Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moni3 (talk | contribs) at 15:51, 27 February 2009 (→Final warning: Scientology in Germany: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

please leave your messages here.

Second War of Schleswig

Please clarify what your sources are for your edits claiming that Denmark attacked Germany. As of January 1864, Danish troops already occupied Schleswig, so your edit makes little sense. In 1863, Danish troops pulled out of Holstein and Rendsburg but not of Schleswig, which was fortified instead. E.g. on 1 January 1864, Christian IX visited the Danish army positioned at the Dannevirke. (Claus Bjørn & Carsten Due-Nielsen, Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie, (2nd edition), vol. III "Fra Helstat til Nationalstat" 1814-1914, Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2006, page 235. These events are descibed on page 238-39:

(quote) "On 16 January 1864, Prussia and Austria presented the Danish foreign minister with a note stating as a fact that Denmark had not repealed the November Constitution, that Schleswig consequently had been incorporated into the Kingdom and that Prussia and Austria considered this situation a violation of the treaty , and the two envoys repeated the demand that Denmark should repeal the November Constitution. Should Denmark hesitate to do so, steps would be taken to return the situation the "status quo ante". (my italics) The two envoys stated that they would leave Copenhagen effective 18 January unless Denmark issued a statement prior to this date ensuring that November Constitution would be repealed." Monrad attempted to present a counterproposal to the Austrian envoy he needed six weeks to overcome domestic difficulties. Both England and France raised objections when confronted with the joint German ultimatum and the Swedish government likewise protested. Russia remained passive. When the English envoy to Berlin stressed upon Bismarck that the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the Danish state now lay in the hands of the two German powers, the German Ministerpräsident replied that this depended on whether Denmark would resist a occupation of Schleswig. The English envoy to Copenhagen continued to press the Danish government to make as many concessions as possible towards the German demands, and was supported in this attempt by the French and Russian envoys. In a circular dated 21 January , the Copenhagen government declared that it would repeal the November Constitution following the legitimate procedure, also referring to the English assurance that Prussia and Austria would not move into Schleswig should Denmark make such a declaration. Given this background, the English foreign minister attempted a new proposal (effectively written by Prime Minister Lord Palmerston) - encouraging Denmark not to resist any German occupation of Schleswig in return for a guarantee from the signature powers of 1852, that a German occupation of Schleswig would be motivated only by an objective of seeing the "November Constitution repealed regarding Schleswig" and that these forces would vacate the province again after . (...) "On 31 January, the two German powers reported through their ambassadors to London, Paris and Saint Petersburg that the Prussian and Austrian governments would now proceed with an occupation of Schleswig. Generalfeldmarschall Fr. von Wrangel ... delivered a note (sommation) in the morning of 31 January stating that he - citing the joint note of 16 January - would be forced to occupy Schleswig and demanded that General de Meza vacate the duchy. The Danish general was given six hours to reply. General de Meza's answer - issued only late in the afternoon the same day - shortly rebuffed the German arguments and declared that "he was ready to meet any act of violence with force of arms". (unquote) (Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie, vol. III, pages 238-239).

No declaration by Christian IX is mentioned, and he couldn't conduct foreign policy anyway since Denmark was a constitutional monarchy, and I have never seen even the slightest indication in a Danish book claiming that Denmark issued any declaration of war against Germany. Denmark rebuffed two ultimatums, on one 16 January and one on 31 January, but it did not commence fighting and it did not declare war. The war started when Prussia crossed the border on 1 February. Valentinian 12:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags like "Accuracy" before any article disputes have been solved. Doing so constitutes vandalism and is not accepted by Misplaced Pages policy. Valentinian 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I're replied on my talk page. Valentinian 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: just in case you don't trust Danish sources, here is a description from Meyers Konversationslexikon. It confirms that Denmark simply rejected an ultimatum on 16 January 1864, and mentions that fighting started on 1 February: . Da der Deutsche Bund die Bundesexekution gegen Dänemark beschlossen hatte, rückten 12 000 Mann Hannoveraner und Sachsen 23. Dez. in Holstein ein, das die Dänen ohne Widerstand räumten. Bei Hamburg sammelten sich eine österr., bei Lübeck eine preus. Brigade, zusammen 10 000 Mann, als Reserve für die in Holstein befindlichen Bundestruppen. Österreich und Preußen aber erklärten sich jetzt dem Bunde gegenüber für die Einhaltung des Londoner Vertrags von 1852, verlangten daher die Ausweifung des Auguftenburgers aus Kiel und forderten 16. Jan. zugleich von Dänemark die sofortige Aufhebung der Verfassung vom 18.Nov. 1863. Als Dänemark diese Forderung abwies, ließen Österreich und Preußen 1. Febr. 1864 ihre inzwischen auf 45 000 Mann verstärkten Truppen unter dem Oberbefehl des Feldmarschalls von Wrangel die Eider überschreiten. Der Einmarsch erfolgte in drei Kolonnen ... Valentinian 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Translation: "Since the German federation had decided the German Bund's action against Denmark, 12,000 Hanoverian and Saxon men engaged on 23 Dec. in Holstein, which the Danes without resistance vacated. One Austrian amassed by Hamburg, by Luebeck one Prussian brigade, altogether 10,000 men, as reserve for the federal troops in Holstein. Austria and Prussia however now explained themselves to me in a federation in relation to the adherence to the Treaty of London of 1852, required therefore the expulsion of the Augustenburg dynasty from Kiel and demanded 16 January at the same time from Denmark the immediate abolition of the condition of the 18.Nov. 1863. When Denmark rejected this demand, Austria and Prussia left on 1 Febr. 1864 their current troops under the supreme command of the field marshal von Wrangel to cross the Eider, strengthened on 45,000 men. The invasion took place in three columns.". Anthony Appleyard 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Meyers Konverationslexikon is wrong here. Facts:

