Thursday, March 10, 2022

Whirlwind

Whirlwind (pronounced wurl-wind)

(1) Any of several relatively small masses of air rotating rapidly around a more or less vertical axis and advancing simultaneously over land or sea, as a dust devil, tornado, or waterspout.

(2) Anything resembling a whirlwind, as in violent action or destructive force; an impetuously active person

(3) Any rush or violent onward course.

(4) As “like a whirlwind” as in speed or force; to move or quickly travel.

1300-1350: From the Middle English whirlewind & whirlewynde, the construct being whirl + wind.  Source was probably the Old Norse hvirfilvindr which was cognate with the German wirbelwind.  From the Old Norse came the Icelandic hvirfilvindur, the Norwegian Nynorsk kvervelvind, the Norwegian Bokmål virvelvind & the Norwegian Nynorsk virvelvind.  Whirly-wind was (probably now extinct) nineteenth century Australian slang for a whirlwind, cyclone, tornado or dust devil and was from the Yindjibarndi wili wili (and it may have existed also in other First Nations languages in north-west Australia).  Whirlwind is a noun& adjective and whirlwindy & whirleindish are adjectives; the noun plural is whirlwinds.

Whirl was from the Middle English whirlen, contracted from the earlier whervelen, possibly from the Old English hweorflian, a frequentative form of the Old English hweorfan (to turn), from the Proto-Germanic hwerbaną (turn) or possibly the Old Norse hvirfla (to go round, spin).  It was cognate with the Dutch wervelen (to whirl, to swirl), the German wirbeln (to whirl, to swirl), the Danish hvirvle (to whirl), the Swedish virvla (the older spelling of which was hvirfla) and the Albanian vorbull (a whirl).  It’s related to the modern whirr and wharve.  Wind was from the Middle English wynd & wind, from the Old English wind (wind), from the Proto-Germanic windaz, from the primitive Indo-European hwéhn̥tos (wind), from the earlier hwéhn̥ts (wind), derived from the present participle of hweh (to blow). It was cognate with the Dutch wind, the German Wind, the West Frisian wyn, the Norwegian and Swedish vind, the Icelandic vindur, the Latin ventus, the Welsh gwynt, the Sanskrit वात (vā́ta), the Russian ве́тер (véter) and, more speculatively, the Albanian bundë (strong damp wind).  It’s related to the modern vent.

The phrase, "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind", comes from the Old Testament (Hosea 8:7).  It means that for all of us, one’s choices and decisions have consequences; one’s actions will one day return to haunt one.  Cynics tend to phrase it as: “For everything you do there’s a price to be paid”.  It’s sometimes confused with the Epistle to the Galatians (6:7) in the New Testament: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap”.  Whirlwind is thus popular in figurative use and in saying she had a "whirlwind of garbage around" herself, Lindsay Lohan conveyed the image of a life made difficult by a swirling vortex of undesirable baggage.  In noting her problems were of her own creation she added she was "my own worst enemy" but, at the time, that may have been unfair to Paris Hilton.    

RAF Westland Whirlwind (1939-1943).

A fine, if complex, airframe and a design ahead of its time, the Whirlwind never achieved its potential because of problems, essentially those of the doomed engine around which it was designed.  It was the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) first single-seat, twin-engined fighter, a layout explored by many air forces as a means of fielding a machine with sufficient range, armament and speed to counter the new generation of twin-engined bombers which, by the mid-1930s had proved able to out-pace most fighters then in service.  The prototype flew first in 1938 and had seemed promising, with many innovative features anticipating later designs, the radiators housed in the leading edges of the slim wings and the pilot’s afforded outstanding visibility by virtue of a large, clear bubble canopy.  Intended as a long-range escort fighter, the Whirlwind's firepower was impressive, boasting four 20mm cannons clustered in the nose which made it at the time the most potent fighter in the world.  Test pilots reported excellent handling characteristics, the only deficiencies noted as a lack of power and a very high landing speed which limited the number of airfields from which it could operate.

The Whirlwind was designed to use two Rolls-Royce Peregrine engines, a development of the well-regarded Kestrel but the manufacturer, absorbed with the refinement and production of the much more promising Merlin, was unable to devote sufficient resources and development of the Peregrine first stagnated and then ceased, the demand for the Merlins (used by the strategically vital Spitfire & Hurricane) so great that all of Rolls-Royce's productive capacity had to be dedicated to their supply.  As a result, there existed sufficient engines to build only 112 Whirlwinds which equipped two squadrons where they saw limited service between 1940-1943, mostly in a ground-attack role after being converted to (Mark 1A specification) fighter-bombers.  They were used in an escort role on a low-level raid to Cologne in August 1941 but the unsuitability of the then available bombers to undertake daytime operations was exposed when the attacking force lost almost a quarter of their aircraft, an unsustainable rate of loss.  Not suitable as a night-escort and hampered by the underpowered Peregrines which meant they couldn’t be deployed against single-engined fighters in a defensive role, the Whirlwinds were instead allocated to low-level sorties across the Channel, opportunistically attacking shipping, trains and physical infrastructure.

RAF 
de Havilland Hornet, 1946.

