Few neighboring countries were at war so often with each other from the Middle Ages until the end of the Protestant reformation as Sweden and Denmark--in much the same way as France and Germany from Napoleonic times until World War II. For most Americans this comes as a surprise, since both countries along with the rest of Scandinavia enjoy a modern image of peaceful states that enjoyed neutrality throughout most major modern European conflicts. The many similarities in culture, language, religion, the common reputation as "welfare states" with advanced social legislation and a social security net to prevent outright deprivation have obscured much of the same differences in outlook that distinguish Americans and Brits in spite of a long common history and shared institutions. 

Like the differences that led to the American Revolution and the final separation from England in spite of the presence of a large contingent of loyalists who remained loyal to their king and oath of allegiance, Danes and Swedes could not agree on the form of the union between them. The differences separating them did not constitute an ocean but a common land boundary and narrow stretches of water. What we call Southern Sweden today is known by the regional name of Skåne (with its own flag). It was both in terms of physical geography, landscape, soils, vegetation and climate a part of the Danish Kingdom from the earliest appearance of a state embracing Jutland (Jylland), Skåne across the Øresund and the main Danish islands Funen, (Fyn) and Zealand (Sjæland), lying amidst the two "Belts" in the Kattegat.

Like the case of the English governors and the American colonial houses of representation, the Swedish and Danish nobility were diverse sources of power. Growing resentment of the Union led to the desire for renewed Swedish independence and the eviction of Danish control of Skåne, a move that would award Sweden a share in the control of the narrow straits, through which European maritime traffic passed from the North Sea and the Baltic.

It also meant the end of Danish monopoly. With two such contrasting visions of their future and status, the union collapsed and war followed war from 1434 until 1720. Even with Denmark's ability to mobilize allies, most notably the Russians, the results were almost continuously successful for Sweden, and a terrific blow to Denmark's prestige and image as the leading Scandinavian power. 

The result was also a strong national enmity that built upon existing resentments. A final blow was dealt when Sweden picked the winner in the Napoleonic wars and Denmark was forced to cede control of Norway to its bitter enemy, adding a final humiliation and promoting Sweden to the undisputed position as the "big brother." This diplomatic victory was bitterly resented in both Denmark and Norway as an example of Swedish imperialism.

Although Denmark proper (Jutland, Fyn and Zealand) was never conquered by Sweden, it too suffered humiliation by its archrival as a result of constant military defeats that eclipsed its early domination of the Baltic. This ignominy served as a cause of irredentist hopes for centuries and prolonged the hatred between the two countries.

To this day, the Danish royal anthem sings of a naval victory of their King Christian IV over the Swedish fleet in 1644. By contrast, the Swedish anthem never even mentions the name of the country but exclaims, "I will live and die in 'Norden'" (a term, like Scandinavia, referring to the entire region). 

World War II added a modern chapter when Denmark and Norway fell to a German invasion, while Sweden maintained a profitable neutrality and allowed transport of both German troops and German-controlled Norwegian and Finnish raw materials across its territory issues, which created an additional layer of resentment, rivalry and competitiveness.

The Danes have always had a reputation among their Scandinavian colleague as being much more European, especially because of French influence, and therefore are regarded as somewhat decadent, less puritanical, lackadaisical, sloppy, and more interested in good food and pursuing beautiful women than the aloof, industrious, neat, well-groomed, rational (the Danes would add "arrogant") Swedes--or the athletic, honest, nature-loving and athletic Norwegians. Of course, like all stereotypes, there is both exaggeration and enough of a grain of truth in these images to convince observers to look for confirmation. 

The popular press, especially the mass circulation tabloids, delights in playful teasing and taunting the older brother rival that sometimes reaches grotesque proportions. Although educated people regard this pandering to old prejudices as the cheapest form of sensationalism, its continued emotional long-term appeal cannot be doubted.

A favorite part of this teasing is the double-meanings employed in manipulating the two closely related languages. Danes and Swedes will often prefer to converse in English rather than speak their own languages with each other. The written form is sufficiently similar so that the general meaning of texts can be generally understand but differences in intonation, pronunciation and the distinct different meanings of closely sounding words provide an endless form of humor. Swedes have a special "Sj" sound and most Danes use a pronounced glottal stop that are difficult for non-natives to imitate. 