• The Bundesexekution is a discipline step only for members of the "Deutschen Bund", a follower of the holy roman empire of german nation, which was destroyed due to the Napoleon wars
• The Bundesexekution is a discipline step, which includes the possibility of military actions, but again, only against members od the German Confederation
• Denmark never was a member of the "Deutschen Bund"

So it is not possible to declare the Bundesexekution to Denmark, in fact it was declared to the german dutchy Holstein

You can declare it a trick of Bismarck, but in fact he only used the anti-german aggression mainly of denmark and france, which "destroyed" (the area shrinked drastically over the centuries due to attacks of neighbours) the holy roman empire of german nation since centuries.

The Bundesexekution can be seen as a first step to civil war within the "Deutschen Bund", which happened quite often, most times with other countries involved. Other countries could only win by supporting civil war within germny, even if they loose the war, germany is normally much weaker. See Thirty Years of war.

As an answer, denmark declared war to the "Deutschen Bund", which was the first declaration of war between nations. Wispanow 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't cite any sources for your description of these events, and unless you do so, they constitute original research which is against Misplaced Pages policy. I see no reason to question the validity of two descriptions that are close to identical and written by scholars in respectively Denmark and Germany. Extraordinary stories require extraordinary proof. If you have such, please cite it. Misplaced Pages is interested in descriptions that can be backed up by relevant external sourcing, it is not a place for our own personal analysis. The organisation Meyers talks about is the German Confederation and the Danish king was indeed a member, since Holstein was a member of that organization. Same deal with the Dutch monarch, who represented Limburg and the British who represented Hanover. I've reverted your edit to 1864 which was total fiction. And how on earth should the King of Denmark be able to declare war on the Duke of Holstein since that person was himself? Valentinian 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

And here is an illustration of the Danish and German outposts standing on each end of the Rendsburg bridge. It was published on 31 January 1864 - the day before fighting commenced - and illustrates that Schleswig was occupied by Danish troops and Holstein by German troops, so it matches the descriptions in both Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie and Meyers. Notice the Schleswig-Holsteinish flag over Rendsburg, something that would not have been tolerated had Denmark been able to enforce physical control over Holstein. See also the official webpage of the Dybbøl Museum: German version, click Der Krieg 1864. The relevant paragraph is Der Krieg bricht aus. Valentinian 15:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany

Due to a recent content dispute, I am watching this article as an admin, and not a content contributor. All articles relating to Scientology are on article probation. You removed referenced material from the article. While you also added referenced material, I urge you to use the article talk page from now on to discuss content disputes and different interpretations of sources. I also urge you to be more than civil in your discussion on the article talk page. Your changes may be incorporated to factor in all reliable sources and points of view. Please note that WP:3RR often does not apply to articles on probation, and 1RR often replaces it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The referenced material was wrong referenced, i stated that:

"No boycott calls by germans: american homosexuals like Kevin Naff called for boycott. Read the reference." And that has nothing to do with germany. So i removed it.

I am german, i´ve seen a lot of the world and i know the situation here, and more, i can read german infos. There are a lot of wrong statements made probably by scientology members about germany. But i´m not investing hundreds of hours to correct it. Wispanow (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and it belongs on the talk page of Scientology in Germany. Unfortunately, even though you may have personal experience seeing the opposite of what a reference states, that does not allow you as a user to remove it. You can counter it with another reliable source, however. Please discuss your problems with the content on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read carfully: it is not the personal experience, it is that i can read german and the reference is WRONG cited. And there is no sense making a discussion about totally clearly wrong things. Wispanow (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read just as carefully: these issues need to be brought to the attention of editors on the article talk page. People are currently working on this article, discussing its sources and the information within. If you know that a source is not reliable or has not been reliably translated, that should be brought to the attention of the editors who are working on it: those who probably inserted the incorrect information. Articles on probation get that way because communication about the material is absent or has deteriorated into edit reverts and name calling in edit summaries. If the information is inaccurate, show how it is to the editors on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Done it. Wispanow (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hallo Wispanow, für den Fall, dass du dich weiter über den Artikel unterhalten willst, wir können dies hier (im Gegensatz zu der Artikeldiskuseite) auch auf Deutsch tun. Ich hab deine Benutzerdiskussionsseite zumindest mal in meine Beobachtungsliste aufgenommen, sehe es also, wenn du hier antworten solltest. Gruß, Jayen466 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Final warning: Scientology in Germany

If you remove cited information once more in any article relating to Scientology, you will be blocked. Final warning. --Moni3 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)