Interestingly, the fine high-altitude characteristics reported by the test pilots when flying the prototypes didn't translate to the production versions but in 1940, such was the urgency of the military situation the Whirlwinds were pressed into service without any attempt at rectification.  Blamed at the time either on the engines or the wing design, it was only years later that private research revealed it was a change in propeller specification which affected the performance, the prototype using Rotol units while the production aircraft were fitted with de Havilland propellers designed for a different aircraft, such mixing and matching far from unusual in wartime conditions.  The replacement propellers were thicker, the issue being that a rotating propeller blade pushes air aside and the thicker a blade, the more air needs to be moved and, all else being equal, that means that the air has to move faster and at a certain point, the air has to move faster than the speed of sound.  At that point (the sound barrier), shock waves are created which induces massive drag.  Propellers are designed to compensate for this effect but on the de Havilland units, the constant speed mechanism would react to the slowdown in airspeed caused by drag by altering the pitch of the blade which would create a feedback loop in the Peregrine, inducing erratic performance and the higher the altitude, the lower the speed of sound, thus the more unsatisfactory the performance of the Whirlwind at altitude.  On the engine for which they were designed, the de Havilland propellers worked well but the Peregrine had different characteristics.

Gloster Meteor (1944-1984).

The end of Peregrine production meant the Whirlwind was a cul-de-sac, the design of the airframe so tied to the characteristics of the engine that thoughts entertained in 1941 of a re-design with Merlin engines were abandoned as the extent of the engineering required became quickly apparent.  It would have been a time-consuming and labor-intensive task and, recovering from the losses incurred in the Battle of Britain, every Merlin-engined Whirlwind would have meant two fewer Spitfires or three fewer Hurricanes.  Westland pursued the idea, later producing a few dozen Welkins which performed well but by then the allies were well-supplied with long-range, high-speed interceptors.  However, the basic concept had proved impressive and the potential was realized in the later de Havilland Hornet (1946), the lineage visible too in the Gloster Meteor, the UK’s first Jet fighter which, having learned lessons from the Whirlwind, used a very different wing shape to lower the landing speed without compromising other aspects of performance.  Although popular with pilots, the Whirlwinds were retired from active service in 1943 before being declared obsolete and scrapped the following year.

Yugoslav Air Force Westland Whirlwind, 1959.

Between 1953-1966 Westland revived the Whirlwind name for a version of the Sikorsky S-55/H-19 Chickasaw, built under license from the US company.  Over four-hundred were produced and they were used by military and civilian operators in a dozen countries.  Although the early versions were underpowered, a switch to turbine engines transformed the Whirlwind and robust, easy to maintain and reliable, it enjoyed a long service with the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm as both a carrier-based anti-submarine platform during the High Cold War and latterly in air-sea rescue, the ability to transport six fully-configured stretchers unique in the UK's military inventory.  In Royal Air Force (RAF) service, the last Whirlwinds weren't retired until 1982.

Détente & Entente

Détente (pronounced dey-tahnt or dey-tahnt (French))

(1) A period of lessening tension between two national powers, or a policy, usually by means of negotiation or agreement, designed to lessen that tension.  A détente is not the resolution of disagreement between the powers but a device to reduce the tensions these disagreements induce.

(2) A term used by historians to describe US foreign policy between the first Nixon administration (1969) and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979).  Détente’s companion word in Russian was разрядка (razryadka) (reduction of tension) 

1912: From the French détente (literally “a loosening or relaxation”), from the Old French destente, a derivative of destendre (to relax; to release), the construct being des- (from the Middle French, from the Old French des-, from the Latin dis-, from the Proto-Italic dwis-, from the primitive Indo-European dwís and cognate with the Ancient Greek δίς (dís) and the Sanskrit द्विस् (dvis), the prefix used variously to convey (1) asunder, apart, in two, part, separate, (2) reversal, removal or (3) utterly, exceedingly.) + tendre (to stretch). A doublet of intent.

The French use was influenced by the Vulgar Latin detendita, the feminine past participle of detendere (loosen, release) and as a political term in the sense of "an easing of hostility or tensions between countries", it became more popular in diplomatic discourse after Russia joined the Anglo-French entente cordiale.  In French, the word dates from the 1680s; the earlier detent was a mechanism that temporarily keeps one part in a certain position relative to that of another, which can be released by applying force to one of the parts.  It was used most in engineering to describe a locking mechanism, often spring-loaded to check the movement of a wheel in one direction, the most obvious example of which is a pulley.  In English it was treated as a French word until it was used to describe a theme in US foreign policy 1969-1979.  In English, the spelling detente is often used; the noun plural is détentes.

Entente (pronounced ahn-tahnt or ahn-tahnt (French))

(1) An arrangement or understanding between two or more nations agreeing to pursue shared interests with regard to affairs of international concern but without concluding a formal binding alliance.

(2) The parties to an entente cordiale collectively.

1844: From the French entente (understanding) from the Old French verb entente (intention) a noun use of the feminine of entent, past participle of entendre (to intend).  Although not all agree, there may have been some influence from the Latin intenta, perhaps perhaps through the substantivized Vulgar Latin past participle intendita, as a variant of intenta.  In English, “the entente” has long been used as verbal shorthand for the Anglo-French entente cordiale (1904), the best known of the many ententes, the first apparently document in 1844.  The noun plural is ententes.