In 1944, a Dane and a Swede, Ellen Hartmann and Valfrid Palmgren Munch-Petersen, wrote a special dictionary titled Farlige ord og lumske ligheder i dansk og svensk (Dangerous words and awkward similarities in Danish and Swedish) that should be read by anyone needing to master the neighboring language and avoid embarrassing mistakes. One can imagine the reaction of an American woman to an expression like: "I came by yesterday to knock you up but nobody was home." For an Englishman until circa 1970 this simply meant: "I came by and knocked on the door to see if you were home." 

All this may seem like making a mountain out of a molehill for many foreign observers who imagine that the Scandinavian peoples are so similar they should have long ago buried the hatchet. Indeed, all the Scandinavian states remain among the most stable in the world politically. They cooperate in many economic and social areas such as the joint SAS airline and are culturally, socially and linguistically similar, but maintain a distinct sense of political separateness.

History and especially geography has determined much of their foreign policy and prevented them from following a common one or joining in an alliance. Norway and Denmark joined NATO due to their inability to maintain their neutrality in World War II, while Sweden continues to be neutral. All three jealously guard their independence. Denmark's close proximity and border conflict over Schleswig (Slesvig) prevented Norway and Sweden from considering a Scandinavian alliance before the World Wars with their prospect of German expansionism and revenge.

Only fourteen years after the death of British General Charles George "Chinese" Gordon in 1885 near Khartoum, and the loss of his 7,000 loyal Egyptian and Sudanese troops at the hands of the followers of the religious fanatic “Mahdi”, Muhammad Ahmad, Winston Churchill wrote….……

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.

The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensuality deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.
-- Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 [London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899]). 

The Egyptian government had stood in a quandry before the Mahdi, a forerunner of Al-Qaeda, who claimed dominion over the entire Islamic world. Even the Ottoman Sultan regarded this fanaticism as a threat to his position as Caliph, but did not dare to challenge his claim. Gordon’s death was later avenged by a British Army (with the blessings of President Theodore Roosevelt) and in so doing, brought slavery to an end and rescued Egyptian nationalism from the threat of extinction by fundamentalist Islam. In the dramatic Hollywood film on the siege of Khartoum, the narrator plays tribute to Gordon …. We cannot tell how long his memory will live. But there is this….A world with no room for the Gordons is destined to revert to the sands.

After his victory, Muhammad Ahmad slaughtered thousands of civilians in Khartoum and took many thousands more as slaves. He became the ruler of most parts of modern day Sudan, and established a religious state, the Mahdiyah. It was governed by a harsh enforcement of Islamic law (Sharia). In Britain, Gordon was regarded as a hero and martyr and in 1898, an expedition against the Mahdists led by Horatio Kitchener avenged his death and re-conquered the Sudan.

What we know today is that there are no Gordons or Churchills in the West and that, like the helpless Sultan, there is no figure among Muslim national leaders capable of openly confronting what Churchill rightly called “this fearful fatalistic apathy“. In Gordon’s time, the Khedive of Egypt, Isma’il Pasha had sought the help of British and American military men to help create a strong Egyptian army and even if corrupt, he strove to place the welfare of the Egyptian people and their existence as a nation in the forefront of his policies. His successors committed Egyptian troops to oppose the Mahdi under Gordon's command.

Today there is no similar national ruler in the now independent Muslim states, not Mubarak in Egypt nor the third rate Shi’ite or Sunni “allies” we have in Iraq, nor Musharraf or his successors in Pakistan. Even less so among our European allies. Even when they themselves are targeted by the Islamic Brotherhood, Al-Qaeda or other fundamentalist groups, these leaders dare not try to openly move against these extremists and label their version of Islam as heretical.

This is why “Medved’s Five Points“ strike a responsive chord with many in the West, not just pacifists or ultra naïve Democrats. Even some conservative self-styled hardliners find Medved’s “logic” persuasive. This is of course, the same traditional “logic” of the old Middle East “hands” at the State Department, and the British and French Foreign Offices who recoil at the hint of a confrontation with extremist Islamists. This is why President Bush (and probably John McCain if elected) can only go so far before they are reined in by the “old hands“ at the State Department. All we have to do is listen to the most recent statements of Condi Rice and her constant apologetics for Mahmud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.

