Coup

Coup (pronounced koo)

(1) A highly successful, unexpected stroke, act, or move; a clever action or accomplishment; a brilliant and successful stroke or action

(2) As count coup, a brave or reckless deed performed in battle by a single warrior, as touching or striking an enemy warrior without sustaining injury oneself (believed specific to the Plains Indians of North America); a blow against an enemy delivered in a way that shows bravery.

(3) A short form for coup d'état, used (1) literally, in the context of a political takeover or overthrow (a putsch) and, (2) by extension, in business, sport, academia etc.

(4) A rubbish tip.

(5) In Scots, to barter; traffic; deal

(6) As (the unrelated) chicken coop (pronounced koop), a construction made up of an outdoor area, a roosting box, a roosting box support, a nesting box, and a garden above the outdoor area.

(7) In roulette, a single roll of the wheel.

(8) In the French card game rouge et noir, a deal.

(9) In the card-game bridge, one of various named strategies employed by the declarer to win more tricks (such as the Bath coup & Vienna coup).

(10) In billiards, the direct pocketing of the cue-ball, which is a foul stroke.

(11) To perform a coup; to recount or relate the coups one has performed.

1350–1400: From the Middle English coupe (to pay for), from the Old Norse kaupa (to buy, barter) and cognate with the Old English cēapian and the German kaufen.  The use in the modern sense of “blow; strike against” emerged in the 1640s and was from the French coup (literally “blow, stroke”) from the twelfth century Old French colp (a blow, strike), from the Medieval Latin colpus, from the Latin colaphus (blow with the fist; a cuff, box on the ear), from the Greek kólaphos (a blow, buffet, punch, slap) of uncertain origin.  In Modern French the word is regarded as a “workhorse”, used variously to describe physical blows from “a pat on the back” to “a serious assault”, gunshots, sudden, dramatic weather events such as claps of thunder or gusts of wind and moves in games including cards & chess.  Depending on the context, the synonyms include action, plot, revolt, revolution, overthrow, stratagem, accomplishment, upset, stroke, exploit, stunt & deed.  Coup, coupist & coupism are nouns; the plural is coups (pronounced kooz (or koo in French)).

A coup de grâce is a “mercy killing”, a final blow or shot delivered to kill a wounded person or animal, the rationale being it "puts them out of their misery".  Some have been notable: When it became clear to the coup plotters that Unternehmen Walküre (Operation Valkyrie, the 20 July 1944 attempt to overthrow Nazi rule, the success of which was predicated on the assassination of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) had failed, a number of the plotters decided to anticipate the inevitable by committed suicide.  Most succeeded but Colonel General Ludwig Beck (1880–1944), pencilled in as head of state in the provisional government, given permission by his captor to take his own life, shot himself in the head (twice according some accounts) but managed only to wound himself.  That might sound like an indictment of the marksmanship in the senior ranks of the Wehrmacht but it transpires not to be unknown in suicide attempts, especially when the weapon is a small calibre pistol loaded with the steel-jacketed bullets used by the military.  An army sergeant delivered Beck the coup de grâce with a single shot.

The meaning “a sudden decisive act” was first used in 1852 as clipping of coup d'etat.  The linguistic gift was the consequence of the coup d'état of 2 December 1851, staged by Charles-Louis Napoléon Bonaparte (1808–1873; first president of France (1848-1852) and (as the Emperor Napoleon III) the last monarch (1852-1870)).  In the narrow technical sense, political scientists often list the event as a “self coup” because he was at the time serving as President of France (the Second Republic) and the appropriately-named Operation Rubicon was a way to ensure his continuation in office, the president, under the constitution, compelled to relinquish office in 1852.  Charles-Louis was a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; leader of the French Republic 1799-1804 & Emperor of the French from 1804-1814 & 1815) who would become known as Napoleon I.  Just to emphasize the imperial connection, the coup was timed to coincide with the anniversary of Napoleon I's victory at the Battle Austerlitz (2 December 1805, the so-called “Battle of the Three Emperors”), one of the great set-piece engagements of the Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815).

Emperor Donald I in his coronation robes, post coup d'etat (digitally altered image).

The sense of history was real but the motive was more Machiavellian.  Le President liked being head of state, was frustrated his agenda had yet to be implemented and the coup took the course familiar in dozens since, dissolving the parliament & vesting the office of president with the power to rule by decree.  Giving a lesson which would be well-learned by later dictators, within days of the coup the president had conducted a constitutional referendum which (carefully counted) approved his actions and by 14 January 1852 a new constitution had been promulgated (replacing the document of 4 November 1848 which had been the founding text of the Second Republic).  However, even enhanced powers (strengthened still further over the next few months) proved insufficient and, with the concurrence of the Sénat (the unelected upper chamber of the national assembly) and another referendum (one in which who counted the votes was of more importance than who voted), on 2 December 1852, Bonaparte proclaimed himself “Emperor of the French” as Napoleon III.  In the French monarchical tradition, he now thought he had a job for life.  Things didn’t quite work out that way but he was for a while a real emperor which is something few presidents get to be.  When he turns off the light at night, it may be that Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) early-morning thoughts turn not to memories of Stormy Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Gregory, b 1979 with whom nothing ever happened) but to Napoleon III.  Were he to follow the business model of 1852, he could be crowned Donald I.