Détente

Until the late 1960s, the word détente was rare except in diplomatic circles or the work of historians.  In the language of diplomacy, it came into use around 1912 when there were (obviously not successful) attempts by Germany and France to reduce tensions which may have given it a bad name although it appears often in the archival records of the League of Nations (1920-1946), something which may further have added tarnish.  The revival came when Dr Henry Kissinger (b 1923; US national security advisor 1969-1973 & secretary of state 1973-1977) was appointed national security advisor by Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), bringing with him a long study of diplomacy and a feeling for the desirability of a “balance of power” between the USSR and US, under which a stable “peaceful co-existence” could be maintained.  The core element of détente was arms-limitation, Kissinger’s idea being there was no surer path to a reduction in tensions than reducing the possibility of conflict escalating to nuclear confrontation.  Kissinger belong to the "power realist" school of thought in political scientist, opposed to the "idealists" who believed in defeating rather than co-existing with opposing ideologies.  As "neo-cons" (neo-conservatives), the idealists would re-emerge in Washington DC in the twenty-first century and the world is still dealing with the implications of their various flings. 

Détente: Dr Henry Kissinger & Dolly Parton, 1985.

There were regular summit meetings too and even Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 worked as a part of détente with the USSR but détente did not fundamentally change the post-war American strategy of containment.  Instead it was a mechanism of pursuing containment in a less confrontational method, offering inducements such as technology transfers or trade agreements in exchange for Soviet restraint in promoting revolutionary movements.  It was never envisaged as a means by which the USSR might be destroyed and Kissinger assumed the Soviet state would endure indefinitely in a stable bi-polar system where each side maintained its own spheres of influence and tended not to trespass too far into the other’s space.  The lure of détente faded after Nixon’s resignation and definitely was over after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 but Ronald Reagan (1912-2004; US president 1981-1989), even before assuming office, had made clear he regarded détente as defeatist, thinking the very existence of the Soviet system (which famously he called an "evil empire") a problem to be solved, not merely managed.  Reagan’s approach was radical; he was the Leon Trotsky (1879–1940; Ukrainian-Russian Marxist revolutionary & theorist murdered by comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) of the West, as opposed to détente as the Fourth Internationalist had been to the essentially similar doctrines of “peaceful co-existence” & “socialism in one state” which power-realist comrade Stalin adopted.

Entente

The Triple Alliance and Triple Entente were diplomatic arrangements formed in Europe in the decades prior to the First World War (1914-1918).  The Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary & Italy was signed in 1882 as a defensive system directed entirely against France.  It was an integral part of the series of treaties and agreements variously negotiated or imposed by Otto von Bismarck (1815-1989; chancellor of the German Empire (the "Second Reich") 1871-1890) and needs to be understood in the way it interacted with other cogs in the Bismarck machine.  That machine, a collection of inter-locking treaties and agreements (some of them secret) worked to further the interests of (1) the German Empire and (2) a general peace in Europe and was a good device in Bismarck’s capable hands but it proved lethal when less competent practitioners (who didn’t fully understand the implications) inherited the tool.  The Triple Entente was between France, Russia and the UK and was formed in 1907; in the narrow technical sense it was not a formal military alliance but an “understanding” between the three to counter the growing power of Germany and the Triple Alliance.  The Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria would become attached to the Triple Alliance with the onset of war although Italy initially remained neutral before (in what would continue to be an Italian tradition) switching sided in 1915 to join the Alliance.  Both the Alliance and the Entente played their parts in the escalating tensions which culminated in the outbreak of hostilities which would trigger the chain reaction of declarations of war.  Had Bismarck still been in Berlin, it’s unlikely things would have been allowed to assume their own momentum.

The 1904 Anglo-French entente cordiale is well-remembered as a set of landmark agreements which resolved a number of long-standing territorial, economic, and strategic points of contention between Britain and France, London and Paris both motivated by their concerns of an increasingly assertive Germany.  From the entente of 1904, lay the winding path to 1914 and all that would follow but the first entente cordiale was concluded in 1844 in the wake of Queen Victoria’s (1819–1901; Queen of the United Kingdom 1837-1901) visit to King Louis-Philippe (1773–1850; King of the French 1830-1848) the year before.  The first British monarch to set foot in France since Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England 1509-1547), the gesture was quite remarkable given that only three years earlier, the two countries had been on the brink of war.  Things had changed, with the removal of the long-serving foreign secretary Lord Palmerston (1784–1865; UK foreign secretary or prime-minister variously 1830-1865), relations rapidly improved, assisted by the warm friendship between the two sovereigns and it was Palmerston’s replacement, Lord Aberdeen (1784–1860;UK foreign secretary or prime-minister variously 1828-1855) who conjured-up the phrase “a cordial good understanding” to which the King of France responded with “une sincère amitié” and a spirit of “cordiale entente”, the latter catching on both sides of the channel.