Even the ghoulish atrocity committed by a fanatic against Israeli rabbinical students in Jerusalem that elicited demonstrations of joy and street celebrations in Gaza has not been denounced by any established Muslim religious authority. The dead hand of the Mahdi continues to hold us in a strangle hold and we have reverted to the sands.

I recently came across the full text on the internet of Molotov's speech to the Supreme Soivet following the Hitler-Stalin Non-Aggression Pact of August 1939 and found one redeeming point in it. I and many others despair at the current unrelenting villification of America and Israel. Many Americans who are subject to the unremitting hostility of the Arab world claiming that they (not only "The Palestinians")  are the victims, have an important ally in the impatience of "world opinion", the "desire" for peace (at any price) and often question whether cheaper oil isn't worth changing our stance. 

When it comes to world history, we have the benefit of hindsight. I find it relevant and important to understand how this example of equal madness to today's lasted 22 months (August 1939 to June 1941) and for a time "made a case" appealing to those who called themselves "progressives" and "anti-war activists". Of course, it may look absurd and insane today but it is worth remembering..... especially the line that those who opposed Nazism in the West ........were waging an ideological war reminiscent of the religious wars of the olden times and that the principal victims of such a conflict were ...the working class. (Sound familiar?)

ON THE FOREIGN POLICY OF THE SOVIET UNION

Report of Comrade V.M Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars and People's Commissar of Foreign Affairs, at Sitting of Supreme Soviet of USSR on Oct. 31, 1939.

At the risk of turning the fine wine of a good debate into the bitter vinegar of an overly contentious subject (Esperanto with 28 citations on the statistical information of The Iconoclast), allow me to make a final statement to those who still have an open mind.

Mary Jackson’s latest remark on the issue takes the form of a question which, as usual, she also provides an answer for - “Is there an Esperanto Thesaurus? Esperanto should not really need one should it?” This tag question, as most native English speakers are aware of, is simply a rhetorical question asking for confirmation of a statement or belief and not a real question. This rhetorical device however often causes confusion for foreign learners of the language. If she is asking a real question, it deserves an answer.

For those who are actually still seeking to learn more about Esperanto, let me address a few final remarks on the matter as a native American speaker of English who is multilingual and fluent in Spanish, Hebrew, Danish and Esperanto.

The latest edition of the most widely circulated and thorough Esperanto-Esperanto dictionary La Nova Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto (The New PIV), also dubbed PIV2 (published in 2002 and already sold out) includes about 1,300 pages, 17,000 words and 47,000 lexical units. Many synonyms are mentioned in the definition of words and countless examples are given of how various grammatical and lexical devices are utilized in the form of prefixes, suffixes and infixes to alter the basic meaning of the root part of a word. I gave examples of this in my current December article “Why Esperanto is Different” as follows…..

There is no need for a separate Thesaurus as the speaker is perfectly capable of independently forming words according to the above schematic system. Yes, Esperanto also has synonyms like English that are based on a single word such as “bald” (kalva in Esperanto) and another that makes use of a specific descriptive ending attached to an independent word like “hairless“ (senhara in Esperanto). The prefix “sen” in Esperanto fulfils the same function as the ending -less in English to signify the lack of something speechless, mindless, fearless, etc.). English makes use of many of the same principles of word formation as Esperanto, the difference is one of degree and regularity. Esperanto is not a Stepford Wife and those who love her do not do so out of love of any theory but because they have found her to be so useful as well as attractive AND challenging.

I have written three books and more than 250 published articles and book reviews in English and a few dozen short articles in Spanish and Hebrew. Although I am fluent in these languages, I still make mistakes including in my own native language and even after proof-reading by friends, colleagues and my wife, have sometimes discovered an error in spelling, grammar or lack of clarity. This occurred much less frequently with the two short Esperanto plays and short articles I have had published.

