Talk:Second Schleswig War

Language usage figures
Fascinating Article but how do I submit it for clean-up? It really needs it! The last 4 paragraphs could be merged into one, or at least be more concise... :) other than that...?
 * I removed "Queen Victoria had lost Albert, her 42-year-old German husband, in 1861 and she became progressively more pro-German in the forty years as a widow that were to follow." From the section on background. I can't understand why it was included so can't add to the comment I made on my reason for the edit.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Never heard that Schleswig had a Danish majority; that was regionally the case for Northern Schleswig (the area that opted for Denmark in 1919 but even then the towns Åbenrå, Sønderborg, Tinglev and Tønder had opted for Germany) but not for the southern part.


 * Considering the (admittedly a bit complicated) history of the duchy there is no real point of talking of "reincorporation" of Schleswig into Denmark. --Kipala 13:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To reply to the second issue first; What I meant with "reincorporation" is that the Duchy was not subject to laws passed by the Danish parliament, so I am thinking of in the context of the Danish Consitution. If you have a better term, I'm all ears. Regarding your first point; the language "border" between Danish and German was during the Middle Ages located near Dannevirke and the similar wall in the south of Schwansen (I can't remember the name at the moment. Korte Kovirke ???), so in Denmark this would be considered the original border between Danish and German settlement. The change of colloquial language in southern Schleswig began already before the rise of nationalism, but accellerated during the early nineteenth century. The language of Schwansen changed to German during the eighteenth century. During the early nineteenth century, the language of Angeln changed as well, and by 1864, the transfer in this region must have been mostly complete. However, the maps I've seen of the area from the late 1830s still show parts of northern Angeln marked as "mixed". The language of central southern Schleswig (in Danish: Midtsletten) changed later than the rest, but the transfer was probably complete around the 1890s - c. 1900. The language border didn't become identical to the modern border before the 1930s-40s when it changed in a few settlements west of Frøslev.
 * The loyalties of most of the people in southern Schleswig had become pro-German around the 1840s but I've always heard that the venacular catched up slower. By 1864, the towns in Northern Schleswig were (all in all) mixed but with a Danish majority (not Tønder, naturally). AFAIK this was the case in both Aabenraa, Haderslev and Sønderborg. Flensburg seems to have been devided more evenly, both linguistically and according to loyalties. But if the election of 1867 is any guide, it voted predominantly Danish in that election (so did Hanved / Handewitt, btw.). From an "ethnic" point of view, the matter is pretty straightforward since the language changed without any massive influx of people from e.g. Holstein. But I agree, that the situation is a bit more complex if we go by language. Hmm, do you know of any good compilation of census results? Valentinian (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've gone through a description of Denmark from 1862 (August Baggesen (1862), Den danske Stat'', Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel). Pages 140-141 describe the population of the population of the different provinces. Baggesen lists the population of the Duchy of Schleswig thus:

- - - - - = 410,000 (total). (409,907, of these 72,374 lived in towns, p. 162.)
 * 134,000 lived in a region in which Danish is both used in churches and schools
 * 84,000 lived in a mixed region
 * 192,000 lived in a region in which German is used in both churches and schools (including 63,000 Frisians).