It was however tentative, the entente cordiale was not an alliance confirmed by a treaty, but a concept, a state of mind which the French foreign minister François Guizot (1787–1874; French foreign minister or prime-minister variously 1840-1848) explained by saying “On certain questions, the two countries have understood that they can agree and act together, without a formal undertaking and without renouncing any aspect of their freedom.”  It was in its early days also administered in a very different way, not between ambassadors or bureaucrats but a kind of informal (an actually quite affectionate) back-channel of private correspondence, unknown to other ministers or monarchs, between the French and British foreign ministers.  It was a successful approach and enabled the resolution of difficulties which might otherwise have become crises, including the right of search on their respective ships to prevent slave trading; protectorates in the Pacific, French intervention in Morocco and many squabbles between ambassadors.  It smoothed out much but wasn’t always popular with others in both countries, most of whom brought up in the more gut-wrenching and combative traditions of preceding centuries.

Portrait of Queen Isabel II and her sister the infanta Luisa Fernanda (circa 1843) by Antonio.

One sensitive question was the famous affair of the Spanish marriages, those of the young Spanish Queen Isabella II (1830-1904) and her sister (Luisa Fernanda 1832–1897), something on which the Paris & London had very different views and a satisfactory compromise seemed at hand when, in 1846, the British government fell and old Lord Palmerston returned, bent on confrontation with Paris.  Guizot loathed Palmerston and with brutal rapidity concluded the Iberian marriages to the advantage of France (both marriages proved miserable but among European royalty happy unions were anyway vanishingly elusive) and with that, the entente cordiale was over.  However, although the warmth of the relationship since has fluxuated, the Royal Navy even sinking some of the French fleet in 1940 to prevent ships falling into German hands, France and Britain have not again been at war.

Tuesday, March 8, 2022

Sequela

Sequela (pronounced si-kwel-uh or si-kwee-luh)

(1) Any abnormal bodily condition or disease related to or arising from a pre-existing disease

(2) Any complication of a disease (technically wrong but widely used).

(3) In general, non-medical usage, the terms sequela and sequelae mean consequence and consequences (rare except in academic writing).

1793: From the Latin sequēla (that which follows, consequence) from sequi (present active infinitive of sequor) (to follow); the plural is sequelae and the original use was in pathology.  From the same root, Middle English gained sequence, a borrowing from the French sequence (a sequence of cards, answering verses).  In Latin the related forms were sequentia (a following) and sequens (following); in English, the most common relation is sequel.

Strangely, in oral use, regardless of the details being described, sequela is used usually in the plural.  A sequela is a pathological condition caused by some previous disease, injury, therapy, or other trauma and, typically but not exclusively, is a chronic condition caused by an earlier and more acute condition.  It is different from, but is a consequence of, the first condition.  In medicine, to be defined as a sequela (rather than what is called “late effect”), the onset of the second condition must happen within a relatively (varies with the nature of the first) short time; an interval of decades would see the second dubbed a “late effect”.  Some conditions may be diagnosed retrospectively from their sequelae; an example is pleurisy and the range of symptoms now collectively referred to in medical slang as “Long COVID” is more correctly described as the “Post-acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC)”.  As nouns, the difference between sequela and complication is that sequela is a condition which is caused by an earlier disease or problem.  A complication is something going wrong; an unfavorable result of a disease, health condition, or treatment.

The Sequelae of COVID-19

The novel virus SARS-CoV-2 caused the COVIS-19 pandemic.  Around the world, a subset of patients who sustain an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection subsequently develop a wide range of persistent symptoms that do not resolve, even over many months; the diagnosis is Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC), the verbal shorthand for which is the more digestible Long COVID.  Thus far, all findings about PASC are inconclusive but it appears individual patients may have one or more underlying biological factors driving their symptoms, none of which need be mutually exclusive.  Potential contributors to PASC include injury to one or multiple organs, persistent reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2 in certain tissues, the induced re-activation of pathogens such as herpesviruses, SARS-CoV-2 interactions with host microbiome communities, clotting or coagulation issues, dysfunctional brainstem or nerve signaling, ongoing activity of primed immune cells and autoimmunity due to molecular mimicry between pathogen and host proteins.

Logo of the Sequela Foundation.

Different PASC symptoms in different patients does imply different therapeutic approaches will likely be required and the identification of individual human genome variants that may augment environment-driven contributions to PASC will contribute to strengthening the effort.  The individualized treatment of PASC will stimulate what was already a growing interest in personalized predictive & preventative medicine.

Monday, March 7, 2022

Farouche

Farouche (pronounced fa-roosh)

(1) Fierce; wild, unpolished.

(2) Sullenly unsociable or shy.

(3) Socially inept.

1760–1770: From the French farouche, from the Old French farouche, faroche & forasche of uncertain origin but which may be related to the Late Latin forāsticus (from without; belonging outside or out of doors (in the sense of not being sufficiently civilized to be welcomed indoors)), a derivative of the adverb and preposition forās (also forīs) ((to the) outside, abroad; out of doors).

In French, the evolution of meaning was organic and included (1) an animal shy of human contact (apprivoiser une bête farouche (to tame a wild beast)), (2) shy, unsociable, retiring, hesitant (un regard farouche (a shy glance)), (3) a women thought distant or unapproachable (Cette femme est bien farouche (this woman is very unapproachable)), (4) stubborn or intransigent, (5) things savage, dangerous & fierce and (6) those whose support is staunch.  Farouchement (fiercely, strongly, bitterly, doggedly, rabidly) is an adverb and the versatile effaroucher (to scare off an animal; figuratively to frighten or alarm somebody; to shock) is a verb.