In the book “La Bona Lingvo” by Claude Piron, whose five minute video Mary Jackson suggests (as I do) readers watch, to get an impression of the character of Esperanto, the following example by the author serves to illustrate how rich Esperanto is in synonyms. Piron names approximately 50 words and expressions in Esperanto for the equivalent French word timide (timid in English and timema in Esperanto), each one with its own nuance and amplified significance. I will analyze just one of the 50 to give the reader an idea of Esperanto’s richness and flexibility. One of the fifty synonyms is alfrontevitema. The reader immediately recognizes the root part of the word is alfront- signifying confrontation. The subsequent part of the word -evit- is the Esperanto root defining avoidance; em- is part of the final ending denoting tendency, quality, susceptibility and the final letter -a denotes an adjective. Without “thinking”, the Esperanto reader, even if he had never seen this word before can appreciate that its meaning has to do with fear some people are prone to when confronting issues and problems.

In an earlier reply to the repeated assertions that somehow Esperanto is not a living language, I made the comparison with Modern Hebrew and the Nynorsk language (one of two official languages in Norway) to show that all three were subject to exactly the same critical remarks in their early formative period of development. All three began as desk projects and were not the native, habitual or primary language of anyone. All three encountered the same criticism as Esperanto that they were “artificial”. Speakers of Yiddish mocked and satirized Eliezer ben-Yehuda and the woefully inadequate vocabulary of early Hebrew speakers in Palestine right up until the moment the British mandatory authorities recognized it an official language in 1921. Yiddish speaking visitors remarked that even in the 1920s, many Zionists promoting Hebrew lacked the necessary words for many essential objects and relations and spoke in a garbled, uncertain and “unnatural” way.

The same occurred in Norway where Ivar Aasen and his supporters had to find a “neutral” form for what they reconstructed and believed was the original Norwegian language that prevailed in the country before the Black Plague. Centuries of Danish rule had imposed a literary speech (Danish as spoken by educated Norwegians) and referred to it erroneously as “Norwegian“ something that many nationalists could not accept as the proper vehicle of expression and culture for their country and its aspirations to become an independent state.

All three are thriving today and two are the official languages of modern states - Israel and Norway.

Readers who would like to learn more about these and other language contradictions, revivals and conflicts are referred to my book “Nations, Language and Citizenship” (McFarland & Company, Inc. Jefferson, North Carolina and London. 2004.  ISBN 0-7864-1710-2.)

Esperanto differs in that its speakers are not concentrated in a physical territory or defined by a common ethnicity. Many younger people today who are Esperanto speakers are NOT interested in the “Esperanto Movement” , propagandizing on its behalf or believe that the future of the language depends in any way on the long aspired goal of many idealists to achieve some form of international recognition. They are neither cranks nor idealists but continue to create an Esperanto culture that is shared around the world. They do so because they have found a vehicle of expression that they can shape that is largely free from the dominating influences of the major national languages.

Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (instrumental in the development of modern Hebrew)  and Ivar Aasen (pioneer of Nynorsk), like Zamenhof , struggled to draw upon the legacy of the past to formulate a new modern literary and spoken language. Esperanto differs only in that it is not the speech of a distinct nation or ethnic group but a self-chosen diaspora of those who use it for practical utilitarian purposes and for a minority as their chosen vehicle for the expression of a cosmopolitan culture enduring and maturing for the past 120 years.. 

All three languages - Esperanto, Modern Hebrew and Nynorsk are LIVING languages changing as a result of the usage of those who speak and write them. Each has had an "Academy" but it has been the daily decisions of speakers in contact through correspondence, visits, tours, seminars, conferences and the production of a massive literature and cultural creativity,, not the Academy,  that have changed and developed each language, its idiomatic expressions and slang.

Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers’ Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das "Dritte Reich", die Araber und Palästina, (Crescent Moon and Swastika: The Third Reich, the Arabs, and Palestine) was published in September, 2006 and has yet to appear in English translation. It documents the Arab sympathies for Nazism, particularly in Palestine and German attempts to mobilize and encourage the Arabs with their ideology, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, and the forces around the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini,in Palestine.

