I think you know that really. There were some great Germanic states, such as those forming the Confederation of the Rhine, and of course, Prussia. That surely, is enough Germaness for anyone. I suggest, if you don't already own it, that you buy Gills With Eagles to Glory when it becomes available again. I know he is another American, but it is another great book by a great author. Well recommended.

Yes. I thought when I first bought them that the title was supposed to be mildly provocative, playing on the possible different understandings of the word 'German'. Although stuff never stays that mild for too long around here.

Regards

Oh, and everyone should get hold of a copy if you are interested in the period. Or get round to learning German yourself.

Regards

I really should know better, but what do you make of this Kevin?

I'm sure you must have this book, but for other readers here is an extract of a Württemberg soldiers diary.

Vossler, Heinrich August (1791-1848)
With Napoleon in Russia, 1812 : the diary of Lt H.A. Vossler, a soldier of the Grand Army, 1812-1813 (London, 1969) Translated by Walter Wallich.

Extracts (the bold is my editing)

On the way to the invasion of Russia 1812

ON 16th April our new Brigadier-General, Ornano, inspected us, expressed himself well satisfied with our bearing and wished us a pleasant journey to Poland. After crossing the Oder we took the Poznan road. That day we passed the battlefield of Kunersdorf but had no opportunity of inspecting it more close¬ly. From Frankfurt onward the countryside takes on an increas¬ingly bleak and arid appearance, with even sandier soil. It was another two and a half days before we finally bade farewell to Germany, entering the Grand Duchy of Warsaw on 18th April. The first Polish place we came to, the little town of Tzermeissel, we felt must be the most wretched in Poland, but the next was more wretched still, the third yet more desolate, and so on. That night, however, I still had the good fortune to find lodgings in a Benedictine monastery, whose interior did not belie the impression of solid wealth indicated by its handsome facade. The village belonging to it, however, and its inhabitants, seemed miserable in the extreme.

Page 82 at the Berezina

Once more I was about to resign myself to my fate, seeing how remote, in these conditions, was the chance of a helping hand, when I saw looming above me a fellow-German, a Saxon cuirassier.

Page 163 – this is him describing his return to Germany after his captivity in Russia.

We were glad to shake the dust of unhappy Poland from our feet and to step on German soil once more. The day we left the Duchy of Warsaw we crossed the Oder at Steinau and made haste to pass through Silesia where, despite our lately concluded alliance, we could not expect a very warm welcome. Indeed, it could hardly have been otherwise as during the armistice of 1813 the Wurttemberg army corps had been stationed in Silesia and, despite every possible consideration, had incurred the profound dislike of the country's freedom-loving inhabitants. But to the Silesians' credit I must emphasize that their behaviour, though aloof, was never churlish and that they refrained from any kind of insult. Their occasional suggestion that the South Germans would have done better to join Prussia and the rest of Germany earlier in 1813 was one with which we could not but agree.
My first action on German soil was to inform my mother, who had not heard a word from me since I was taken prisoner, that I was alive and well. This I did on 7th March in the small town of Lubben. Travelling via Haynau, Bunzlau and Naumburg we reached Saxony on the 10th.
Our first night on Saxon soil was spent at Gorlitz and next day we passed through the bustling and prosperous town of Bautzen, reaching Dresden on the 12th. From Lauben onward the ravages of the war of 1813 were much in evidence.

Please note he died in 1848 well before your formation of Germany in 1871, unfortunately I cannot quote the original dairy in German, as far as I know it has never been published except this translated edition.

How can you call a German – Danish, Dutch or Polish? Vossler talks of German colonies in Poland but he wouldn't call them Poles.

More on topic

A Hannoverian soldier sitting on the field of Mont St-Jean would feel quite at home sitting next to a Prussian, Nassauer, Brawnschweiger, or a member of the Kings German Legion, I'm sure he would call them his fellow Germans just like Vossler does, not so for the English, Dutch and Belgian soldier.

Does the fact that the English royal family were German help? and would still seem so if they hadn't changed their name.

There are two things going on here. One has to do with a person's specific views of certain authors as people. And the other has to do with a person's views about certain nationalities.

The latter is being used as an excuse to flog the former. This is a very old re-run of a very old show. There's not much point talking back to the recording, because the recording will not change. Just turn it off.

On this thread and many others over the years, Kevin has been offered examples of many Germans using that word to describe themselves throughout the Napoleonic Wars, and before the Napoleonic Wars. People on this thread have offered examples of Prussians, Saxons, Württembergers, Nassauers, Bavarians, and Thüringians calling themselves and others "Germans" in correspondence, literature, poetry and song, and military communications.

He's been offered over 300 examples of Napoleon himself using the words "Germany" and "Germans."

He's been offered examples of other authors like John Elting and Jack Gill using the word "Germans" and "Germany" to describe the people and place during the Napoleonic Wars.

He even produced his beloved Goethe quote, which he trots out several times a year, and has used to adorn his own writing, while somehow not noticing that Goethe was making reference to "The Germans."

But for some reason, it's still wrong for certain authors to use the word. Because… ? The summary of his arguments thus far has been:

1. Hitler and the Nazis were bad, and Germans did bad stuff in the 1930s and 1940s. (See page one of this thread.)

2. The Saxons mutineed in 1815. (I'm having trouble thinking of a war in which the Saxons didn't switch sides at least once.)

3. German people had regional loyalties. (Are there any people on earth who don't?)

4. There wasn't a German nation state until 1871. (So what? There wasn't an Irish, Turkish, Arabic, Italian, or Polish nation-state at the time, either, but I've never seen him criticize people for using words like Irishmen, Turks, Arabs, Italians, Poles, etc. in reference to this period.)