Unfortunately, Baggesen doesn't break down the numbers from the mixed zone (probably because the data were either not available or because an unknown portion of these data had been tampered with (e.g. the priest in Bov seems to have reported in 1840 that the ratio for Danish and German in his parish is 1:64 in favour of German (the correct figure would have been 90%+ for Danish. I just came across this one scanning through Claus Eskildsen's Grænselære. Eskildsen's book is not a source I'd normally rely on but this example looks kosher. A similar example from Nørre Haksted is even worse.) I'll try to dig deeper into this issue when I get the time, but from an "ethnic" point of view, the Danish roots of the vast majority of the province is beyond doubt. If there'd been a massive immigration of Holsteiners to Schleswig, it would have been recorded in Danish history books, but they don't mention any migrations. I'll rewrite the paragraph and look for a more conclusive source. Valentinian (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is all correct what you describe here, but have in mind that there was no link between ethnical feeling and language, something that makes the Slesvig conflict very complex. A few spoke German and opted for Denmark, many spoke Danish and preferred a German Schleswigholstein. Some were nationally indifferent or had sympathies for both sides, though this group has always been overshadowed by the others.
 * Also, I think this article should focus on the war, not everything else. Maybe another article should be dedicated to the conflict in general terms, describing the ethnical, linguistic, historical, political point of views, as well as analysing background reasons of military, European power-balance, constitional etc. nature.
 * About your calculation of how many people lived in areas with German and Danish curch and school language, respectively: This might be the reason why there were two opinions about what was the 'majority' language in Slesvig. If you count citizens with German school and church language, German would be in majority. If you count citizens who spoke Danish as mother tongue, Danish would be in majority. The peasantry were not asked or allowed to choose, German was school and church language in the southern half, and Danish in the northern. Moreover, German was administration and judiciary language in all of Slesvig. With the "language rescripts" of 1851, the Danish government forced a change to Danish school and mixed German/Danish church language in the still Danish-speaking areas in Central Slesvig, but also in some areas where only the oldest generation spoke Danish, and in some areas where Danish had practically died out. This only created anger in areas where people were used to German as the 'holy language' and Danish had a low social status (they were not used to Standard Danish either, since the South Jutland dialect is rather different).
 * I think the factual information in Claus Eskildsen's book is reliable enough, it is his way of reasoning that is a problem. But remember, he wrote it during WW II and his aim was to refute nazi views with their own way of 'volkstum' reasoning. So it focuses a lot on use of clogs, agricultural tools, last names, and even blue vs. brown eyes. I don't think he was a racist himself, though. --Sasper 23:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't disagree at all and I can easily agree with your observations. Language, loyalties and ethnicity often didn't correspond and the result was one giant mess. I'm afraid Lord Palmerston was all too right on his observation that this region can drive people nuts. :) I own a copy of Baggesen's "Den Danske Stat" from 1840 (before the worst mess started) and I am pretty sure both this and "Hof- og Statskalenderen" from around the same time has more information. If you don't know it already, I can warmly recommend Baggesen's description of Denmark. I haven't seen any other good descriptions of the entire Helstat written before the two wars. I'll try to check these books for better figures one of the coming days. Btw, the first edition of Eskildsen's book was published in 1936, so slightly before the war. However, I prefer not to use him as a source if it can be avoided, for the exact reason you cite above. I agree that it is unlikely that he invented his actual figures, but his line of thought is rather problematic. Regards. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your correction about Eskildsen's book. Baggesen's description of Denmark sounds most interesting, I'll look out for that book. --Sasper 08:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Assessment
Needs references. LordAmeth 20:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Casualty rates needs checking
I'm somewhat puzzled by the casualty figures added today. The page quoted mentions Danish losses of almost 3,000 dead, wounded and captured just in the battle of Als (Kampen om øen havde kostet den danske hær næsten 3000 mand i døde, sårede og tilfangetagne.) and a similar figure for the fighting at Dybbøl as almost 5,000 (De danske tab var næsten 5000 mand i døde, sårede og tilfangetagne. De preussiske tab var omkring 1200 mand.) Do anybody have some good references for such figures? Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 22:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeline
Anthony Appleyard, please note that "Schleswig-Holstein" didn't exist yet, only Schleswig and Holstein. I think it is a good idea to use the present tense in the timeline, but there is still some past tense left. Maybe we should move the timeline should be a separate article? Many articles use such a solution so the main article won't be too long. --Sasper 16:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Reason for abandoning Holstein
The text is:-
 * Removed comment that might have been contemporary but was far from neutral. Denmark followed a decision from the German Confederation of which Holstein was a member. 16:01, 21 January 2007 User:Valentinian.
 * This decision [to abandon Holstein] caused adverse comment among 1. Regiment who garrisoned Rendsburg: "The units who garrisoned Holstein still held this duchy [= Holstein], but the Danish government decided to run away with the sword in its sheath."