Lindsay Lohan looking a tad farouche.

The use in French to refer to animals didn’t carry over to English (the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) actually denying the meaning in English doesn’t exist) except among those who like to throw in the odd foreign phrase.  As in French, farouche is used to describe people either habitually difficult or those having a difficult moment and such is the range of application to the human condition that it should be applied with some care, lest misunderstandings occur.  Although farouche can mean “wild, savage or fierce”, it can also mean “unsocial, socially awkward or reticent” while, at the end of the spectrum it can convey the sense of someone merely shy.  So it’s a wide vista and while the breadth is accommodated by the etymology, the Late Latin forāsticus (outsider; belonging outside the house) used in the sense of those lacking the polite manners to be invited into the house, the nuances of use are important.  In the most general sense, in English, farouche is a word for someone thought to be, where pathologically or by whim, an outsider.  For that reason, farouche in English translations needs to be understood in the tradition of French use.  Victor Hugo (1802–1885) in Les Misérables (1862) has Grantaire say “Je suis farouche” (I am farouche) and that's always been translated in the sense of “I am wild”.  In the same novel Enjolras is referred to as an “Antinuous farouche” (a wild Antinous), an allusion to the alluring Greek youth who was something of a companion to Hadrian (76–138; Roman emperor from 117 to 138).  In English, the use is almost exclusively of sullen or difficult people with no connection to beasts of the wild.

Farouche is most often used as an adjective but can be applied as a noun; the noun plural is farouches.  To soften the harshness of the word, most use touches like “a little farouche”, “a tad farouche”, “a bit on the farouche side” or “one of her farouche moments”.  The noun/adverb combination can be handy; farouches bored at dinner noted often farouchely fiddling with their phones.

War

War (pronounced wawr)

(1) A conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air; in the singular, a specific conflict (eg Second Punic War).

(2) A state or period of armed hostility or active military operations.

(3) A contest carried on by force of arms, as in a series of battles or campaigns.

(4) By extension, a descriptor for various forms of non-armed conflict (war on poverty, trade war, war on drugs, war on cancer, war of words etc).

(5) A type of card game played with a 52 card pack.

(6) A battle (archaic).

(7) To conduct a conflict.

(8) In law, the standard abbreviation for warrant (and in England, the county Warwickshire.

Pre 1150: The noun was from the Middle English werre, from the late Old English were, were & wyrre (large-scale military conflict) (which displaced the native Old English ġewinn), from the Old Northern French were & werre (variant of Old French guerre (difficulty, dispute; hostility; fight, combat, war)), from the Medieval Latin werra, from the Frankish werru (confusion; quarrel), from the Old Norse verriworse and was cognate with the Old High German werra (confusion, strife, quarrel), the German verwirren (to confuse), the Old Saxon werran (to confuse, perplex), the Dutch war (confusion, disarray) and the West Frisian war (defense, self-defense, struggle (also confusion).  Root was the primitive Indo-European wers- (to mix up, confuse, beat, perplex) and the Cognates are thought to suggest the original sense was "to bring into a state of confusion”.  The verb was from the Middle English, from the late Old English verb transitive werrien (to make war upon) and was derivative of the noun.  The alternative English form warre was still in use as late as the seventeenth century.

Developments in other European languages including the Old French guerrer and the Old North French werreier.  The Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian guerra also are from the Germanic; why those speaking Romanic tongues turned to the Germanic for a word meaning "war" word is speculative but it may have been to avoid the Latin bellum (from which is derived bellicose) because its form tended to merge with bello- (beautiful).  Interestingly and belying the reputation later gained, there was no common Germanic word for "war" at the dawn of historical times.  Old English had many poetic words for "war" (wig, guð, heaðo, hild, all common in personal names), but the usual one to translate Latin bellum was gewin (struggle, strife (and related to “win”).

Lindsay Lohan making the pages of Foreign Policy (FP), July 2007.  Despite the title, FP’s content is sometimes discursive and popular culture figures can appear.

Foreign Policy (FP) was in 1970 founded by Harvard’s Professor Samuel Huntington (1927-2008) and was always intended to be a clearing house for lively, punchy articles in the field of international relations yet not constrained by formal, academic traditions, exemplified by a magazine like Foreign Affairs, published by the US think-tank the Council on Foreign Relations.  Professor Huntington is best remembered for his “Clash of Civilizations” (CoC, 1993) theory which, noting one of threads in world history of the last 1300-odd years, argued the defining conflict of the future would between Western civilization and the multi-national Islamic world, the old order of wars between nation-states rendered obsolete by changes in technology and geopolitics.  The unusual period at the end of the Cold War (1946-1991) was a time of TLAs (three-letter acronym), the era remembered also for US political scientist Francis Fukuyama’s coining of the “End of History” (EoH, 1992) the thesis being that with Western liberal democracy prevailing over the Soviet communist model, the end-point of humanity’s search of the ideal political and economic systems had been reached and it was that Western liberal democracy which would be the universal form, history in that sense, thus ended.  Unfortunately, since the EoH was declared, wars, if no longer declared, have continued to be waged.

