History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VII

[Domen]

Coming back to old question about the ethnicity of Nicolaus Copernicus (astronomer):

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=517751&highlight=Copernicus&page=39

Too bad that Medieval people did not pay attention to spelling and ortography.

Personal signatures of astronomer:

Nicolaus Copernicus (astronomer's personal signature from 1539)
Νικολευ Κόπερνικoυ (astronomer's personal signature in Greek)
Nicolaus Copernic (astronomer's personal signature at Padua)

Various spelling variants of astronomer's surname, as written by other persons of the 15th - 16th centuries:

Nicolaus Copernidus (spelling by J. Dantiscus)
Nicolaum Koperni (spelling by Bona Sforza)
Nicolaus Copernik
Nicolaus Coppernyck
Nicolaus Goppernic
Nicolaus Coopernick (in 1512)
Nicolaus Gopernick
Nicolaus Copernich
Nicolaus Coppernich
Nicolaus Coppernicus
Nicolao Copernico (spelling by G. J. Rheticus)
Nicolao Cupernico (another spelling by G. J. Rheticus - lol)
Nicolaus Coppernigk (in 1504)

And perhaps several more variants, that I've been unable to find.

More modern:

Mikołaj Kopernik (spelling by e.g. Ludwik Antoni Birkenmajer)

Several examples of other Medieval people with this surname (or similar surnames) - original spelling from sources:

Stanislaus Kopernik (person from 1417)
Margritte Koppirnickynne (person from 1422; noted in the town book of Torun)
Petrus Koppernik (person from 1409)
Niczko Coppernik (person from 1375)
Joannes de Coppirnig (person from 1424)
Nicolaus Koppernik (person from 15th century)
Claus Kopernik (person from 1440)
Petir Koppirnicks (person from 1422; noted in the town book of Torun)
Niclas Koppernik von Crocaw (by some town chronicler from Gdansk)
Nicolaus Koppirnig (by some town chronicler from Gdansk)

===========================================

Early recorded names of village Koperniki in Sillesia (all these names apply to the same village, not to different places):

Coprnih (document from 1272)
Copirnik (document from 1284)
Copirnich (document from 1280s)
Copernik (document from 1291)

It is believed that ancestors of astronomer had emigrated from that village to Cracow (and then from Cracow to Torun). It was first suggested by nationalist German historian Georg Bender in his 1920 book, that ancestors of astronomer Copernicus originally came from this particular village. Only later, when Polish historians proved that this village had originally been inhabited by Polish-speaking population, German historians changed their theory.

This village is located near the town of Nysa (Neisse). This part of Silesia was inhabited by Polish-speaking population during the 14th century, and one century later as well - as the Nuremberg Chronicle informs us under year 1493, saying that populations of villages around Nysa spoke Polish:

"Plebs rustica polonici ydeomatis" (excerpt from the Nuremberg Chronicle concerning the region of Nysa, under year 1493)

There are also more of similar placenames (toponyms) in this and other regions of Poland.

===========================================

Similar surnames which actually exist today - other spelling variants (including those mentioned above) do not exist:

Kopernik - most frequent in Poland (a few people of this surname live also in Germany, but most common name among them is "Lesław")
Koperniak - most frequent in Poland
Kopernok - as above
Koperny(a) - as above
Kopernatzki(a) - as above
Kopernacki(a) - as above
Kopernicki(a) - as above
Kupernik - as above

Such surnames and placenames are of Slavic origin, derived from Slavic words for dill (koper / koperek) or for copper and related things:

The old Polish word for copper is koprowina (in some regions it was used until recently) and "made of copper" is koprowy(a/e).

This word also still exists in Slavic Upper and Lower Sorbian (Lusatian) languages, as well as words: kopernik, kopornik, kope(o)rnikar:

(...) starsi Polacy pamiętają z pewnością, że w niektorych dzielnicach Polski, np. w Wielkopolsce, co wspaniale osobiście pamiętam z przedwojennego dzieciństwa, miedź nazywano koprowiną, stąd dalej mówiono: drut koprowy, rura koprowa, patelnia koprowa itd. Z pewnością nazywano tak miedź i w innych dzielnicach kraju. (...) wracając do nazwy "naszej" wsi oraz do nazwiska rodowego Koperników, końcowka „-ik”, „-yk” jest typowym zakończeniem słowiańskim, obcym językowi niemieckiemu. Jest to więc końcówka pełniąca rolę deminitivu lub spieszczająca pewne pojęcia (tu np. słowik, chłopczyk, konik, jeżyk, walczyk itp.) a także określająca pozycję, zawód, wreszcie także zakład przemysłowy, np.: naczelnik, wojownik, mechanik, elektryk, wapiennik. Słowo kopornik, kopernik istnieje w językach łużyckich i znaczy huta miedziana zaś kopornikar = kotlarz. Podobne znaczenie znajdujemy w innym słowniku górnołużycko – niemieckim, gdzie jednak oddano je jako "Kupferhammer" = młotek miedziany (tu przytoczmy jednak używane jeszcze na południu Polski przestarzałe słowo "hamernia", oznaczające kuźnię-młotownię. Ów "Kupferhammer" byłaby to więc kuźnia miedzi. W językach łużyckich istnieje poza tym słowo kop(e)r = koper, od którego można by ewentualnie wywodzić nazwisko Kopernik, lecz częstotliwość nazw miejscowych jak przytoczone wyżej, świadczyłaby raczej o związku z wydobyciem i obrobką miedzi, czyli koprowiny, co ma miejsce na Śląsku Dolnym - jak wiadomo - jeszcze i dziś. (...)

In Sorbian languages there is also the word kopr (modern Polish equivalent is koper, see the excerpt quoted above).

 

[ParkCungHee]

Hanging a few notorious (eg Tojo), ambiguously notorious (eg Matsui) and not-even-really-notorious (eg Hirota) war criminals, and shooting a few thousand IJA commanders and other personnel, but letting many, many, many war criminals off scot-free, like future prime minister Kishi, Unit 731 boss Ishii, and the entire Imperial Family.

Also, note that "Notorious" in Japan also included figures there largely for being succesful and popular Generals (Yamashita), or being recognizable to western audiences (Shiratori) in a way that didn't apply in Germany.

Also, the Nuremberg Trials sought to expose and seriously penetrate the inner workings of the Nazi state and did so to an extraordinary degree. So much so that scholarship on the Third Reich has only recently caught up with the analysis demonstrated in for example, that Indictment of the General Staff.

When they indicted propagandists such as Streicher and Rosenburg, they sought to directly link their words to their crimes. There was no such attempt with Okawa who, as far as I can tell, was basically picked at random as a token "propagandist."

The defendants and the prosecutors collaborated to protect elements of Japanese society (the Royal Family and the larger civil service) that were useful to the occupation authority.

 

[Tee Kay]

Name one Western general who ever had the "Yamashita Standard" held against them.

 

[JohannaK]

What is that "Yamashita standard"?

 

[Tee Kay]

A commander is held responsible for failing to prevent his troops from committing crimes against humanity (as opposed to being held responsible for ordering them).

 

[MilesGregarius]

Name one Western general who ever had the "Yamashita Standard" held against them.

Hell, has their even been one Western lieutenant that's been held to the Yamashita Standard?

 

[r16]

... but letting many, many, many war criminals off scot-free, like... the entire Imperial Family.

ı for one think Hirohito was the perfect figurehead until 14th of August , 1945 .

 

[JohannaK]

A commander is held responsible for failing to prevent his troops from committing crimes against humanity (as opposed to being held responsible for ordering them).

That is a twisted 'standard', although I see how it could work.

 

[Tee Kay]

ı for one think Hirohito was the perfect figurehead until 14th of August , 1945 .

A figurehead implies he's only nominally head of the state, nothing more.

Any cursory glance at what went on in Japan between 1931 - 1945 would show this was far from the case. Even if Hirohito wasn't personally directing state policy and military operations, ministers report to him constantly and he could and did exert his considerable influence. If the same standard that condemned Gen. Yamashita was applied to him, he could be held responsible for not ending the war before the 14th of August and therefore causing more deaths, or not shown sufficient displeasure with his militarists to perhaps prevent war from happening in the first place. Not to mention all the horrible acts committed by the Japanese across Asia, all in his name.

The view of the Japanese liberals and socialists right after surrender was that the Emperor should at the very least abdicate, if not outright indicted. It was Shogun Macarthur who fell in line with the Japanese bureaucratic establishment and decided otherwise.

Besides, the Emperor is not the only person saved by Macarthur, it was every member of the Imperial Family, even if they lose imperial status afterwards. That includes people who were deeply involved in the military like Prince Asaka and Prince Higashikuni.