 * But the remark was made, and likely reflects public or rank-and-file army opinion at the time. The reason why Denmark decided to pull out of Holstein: was this to please the German Confederation, or was it because Denmark decided that keeping its army so far out was too much military risk? Anthony Appleyard 16:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) A partisan statement like "the Danish government decided to run away with the sword in its sheath" is grossly insulting against Denmark (violating WP:NPOV. It is also misleading since it is anything but representative of the considerations of the Danish cabinet. Just for the record; if the statement had been a pro-German comment smearing "Hannemann" or a pro-Danish comment by Grundtvig about "vildtyskere" that would also have violated NPOV. The truth is a lot more complicated that this particular soldier's very limited knowledge about the world around him. He would probably have preferred to stay in Rendsburg (which was considered part of Holstein) or perhaps fight on the border in Lauenburg. Fair enough but fighting on the border between Holstein and Mecklenburg would have meant his own death and the destruction of the Danish army since the terrain is impossible to defend, in particular against a larger and better-equipped enemy, and there were very good diplomatic reasons for abandoning Rendsburg rather than violating the instructions from the German Confederation: the Danish-ruled duchies of Holstein and Lauenburg were members of the German Confederation and the governments of Holstein and Lauenburg (both personified in the Danish monarch) were obliged to follow Confederate decisions. A member that violated Confederate decisions would effectively declare war against all other members, and had a Danish monarch done so, there can be little doubt that this would have been the diplomatic result. The Danish cabinet tried to avoid war - with a poor result - but fighting an invader south of the Dannevirke was never suggested for both military and diplomatic reasons. Hans Baggesen's military description of the Danish monarchy from 1840 ("Den danske Stat") concludes that the frontier with Mecklenburg is impossible to defend and that the first actual line of defence is the Dannevirke, although Rendsburg would have been able to resist an actual siege. This last option was not available here for the reasons described above. Had the Danish army stayed on Holsteinish territory, Denmark would not only have declared war on the German Confederacy but also allowed its own army to be destroyed. The Danish soldier's comment is interesting but it is not representative for the considerations of the Danish cabinet. A Danish army unit was angry, yes, but that must be described in neutral terms. Otherwise, it will violate NPOV. If you read Danish, I can strongly recommend the rather unpartisan description in "Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie", vol. III.


 * When war came, it was because Otto von Bismarck presented Denmark with an ultimatum and later sent a Prussian army across the Eider into Schleswig, which was clearly outside of the powers of the German Confederacy given that Denmark and Schleswig were not members of this organization. This consideration is also the most likely reason why Bismarck declared war on Denmark in the name of Prussia, not in the name of the German Confederation. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article style
The prose of the war's proceedings is difficult to follow in its current state, as it is a mix of timeline and paragraph form (compare to Crimean War, for instance). The detailed timeline could possibly be moved to Timeline of the Second War of Schleswig, although that would probably be a content fork. If the battles are important enough to describe in detail, separate articles should be created for them. Additionally, descriptions of many of the battles are taken directly from a copyrighted external link and should be removed. Olessi 18:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional crisis
I notice that this section has been made very short. Maybe some of these details I added in November may be re-added to the article?