War-time appeared first in the late fourteenth century; the territorial conflicts against Native Americans added several forms including warpath (1775), war-whoop (1761), war-dance (1757), war-song (1757) & war-paint (1826) the last of which came often to be applied to war-mongering (qv) politicians (as in "putting on their war-paint"), a profession which does seem to attract blood-thirsty non-combatants.  War crimes, although widely discussed for generations, were first discussed in the sense of being a particular set of acts which might give rise to specific offences which could be codified in International Law: A Treatise (1906) by LFL Oppenheim (1858–1919).  The war chest dates from 1901 although even then it’s use was certainly almost always figurative; in the distant past there presumably had in treasuries been chests of treasure to pay for armies.  War games, long an essential part of military planning, came to English from the German Kriegspiel, the Prussians most advanced in such matters because the innovative structure of their general staff system.

In English, war is most productive as a modifier, adjective etc and examples include: Types of war: Cold War, holy war, just war, civil war, war of succession, war of attrition, war on terror etc; Actual wars: World War I, Punic Wars, First Gulf War, Korean War, Hundred Years' War, Thirty Years' War, Six-day War etc; Campaigns against various social problems: War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on cancer; The culture wars: War on Christmas, war on free speech; In commerce: Price wars, Cola Wars, turf war; In crime: turf war (also used in conventional commerce), gang war, Castellammarese War; In technology: Bus wars, operating system wars, browser wars; Various: pre-war, post-war, inter-war, man-o'-war, war cabinet, warhead, warhorse, warlord, war between the sexes, war bond, war reparations, war room.

Film set for the War Room in Dr Strangelove (1964).

Pre-war and post-war need obviously to be used in context; “pre-war” which in the inter-war years almost always meant pre-1914, came after the end of WWII to mean pre-1939 (even in US historiography).  “Post-war” tracked a similar path and now probably means the years immediately after WWII, the era generally thought to have ended (at the latest) in 1973 when the first oil shock ended the long boom.  Given the propensity over the centuries for wars between (tribes, cities, kings, states etc) to flare up from time to time, there have been many inter-war periods but the adjective inter-war didn’t come into wide use until the 1940s when it was used exclusively to describe the period (1918-1939) between the world wars.  The phrase “world war”, although tied to the big, multi-theatre conflicts of the twentieth century, had been used speculatively as early as 1898, then in the context of the US returning the Philippines (then a colonial possession) to Spain, trigging European war into which she might be drawn.  “Word War” (referring to the 1914-1918 conflict which is regarded as being “world-wide” since 1917 when the US entered as a belligerent) was used almost as soon as the war started but “Great War” continued to be the preferred form until 1939 when used of “world war” spiked; World War II came into use even before Russian, US & Japanese involvement in 1941.  For as long as there have been the war-like there’s presumably been the anti-war faction but the adjectival anti-war (also antiwar) came into general use only in 1812, an invention of American English, in reference to opposition to the War of 1812, the use extending by 1821 to describe a position of political pacifism which opposed all war.  War-monger (and warmonger) seems first to have appeared in Edmund Spenser’s (circa 1552-1599) Faerie Queene (1590) although it’s possible it may have prior currency.  The warhead was from 1989, used by engineers to describe the "explosive part of a torpedo", the use later transferred during the 1940s to missiles.  The warhorse, attested from the 1650s, was a "powerful horse ridden into war", one selected for strength and spirit and the figurative sense of "seasoned veteran" of anything dates from 1837.  The (quasi-offensive though vaguely admiring) reference to women perceived as tough was noted in 1921.

Man-o'-war (also as man-of-war) was an old form meaning "fighting man, soldier" while the meaning "armed ship, vessel equipped for warfare" was from the late fifteenth century and was one of the primary warships of early-modern navies, the sea creature known as the Portuguese man-of-war (1707) so called for its sail-like crest.  The more common form was “man o' war”.  The Cold War may have started as early as 1946 but certainly existed from some time in 1947-1948; it was a form of "non-hostile belligerency” (although the death–toll in proxy-wars fought for decades on its margins was considerable);  it seems first to have appeared in print in October 1945 in a piece by George Orwell (1903—1950).  The companion phrase “hot war” is actually just a synonym for “war” and makes sense only if used in conjunction with “cold war”.  The cold war was memorably defined by Lord Cherwell (Professor Frederick Lindemann, 1886–1957) as “two sides for years counting their missiles”.

On June 6, 2025, Friedrich Merz (b 1955, German chancellor since 2025) visited the White House.  He mentioned the war!  Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) would have been pleased by that because his aides would repeatedly have told him: “Don’t mention the war!