I am generally more impressed by people who have the courage of their convictions, even when impolitic. Rather than arguing themselves into bizarre little pretzels for weeks on end, trying to avoid saying what they really believe, they could simply say:

"I don't like those authors as people, so I'm looking for things to trash them on… Whereas I like the other authors, so I don't find fault with their use of the same verbiage."

and

"I have issues with certain nationalities, so I'm going to look for opportunities to bring up things I don't like about them, whether they're relevant or not. And I'm going to use one set of criteria to judge them, that I don't apply to other people."

400 posts and I got the top of page 9 yay!

Dear Gazolla,

I am afraid you are wrong. There was a place called Germany during the period. There is a map of it in Le Sage's Atlas and the French knew exactly what it comprised namely Prussia, Austria and the Confederation of the Rhine. I think that you really know Germany existed too. Anyway I doubt anybody is likely to accept something that is clearly wrong however much you implore them to.

Bill

Schnorf's reply is a concise, cogent, and lucid summary of the core issue driving this thread. He noted early in the thread that 10th Marines is "immune to correction." When all else fails 10th appeals to readers for sympathy because he is "attacked" and "shocked" by "marplots" that misrepresent what he says. He cannot adequately defend his original assertion and thus deflects attention away from it. He culls quotes out of context (ignoring insults made by his own supporters, such as Gazzola calling people "deluded," in order to support his appeal--again, conveniently looking for "evidence" that supports his claims while ignoring all evidence that unravels it), and provides a list of secondary sources to refute the claim that he cites cherry-picked selections from secondary sources to back up his assertions.

Quote: "On this thread and many others over the years, Kevin has been offered examples of many Germans using that word to describe themselves throughout the Napoleonic Wars, and before the Napoleonic Wars. People on this thread have offered examples of Prussians, Saxons, Württembergers, Nassauers, Bavarians, and Thüringians calling themselves and others "Germans" in correspondence, literature, poetry and song, and military communications.

He's been offered over 300 examples of Napoleon himself using the words "Germany" and "Germans."

He's been offered examples of other authors like John Elting and Jack Gill using the word "Germans" and "Germany" to describe the people and place during the Napoleonic Wars.

He even produced his beloved Goethe quote, which he trots out several times a year, and has used to adorn his own writing, while somehow not noticing that Goethe was making reference to "The Germans.""

The above comes from someone that is an accepted and trained "professional" in the field (holds a PhD in the field, gets paid for being an historian, and is accepted by a professional society of his peers as a professional) that can read and write German sufficiently to do legitimate historical research. His summary stands on its own logic, but when a professional in the field points out that someone (who is not an expert in a field) made a mistake, the weight of evidence indubitably sits in the expert's favor.

10th ignores the evidence that the late Col. Elting used the word "Germany" in his Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars. He ignores multiple citations from original sources (in favor of secondary sources that are not even directly relevant to the question at hand).

I agree with Scnhorf's assessment and conclusions.

I am sure there was an area of land containing various peoples who speak "German" and considered themselves, "Germanic". However, they were NOT unified, not did they even fight for the same side. In fact, they usually feared the aggressions of each other often and sort to protect themselves from each other constantly.

There was no "German" state as such because the peoples of each "Germanic" state were struggling to survive as separate "states" and as such, although they saw themselves as Germans did not see themselves as a unified state like the Britons, the French and others of a unified state. This did not happen until 1871 as Kevin suggests.

Power struggles occurred in the birth of every nation in history, a unified Germany is just one of these. A Saxon will see a Bavarian as a German as would a Prussian and so on. However, the people of each of these separate states aligned with their state over that of their ethnicity. This is why you had Germans fighting Germans in this period.

This is my own opinion on this but attack and insult to your heart's content.

Quote "There was no "German" state as such . . ."

Please see the many references in this thread where people have clearly pointed out that NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THERE WAS A GERMAN STATE BEFORE 1871.

See Graf B's note on the previous page:
Quote:
Kevin

Your main points of argument

There wasn't a united Germany until 1871, and I believe most Germans were Bavarians, Wurttembergers, etc. first, and Germans second.

Not relevant, because no one but you has even suggested the united Germany before 1871 argument, so why keep repeating it.

LWF,

Calm down mate, your going to have a heart attack if you keep on like you are.

p.s. no need to shout at me for making a statement. If your frustrated try taking a lay down and come back before you post a reply.

Defiant, I think LWF makes a good point.

And his use of CAPS to amplify a point that has been made time and time before is not the same as doing a whole post in caps ("shouting").

I must say that while I usually agree with a lot of what you say, Shane, in this particular case I find it hard to see how you've missed the absolutely clear points that LWF and others have repeatedly made in this thread.

I don't know if its relevant, but in Spain the documents of the Spanish government regarding the German contingents never made any distinction between Hessians, Prussians or Badeners. For them, all were German. For example, in 1811 El Empecinado had in his division a squadron of "Lanceros Alemanes" (German Lancers), recruited from deserters of the German units in Guadalajara and Madrid. He didn't distinguish from which regiments they come (and probably didn't care either). Longa (another partisan leader) informed Mahy in 1811 that he had enough "Alemanes" (Germans) serving under his command to qualify to form a battalion. In a letter from a "afrancesado" (a pro-French Spanish) that was in Pamplona in 1811, he said that the "Alemanes" (Germans) made the bulk of the deserters from the Imperial garrisons in Navarre (I will check tomorrow, but if memory doesn't fails me the German regiments in Navarre were two squadrons of the Lanciers du Berg and the Regiment de Prusse). Again, he didn't differentiate between regional backgrounds: all were Germans.

Best regards