''The adoption of the Constitution of Denmark in 1849 complicated matters further as many Danes wished for the new democratic constitution to apply for all Danes, including in the Danes in Schleswig. The constitutions of Holstein and Schleswig were dominated by the Estates system, giving more power to the most affluent members of society, with the result that both Schleswig and Holstein were politically dominated by a predominantly German class of landowners. Thus more systems of government co-existed within the same state: democracy in Denmark, and absolutism in Schleswig and Holstein. The three units were governed by one cabinet, consisting of liberal ministers of Denmark who urged for economical and social reforms, and conservative ministers of the Holstein nobility who opposed political reform. This caused a deadlock for practical lawmaking. Moreover, Danish opponents of this so-called Unitary State (Helstaten) feared that Holstein's presence in the government and, at the same time, membership of the German Confederation would lead to increased German interference with Schleswig, or even into purely Danish affairs. In Copenhagen, the Palace and most of the administration supported a strict adherence to the status quo. Same applied to foreign powers such as Great Britain, France and Russia, who would not accept a weakened Denmark in favour of Germany, nor that Prussia acquired Holstein with the important naval harbour of Kiel or controlled the entrance to the Baltic.''

Now, the point which I maybe forgot to mention above: Denmark wanted to let go of Holstein, and they chose this moment for it. But the German powers and the German movement in Schleswig didn't want Denmark to let go of Holstein if it meant Denmark would keep Schleswig.

The analysis stems from a little article by J.P. Noack, historian and Keeper of the Public Records of Denmark,Grundlove er ikke Gratis (Constitutions are not for free). It was written for the 150th anniversary of the Danish constitution in 1999, and it adds a very important dimension. Causes of the war such as nationalism and the succession issue are well-heard of, but they don't explain why the war actually broke out at this time. --Sasper 08:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Proseline
Someone added this query to sections First War of Schleswig and Second War of Schleswig. This query seems to refer to its format, which is timeline with interspersed longer entries. I have seen several ancient and modern chronicles written like this, and they are adequately clear to read. The only way to satisfy this demand would seem to be bale the timeline parts into "best school essay style" into even-sized paragraphs regardless of content, which I am against, as, plus the usual accompanying "varying the expression" and "elegant variation", it would make the text harder to read through when looking for any one bit of information. "Leave well-enough alone": these sections have stood in this format for over 4 months without anybody complaining about it. Everybody seems to have "best essay style" drummed into them at school until they do not realize that sometimes "best essay style" is not appropriate, even to the case of (for example) (a report on the 2 November 1892 Thirsk rail crash) being written in that period's best literary style in long meandering classical-type periods. The ultimate clash here seems to be literary elegance versus clarity. Anthony Appleyard 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone not particularly knowledgeable about the subjects, I have found this article and First War of Schleswig difficult to follow. While each has suitable backgrounds to the wars, there are no concise summaries of the wars themselves (such as this). I do not know enough about the wars to know which is the most important info to summarize, and the articles in their current states are not conducive for this, IMO. Aside from not being sufficiently referenced, I also do not think the articles would be approved for FA in their current styles. Olessi 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The previous paragraph's "this" means Austro-Prussian War. To turn the text into that sort of compact summary would need removing much information. Anthony Appleyard 08:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not say that information should be removed, but that a summary of the war's proceedings should be added. As I have said, I do not know enough of the details at the moment to do it myself. Olessi 06:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, OK, I have added a summary. Anthony Appleyard 08:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding that. I think it makes the article more complete and allows those following the detailed timeline to have a better understanding of the most important events. Olessi 16:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Title
Any objections to renaming the page to Second Schleswig War? That phrasing is used by more recently published texts than "Second War of Schleswig". Olessi 20:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Move completed. Olessi 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