The chancellor’s reference was to “D-Day”, the Allied amphibious invasion of France on 6 June, 1944 and coincidently, the chancellor was born 11 November 1955, 37 years to the day after the signing of the armistice which ended World War I (1914-1918); the eleventh of November is now marked as “Remembrance Day” in the Commonwealth and “Veterans Day” in the US.  The D-Day invasion was the Allies biggest single combined operation of World War II (1939-1945) and remains the largest triphibious invasion in the history of warfare.  The portmanteau adjective triphibious was a blend of tri-(three) + (am)phibious and referred to the combined use of air, naval and ground forces.  The tri- prefix was from the Latin tri- (three) and the Ancient Greek τρι- (tri-) (three) while amphibious was from the Ancient Greek μφίβιος (amphíbios), the construct being μφί (amphí) (in this context “about, concerning”) + βίος (bíos) (life).  Military historians like triphibious but not all etymologists approve.

A civil war (battles among fellow citizens or within a community (as opposed to between tribes, cities, nations etc)) is civil in the sense of "occurring among fellow citizens" and the term dates from the fourteenth century batayle ciuile (civil battle), the exact phrase “civil war” attested from late fifteenth century in the Latin bella civicus.  In Ancient Rome, the rather nasty squabbles between the Optimates and the Senate Elites were known as bellum civile but should in English be understood as “governance war” because what was being described was a factional power-struggle for the control of Rome rather than a “civil war” as it is now understood.  The instances of what would now be called civil war pre-date antiquity but the early references typically were in reference to ancient Rome where the conflicts were, if not more frequent, certainly better documented.  A word for the type of conflict in the Old English was ingewinn and in Ancient Greek it had been polemos epidemios.

The struggle in England between the parliament and Charles I (1600-1649) has always and correctly been known as the English Civil War (1642-1651) whereas there are scholars who insist the US Civil War (1861-1865) should rightly be called the “War of Secession”, the “war between the States" or the “Federal-Confederate War”.  None of the alternatives ever managed great traction and “US Civil War” has long been the accepted form although, when memories were still raw, if there was ever a disagreement, the parties seem inevitability to have settled on “the War”.  The phrases pre-war and post-war are never applied the US Civil War, the equivalents being the Latin forms ante-bellum (literally “before the war”) and post-bellum (literally “after the war”).  The word “civil” of course is used in other ways and there has rarely be much that in another sense is “civil” about civil wars so when fought in what is thought to be in accordance with the “rules of war”, phrases like “chivalrous war” or “clean war” tend to be used although however fought, wars are a ghastly business are there are simply degrees of awfulness.

Colonel Nasser, president of Egypt, Republic Square, Cairo, 22 February 1958.

During the centuries when rules were rare, wars were not but there was little discussion about whether or not a war was happening.  There would be debates about the wisdom of going to war or the strategy adopted but whether or not it was a war was obvious to all.  That changed after the Second World War when the charter of the United Nations was agreed to attempt to ensure force would never again be used as a means of resolving disputes between nations.  That's obviously not been a success but the implications of the charter have certainly affected the language of conflict, much now hanging on whether an event is war or something else which merely looks like war.  An early example of the linguistic lengths to which those waging war (a thing of which they would have boasted) would go, in the post-charter world, to deny they were at war happened after British, French and Israeli forces in 1956 invaded Egypt in response to Colonel Gamal Nasser's (1918–1970; president of Egypt 1954-1970) nationalization of foreign-owned Suez Canal Company.  The invasion was a military success but it soon became apparent that Israel, France and Britain were, by any standards, waging an aggressive war and had conspired, ineptly, to make it appear something else.  The United States threatened sanctions against Britain & France and the invading forces withdrew.  There's always been the suspicion that in the wake of this split in the Western Alliance, the USSR seized the opportunity to intervene in Hungary which was threatening to become a renegade province.

Suez Canal, 1956.

In the House of Commons (Hansard: 1 November 1956 (vol 558 cc1631-7441631)), the prime minister (Anthony Eden, 1897–1977, UK prime-minister 1955-1957) was asked to justify how what appeared to be both an invasion and an act of aggressive war could be in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations.  Just to jog the prime-minister's memory of the charter, the words he delivered at the UN's foundation conference in San Francisco in 1945 were read out: “At intervals in history mankind has sought by the creation of international machinery to solve disputes between nations by agreement and not by force.”  In reply, Mr Eden assured the house there had been "...no declaration of war by us.", a situation he noted prevailed for the whole of the Korean War and while there was in Egypt clearly "...a state of armed conflict...", just as in Korea, "...there was no declaration of war.  It was never admitted that there was a state of war, and Korea was never a war in any technical or legal sense, nor are we at war with Egypt now."

Quite how the comparison with Korea, a police action under the auspices of the UN and authorized by the Security Council (the USSR was boycotting the place at the time) was relevant escaped many of the prime-minister's critics.  The UK had issued an ultimatum to Egypt regarding the canal which contained conditions as to time and other things; the time expired and the conditions were not accepted.  It was then clear in international law that in those circumstances the country which delivers the ultimatum is not entitled to carry on hostilities without a declaration of war so the question was what legal justification was there for an invasion?  The distinction between a “state of war" and a "state of armed conflict", whatever its relevance to certain technical matters, seemed not to matter in the fundamental question of the lawfulness of the invasion under international law.  Mr Eden continued to provide many answers but none to that question.