 

[JohannaK]

Shogun MacArthur. It is the first time I heard that, but it is surprisingly appropriate, isn't it?

 

[r16]

in any serious history discussion ı do have stress ı have no authority of any kind whatsoever , but ı feel ı should challenge the view that Hirohito could have actually led Japan in any meaningful way . Surely the history would be replete how his word was final and he swayed the decisions to this way or that way . ı explain this with the internal feuding between Japanese themselves where gross loss of face would be avoided by the useful existance of a god living in the palace and his wish was "the command" .

and kinda having loony theories of Japan trying surrender by August 1st ; even Nagazaki was hushed down and by the 15th the number of Japanese who were ready to fight the hardliners had climbed beyond what the hardliners took as calculable risk . Hirohito never ruled as a god , achieved kinda far more as a human being . Which certainly happened only after August 1945 .

 

[Flying Pig]

That is a twisted 'standard', although I see how it could work.

That's actually an entirely normal standard. When you're an officer you accept responsibility for your soldiers: if they do well, you'll be credited for making them into an efficient and capable unit, and if they do badly you'll be accused of bad leadership. It's your job to enforce discipline as well: if you're a company or battalion commander and your men are being hauled before the police every week for fighting in town, it's on you to get amongst your NCOs and junior officers to change that, starting by dealing with those who do mess up in a way that shows the rest that it's not acceptable. If a referee in a game of football or rugby has a problem with the conduct of the players, he'll call over the team captains and expect them to sort it out: in politics, ministers often have to resign for failing to keep adequate oversight of their departments. So if soldiers commit war crimes, their officers should absolutely be held to account if they created or allowed to develop a culture which made war crimes seem permissible. Obviously nobody's going to be hauling the CDS before the Hague for the actions of a single corporal or sergeant, but if a brigade keeps having problems and doesn't improve the brigadier may well find himself under scrutiny. That's how chains of command have to work - otherwise, the scrutinising bodies at the top would have to keep an eye on every private and NCO in the Army.

 

[JohannaK]

Yeah, yeah, that's what I mean when I say "I see how it could work". Thank you anyway for the clarification.

 

[Tee Kay]

in any serious history discussion ı do have stress ı have no authority of any kind whatsoever , but ı feel ı should challenge the view that Hirohito could have actually led Japan in any meaningful way . Surely the history would be replete how his word was final and he swayed the decisions to this way or that way . ı explain this with the internal feuding between Japanese themselves where gross loss of face would be avoided by the useful existance of a god living in the palace and his wish was "the command" .

and kinda having loony theories of Japan trying surrender by August 1st ; even Nagazaki was hushed down and by the 15th the number of Japanese who were ready to fight the hardliners had climbed beyond what the hardliners took as calculable risk . Hirohito never ruled as a god , achieved kinda far more as a human being . Which certainly happened only after August 1945 .

Hirohito could not have meaningfully "led" Japan, no. His status is much too exalted for him to be too deeply involved in mere mortal government even during the War.

But he had influence. If not him directly, then through his relatives who were involved in the military. That Japan announced its surrender on August 15th at all was due to his intervention and how much force that carried. As you note, hardliners and the brainwashed masses were determined to fight to the end and even when the Emperor resolved to surrender, there were still those who wanted to resist, up to attempting a coup d'etat.

But it's not like there weren't pro-peace people in the military, there were those like Konoe and the emperor's own brother and mother who were okay with war in China but weren't enthusiastic at all about war against the Western powers, and they were influential enough to depose Tojo by mid-1944 and send peace feelers out by early 1945. But no, Hirohito chose to pay more heed to those who promised a decisive battle and those who would choose national suicide over surrender. It took concerted efforts from the pro-peace faction, naval blockade, half of Tokyo and Kobe being razed to the ground, two atomic bombs, and losing Manchuria to the Soviets to convince him otherwise. Now imagine if he had made his pro-peace position earlier, rather than at the last minute.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yeah, yeah, that's what I mean when I say "I see how it could work". Thank you anyway for the clarification.

My point is that it's not twisted at all - it's completely necessary both for practical reasons and because of what being an officer entails.

Incidentally, American officers have been charged with 'failing to prevent', though the highest punishment I can find for it has been an official reprimand in quite a grey-area case. Several charges of the same relating to the My Lai Massacre were dropped.