von Falckenberg
Does anyone know the full name of "von Falckenberg" who reached Skagen? de:Eduard Vogel von Falckenstein was one of the leaders of the Prussian army during the war; is it possible Falckenstein is referred to instead? Olessi 17:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You're on the right track. According to this page it must be the same person. Valentinian T / C 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Doughnut War?
I've also heard this referred to as the "Doughnut War" (Bismarck vs. Danish). I wasn't sure if that would be too informal to add to the list of alternate names at the beginning of the article and/or make some redirects for people like me who know it by this name. — bse3 (talk • contribs • count • [ logs ]) 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Huhh?? Where do doughnuts come into it? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Otto von Bismarck, leader of the Germans, is a "Bismark" (another name for Berliner (pastry)). The Danes are "Danishes" (refering to Danish pastry). Bismarks and Danishes are doughnuts. The war was Bismarck against Denmark. — bse3 (talk • contribs • count • [ logs ]) 23:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Never heard about any doughnut war. Are you American? :-) --Sasper (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Never mind. It seems to hard for everyone to comprehend. — bse3 (talk • contribs • count • [ logs ]) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Belligerent the Netherlands
The Netherlands is named as an allied Belligerent of Denmark in the infobox, however there is no mention of the Netherlands in the rest of the article. I would suggest the role of the Netherlands is further explained in the article or the Netherlands is removed as one of the Belligerent. As a Dutch citizen I have never learned of a Dutch participation in the Second Schleswig War. --Ameer (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I too am also astounded by this revalation. Colonial warfare, that I was told about in school, but combat so close to home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.102.100 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It was vandalism and has been removed. Next time feel free to remove wrong facts yourself. You might even want to give the perpetrator a warning, so as to try to prevent them from doing it again. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Map of territorial changes?
Anyone know where we can find a map of the territorial changes as a result of this war to add to the article? --Thorwald (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just find these two maps, regards, --82.82.255.217 (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced removed
In Germany, the Battle of Dybbøl and the Second War of Schleswig have largely vanished out of public consciousness. You'll need a good source for this. At the very least it should be rewritten to reflect the fact that Germany in this context is a very large country. The people of Schleswig certainly haven't forgotten the war. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Map
The map of territorital changes is incorrect when it comes to defining what was part of Schelswig and Holstein. Ærø and Ribe area is marked as danish but was prior to 1864 Schleswig, as well was Fehmern that is marked as Holstein. And a western part og what is marked as Schleswig was Danmark proper before 1864.94.145.236.194 (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Needs translating!

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ribe was part of the Kingdom of Denmark prior to 1864. It was part of Ribe Diocese, alongside a group of other enclaves geographically placed in Slesvig but purchased by the Danish crown during the Middle Ages (shown on the map in darker red) and thus formally belonging to Denmark rather than the Duchy. You are correct about Ærø being part of Slesvig prior to 1864, and Fehmern, but as far as I can see all this is also what the map shows, so I must admit I am a bit confused about your post since your description of the map doesn't seem to match the actual map. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Incident on the Limfjord?

 * The page for the Battle of Als includes a link to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBCazLxXGsw, which is "AM II, 190 AMS "Der Alsenströmer"", a march to commemorate the Battle of Als. That Youtube page includes a link to https://www.youtube.comwatch?v=u0Pm_GHZW8A "AM II, 191 AMS "Der Lymfjordströmer"", which is also a march. Does it commemorate a crossing of the Limfjord?, which is much further north in Denmark. But the last battle which page Second Schleswig War mentions is the Battle of Lundby. In this war were there other later incidents which are not described here? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Second Schleswig War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012165639/http://milhist.dk:80/1864/1864/1864_dk.htm to http://www.milhist.dk/1864/1864/1864_dk.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Kiel Canal
Is there any source stating that there were plans for that Canal to be built by Prussia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.165.12 (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

German casualties
Hello,

I don't know where Codfelter has his statistics from, but this site lists all german fatalities in very specific form.

Im Gefecht gefallen (killed in action) 426

Verwundung (died of wounds) 234

Typhus 136

andere Krankheiten (other sicknesses) 76

Unglücksfall (accident) 12

Selbstmord (suicide) 5

Ohne Angaben (unspecified) 88

977

So, significantly less. I don't know whether there is a danish equivalent, but I suggest to at least add this number

84.178.58.243 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

1863 events
If we want to include 1863 events, we should prove that 1863 events are part of this war. Please, I check Danish and German articles, and there is no mention about 1863. (of course they cannot be main sources for refernces) And "pre-war events" mean it is not included in conflict. -- Wendylove (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)