The aversion to declaring war continues to this day, the United States, hardly militarily inactive during the last eight-odd decades, last declared war in 1942 (against Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria & Romania, the latter three apparently at the insistence of the state department which identified certain legal technicalities).  There seems no an aversion even to the word, the UK not having had a secretary of state (minister) for war since 1964 and the US becoming (nominally) pacifist even earlier, the last secretary of war serving in 1947; the more UN-friendly “defense” the preferred word on both sides of the Atlantic.  In the Kremlin, Mr Putin (b 1952; prime-minister or president of Russia since 1999) seems also have come not to like the word.  While apparently sanguine at organizing “states of armed conflict”, he’s as reluctant as Mr Eden to hear his “special military operations” described as “invasions” or “wars” and in a recent legal flourish, arranged the passage of a law which made “mentioning the war” unlawful.

Not mentioning the war (special military operation): Mr Putin.

The bill which the Duma (lower house of parliament) & Federation Council (upper house) passed, and the president rapidly signed into law, provided for fines or imprisonment for up to fifteen years in the Gulag for intentionally spreading “fake news” or “discrediting the armed forces”, something which includes labelling the “special military operation” in Ukraine as a “war” or “invasion”.  Presumably, given the circumstances, the action could be described as a “state of armed conflict” and even Mr Putin seems to have stopped calling it a “peacekeeping operation”; he may have thought the irony too subtle for the audience.  Those who post or publish anything on the matter will be choosing their words with great care so as not to mention the war.

However, although Mr Putin may not like using the word “war”, there’s much to suggest he’s a devotee of the to the most famous (he coined a few) aphorism of Prussian general & military theorist Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831): “War is the continuation of policy with other means.  The view has many adherents and while some acknowledge its cynical potency with a weary regret, for others it has been a world view to pursue with relish.  In the prison diary assembled from the huge volume of fragments he had smuggled out of Spandau prison while serving the twenty year sentence he was lucky to receive for war crimes & crimes against humanity (Spandauer Tagebücher (Spandau, the Secret Diaries), pp 451 William Collins Inc, 1976), Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945) recounted one of Adolf Hitler’s (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) not infrequent monologues and the enthusiastic concurrence by the sycophantic Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945):

"In the summer of 1939, On the terrace of the Berghof [Hitler’s alpine retreat], Hitler was pacing back and forth with one of his military adjutants. The other guests respectfully withdrew to the glassed-in veranda.  But in the midst of an animated lecture he was giving to the adjutant, Hitler called to us to join him on the terrace. “They should have listened to Moltke and struck at once” he said, resuming the thread of his thought, “as soon as France recovered her strength after the defeat in 1871.  Or else in 1898 and 1899.  America was at war with Spain, the French were fighting the English at Fashoda and were at odds with them over the Sudan, and England was having her problems with the Boers in South Africa, so that she would soon have to send her army in there.  And what a constellation there was in 1905 also, when Russia was beaten by Japan.   The rear in the East no threat, France and England on good terms, it is true, but without Russia no match for the Reich militarily. It’s an old principle: He who seizes the initiative in war has won more than a battle.  And after all, there was a war on!”  Seeing our stunned expressions, Hitler threw in almost irritably:There is always a war on. The Kaiser [Wilhelm II (1859–1941; German Emperor & King of Prussia 1888-1918)] hesitated too long."

Such epigrams usually transported Ribbentrop into a state of high excitement.  At these moments it was easy to see that he alone among us thought he was tracking down, along with Hitler, the innermost secrets of political action.  This time, too, he expressed his agreement with Hitler with that characteristic compound of subservience and the hauteur of an experienced traveller whose knowledge of foreign ways still made an impression on Hitler.  Ribbentrop’s guilt, that is, did not consist in his having made a policy of war on his own. Rather, he was to blame for using his authority as a supposed cosmopolite to corroborate Hider’s provincial ideas. The war itself was first and last Hitler’s idea and work.  “That is exactly what neither the Kaiser nor the Kaiser’s politicians ever really understood,” Ribbentrop was loudly explaining to everyone.  There’s always a war on. The difference is only whether the guns are firing or not.  There’s war in peacetime too. Anyone who has not realized that cannot make foreign policy.

Hider threw his foreign minister a look of something close to gratitude.  “Yes, Ribbentrop,” he said, “yes!"  He was visibly moved by having someone in this group who really understood him. “When the time comes that I am no longer here, people must keep that in mind.  Absolutely.”  And then, as though carried away by his insight into the nature of the historical process, he went on:Whoever succeeds me must be sure to have an opening for a new war.  We never want a static situation where that sort of thing hangs in doubt In future peace treaties we must therefore always leave open a few questions that will provide a pretext.  Think of Rome and Carthage, for instance. A new war was always built right into every peace treaty. That's Rome for you! That's statesmanship.

Pleased with himself, Hitler twisted from side to side, looking challengingly around the attentive, respectful circle.  He was obviously enjoying the vision of himself beside the statesmen of ancient Rome.  When he occasionally compared Ribbentrop with Bismarck—a comparison I myself sometimes heard him make—he was implying that he himself soared high above the level of bourgeois nationalistic policy.  He saw himself in the dimensions of world history. And so did we.  We went to the veranda.  Abruptly, as was his way, he began talking about something altogether banal."