Nazi radio broadcasts to the Arabs between 1939 and 1945 constantly proclaimed the natural German sympathy for the Arab cause against Zionism and the Jews. German Middle East experts stressed "the natural alliance" between National Socialism and Islam. And such experts as the former German Ambassador in Cairo, Eberhard von Stohrer, reported to Hitler in 1941 that "the Fuhrer already held an outstanding position among the Arabs because of his fight against the Jews."

Cüppers and Mallmann quote many original documents from the Nazi archives on this. From the late 1930s, the planning staffs dealing with the external affairs of the Reich in the Head Office of Reich Security (RSHA, Reichssecuritathauptamt: originally under the monstrous Gestapo-chief Reinhard Heydrich) sought to engulf the Arabian Peninsula and win control of the region‘s oil reserves. They dreamt of a pincer movement from the north via a defeated Soviet Union, and from the south via the Near East and Persia, in order to separate Great Britain from India.

Thanks to the counteroffensive of the Red Army before Moscow in 1941/1942 and at Stalingrad in 1942/1943, and the defeat of the German Africa Corps with El Alamein, the Germans never managed to actively intervene in the Middle East militarily although they helped spark a pro-Axis coup in Baghdad in 1941. At about the same time, Palestinian-Jewish volunteers, Free French Forces and the Australians helped rid Syria and Lebanon of the pro-Vichy Fascist regimes there.

The refusal to place the blame and ultimate responsibility for Arab flight from Palestine during 1947-48 squarely on the divided and corrupt Arab leadership itself should also be held up to scrutiny in the light of what the world has witnessed during the last five years of insurrection and guerilla war in Iraq, the fifteen year long civil war in Lebanon (1975-1990), atrocities against civilians by the Sudanese Muslim forces in Darfur, and the rival factions fighting for control in Algeria, Yemen, and Syria (“Black September“, The Muslim Brotherhood“),and similar conflicts between rival factions; mass atrocities, mutilations, indiscriminate killing, blackmail, arson, looting, and mass flight were and remain the norm in inter-Arab conflicts. The Arab civil population of Haifa and Jaffa realized long before April 1948 that their lives and property were in jeopardy from the poorly disciplined, irregular, and corrupt Arab forces as much as from the prospect of a Jewish military victory.

Dr. Herbert Pritzke was an escaped German prisoner of war who served as Chief Medical Officer for the Arab forces in Jaffa. His eyewitness account, Bedouin Doctor (Dutton, 1957) is the objective reporting of a foreign volunteer:

Dr. Pritzke makes no mention whatsover regarding Deir Yassin but bears out that from the beginning that it was a dirty, nasty little war fought at close quarters by intertwined populations and that at the outset of the war the Arab side possessed a clear superiority in fire power.

"Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn't we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? ... What does God care what we call him? It is our problem." --from the article linked by Robert here and commented on by Hugh here

Yes, this is a brilliant solution. After all, what's in a name? Didn't Shakespeare already say a rose any any other name would smell as sweet? True, but the corollary doesn't work.

A pile of sh-t called a rose would not smell as sweet. Calling the Eastern European Communist puppet states of the USSR "People's democracies" didn't make them that. Bishop Muskens will no doubt go down in Dutch history as how not to solve problems and face the real world as much as another Dutch - pseudo-hero, - "The Hero of Haarlem", the legendary Hans Brinker, the boy who supposedly put his finger in the dyke to prevent a flood. 

The BBC continues to be a mindless apologist for Islamic outrage and often the severest critic of American and Israeli efforts to protect themselves from such outrages but this morning (Aug. 14, 2007)  they outdid themselves by a an error of 100 x the real magnitude. You might like to look at this morning's 8:00 Am EST telecast of the news from the BBC-America where the news announcer without the slightest look of puzzlement or query.......

mentioned today as the first anniversary of last summer's cease-fire in Lebanon and that Hizbollah leader Nasrallah would deliver a major speech in Beirut today. She then reminded viewers that in... "that conflict, 100,000 Lebanese*, mostly civilians (sic ! and sick !), were killed;. Israel lost 187."

What this addition of two extra zeroes shows is not only the inherent bias of an institution that but that the so called "prestigious" announcers or commentators who work for the BBC have absolutely NO intrinsic knowledge of world events, but only read or misread the lines put in front of them. 

* instead of 1,000