 

[JohannaK]

No, I see that - now. Being unfamiliar with the military itself, it wasn't immediately clear to me.

 

[ParkCungHee]

That's actually an entirely normal standard. When you're an officer you accept responsibility for your soldiers: if they do well, you'll be credited for making them into an efficient and capable unit, and if they do badly you'll be accused of bad leadership. It's your job to enforce discipline as well: if you're a company or battalion commander and your men are being hauled before the police every week for fighting in town, it's on you to get amongst your NCOs and junior officers to change that, starting by dealing with those who do mess up in a way that shows the rest that it's not acceptable. If a referee in a game of football or rugby has a problem with the conduct of the players, he'll call over the team captains and expect them to sort it out: in politics, ministers often have to resign for failing to keep adequate oversight of their departments. So if soldiers commit war crimes, their officers should absolutely be held to account if they created or allowed to develop a culture which made war crimes seem permissible.

That wasn't the case made against Yamashita, though. He wasn't accused of fostering an atmosphere of tolerance or encouragement. They couldn't do that because Yamashita had executed officers for war crimes and looting.

The Yamashita Standard is that simply by being the commanding officer in charge, you're responsible, period.

Even in the event of breakdown in communications, even when the troops in question were in defiance of orders given, the commanding officer bears responsibility for any action taken by the troops under his command.

 

[Flying Pig]

Sometimes that's acceptable, but I suspect it might not have been in this particular case. For example, if you lose communications with your troops and make no effort to regain them, or give orders that mean you lose oversight for no good reason (for example, you fail to issue adequate comms equipment or give radio silence unnecessarily), you may well be held responsible for anything bad that happens when they're on their own - though usually that means you forgot to carry spare batteries for your radio and so couldn't tell Cpl Smith that he was doing something monumentally stupid. Similarly, if your authority is so weak that troops are defying orders as a regular occurrence, people may well start blaming your leadership. There's an army saying that there's no such thing as a bad soldier - only a bad officer.

 

[Ajidica]

On a related note, were there any sort of war crimes trials carried out against Allied soldiers or officers after the war?

 

[r16]

Hirohito could not have meaningfully "led" Japan, no. His status is much too exalted for him to be too deeply involved in mere mortal government even during the War.

But he had influence. If not him directly, then through his relatives who were involved in the military. That Japan announced its surrender on August 15th at all was due to his intervention and how much force that carried. As you note, hardliners and the brainwashed masses were determined to fight to the end and even when the Emperor resolved to surrender, there were still those who wanted to resist, up to attempting a coup d'etat.

But it's not like there weren't pro-peace people in the military, there were those like Konoe and the emperor's own brother and mother who were okay with war in China but weren't enthusiastic at all about war against the Western powers, and they were influential enough to depose Tojo by mid-1944 and send peace feelers out by early 1945. But no, Hirohito chose to pay more heed to those who promised a decisive battle and those who would choose national suicide over surrender. It took concerted efforts from the pro-peace faction, naval blockade, half of Tokyo and Kobe being razed to the ground, two atomic bombs, and losing Manchuria to the Soviets to convince him otherwise. Now imagine if he had made his pro-peace position earlier, rather than at the last minute.

perfectly and totally acceptable in the prevailing narrative and ı stress ı am not employing a single bit sarcasm whatsoever. But then as you know ı am kind of involved with lots of nonsense conspiracies and the like . Am sure if ı was ever to finish my 20th Century history , it would have a page or two on the repeated attempts of Japan to surrender after the Marianas Turkey Shoot where the USN showed it ruled the skies whereever Hellcats reached and USAF would do even more damage when it got some Mustangs into the Pacific theater . That the Japanese cities would burn was a given considering in the 1920s Mitchell made special mention of them . Made of paper and cardboard and wood and whatever they could be burned down even with the "limited tech" of the WW1 biplanes .

that Japanese hardliners ever listened to Hirohito is much dependant on the USAF resuming conventional operations by the evening of the 12th ; because the said hardliners were much relieved by the nukes . Their use showed the US had shot its bolt and was uncapable of defeating Japan , after taking one or two more US would have sued for peace and the Japanese would rule over a nice bit of China . For the Japanese knew it extremely well that one just couldn't put nukes into mass fabrication or something . Had Hirohito pressed for peace in 1943 , 33 or 23 he would have been shunned , and possibly shot .