The coup d'état (pronounced koo dey-tahz or ku-deta (French)) is the sudden, unlawful (although this is often retrospectively “fixed”) often violent, decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.  In French, unlike English, the word État (sovereign political entity) is capitalized.  As a political tactic, coup d'état has existed probably since the first forms of government emerged but the phrase is recent, apparently unknown in English prior to 1802 when, finding no better phrase in English to convey the idea, the French form was adopted.  Neither coup d'état nor putsch have ever been defined in international law and tend to be used interchangeably, any variation in use tending to occur according to the linguistic traditions of the country in which the event happens rather than any differences in practice.  Technically, both are any sudden, decisive political act but are usually used to describe an attempt, successful or not, to overthrow a government or leader.  In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état (sometimes truncated to coup) or putsch, does not involve a mass uprising, being instead usually an action where a small group arrests, executes or in some way disposes of incumbent leaders, seizing the institutions of the state and proclaims themselves in power.  That’s the essence of the coup d'état, it’s the takeover of the state, usually by one or more of the constituent institutions of the state.  Debate continues about whether Nacht der langen Messer ((Night of the Long Knives, also called Unternehmen Kolbri (Operation Hummingbird), the bloody purge between 30 June-2 July 1934, when the Nazi regime carried out a number of extrajudicial executions, ostensibly to crush what was referred to as “the Röhm Putsch”) should be called a “pre-emptive” or “preventative” strike.  All the evidence suggests there was no likelihood of a coup in the immediate future but that it wasn’t something which could in the future be thought impossible.  Most settle on “preventative”.

Nice day for a coup d'état.  Air Marshal Perence Shiri (1955-2020, left) and the late Robert Mugabe (1924–2019; prime minister of Zimbabwe 1980-1987, president 1987-2017, right).

Occasionally, there’s the curious case of the military coup where both the soldiers and the deposed deny it was any such thing.  In 2017 the Zimbabwe Army’s high command engineered the “retirement” of Robert Mugabe and most unusually, it was greeted with almost universal local and international approval, despite a consensus that military overthrows are pretty bad form and not to be encouraged.  This was a special case, everyone preferring to welcome the outcome and not dwell too long on the process.  As military coups go, it wasn’t too bad and to smooth the process, Mr Mugabe’s was granted a “severance package” along the lines of that Mr Putin offered to some annoying types: “We know what you’ve stolen over the years but you stole it fair and square so you can keep it but you have to go away and keep quiet.”  Despite the generosity of that, within a few months he was complaining he’d been the “victim of a coup d'état.”

Coups d'état (coup d'états the alternative plural in English) also attract modifiers.  A “colonels' coup” is a military coup in which the dominant players are not from the most senior ranks (ie not the Generals or Admirals).  The classic example was the Greek coup of 21 April 1967 which was staged by literally a number of colonels, the resulting right-wing military dictatorship often dubbed the “Regime of the Colonels”.  In 1973, the generals got their revenge, overthrowing the colonels and in the jargon of political science, a “generals’ coup” is one considered to have been instigated by the military establishment rather than a faction meaning a coup led by only a couple of generals is not a “generals’ coup” but a “military coup” which happens to have been staged by generals.  Political scientists enjoy distinctions like this and they really like “soft-coup” which describes an overthrow which is essentially administrative.  The political demise of both Margaret Thatcher (1925–2013; UK prime-minister 1979-1990) and Jim Bolger (b 1935; prime-minister of New Zealand 1990-1997) were achieved by way of soft-coup, a pack of colleagues assembled to tell the leader they “no longer have the numbers”.  The number of failed soft-coups is legion but, when the first fails, the second often succeeds.  The soft-coup is also a favorite of conspiracy theorists who see in all that is wrong in the world the hand of the “deep state” (or else the Freemasons, the Jews, the Jesuits or the Secret Society of the Les Clefs d’Or).  They're probably right about the Freemasons.

Lindsay Lohan never forgave Hosni Mubarak (1928–2020; president of Egypt 1981-2011) for shouting at Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001).  When told in 2011 he’d fallen from power as one of the victims of the Arab Spring, she responded: “Cool.”  When told it was brought about by a military coup she replied: “Gross!”  Lindsay Lohan doesn’t approve of Coups d'état and believes in due constitutional process.   

A “palace coup” is one staged by those who were already part of the group in power (the word “palace” is thus used here as a synecdoche and there’s not necessarily a physical palace involved).  It’s really the ultimate factional power-play and often used of the (figurative) back-stabbing which tended to be the culmination of the low skulduggery which is a feature of modern democratic politics.  The “self-coup” (also called the auto-coup) is better thought of as a power-grab and involves someone lawfully in power seizing (by non-constitutional or by some means of dubious lawfulness) power from other branches or institutions of government.  Typically, this will involve dissolving legislatures or removing judges.  There are also “failed coups” which often are notable for the bloody (sometimes literal, sometimes figurative depending on where it happens) aftermath, revenge visited upon the plotters (and sometimes their friends, family and other “usual suspects”).  Done properly, the vengeance should be short and sharp (though not necessarily with a low-body count).  In that it differs from a successful coup because in those the settling of scores and elimination of enemies (real and imagined) can drag on from weeks, or in extreme cases, such as the 1973 military coup in Chile, years.

A coup d'essai (literally “stroke of trial”) is a first attempt at something.  A coup de force (literally “stroke of force”) is a sudden violent action.  A coup de foudre (literally “stroke of lightning” is a sudden unforeseen event, the most attractive use of which is the peoetic “love at first sight”).  A coup de glotte (a glottal stop) is a term from phonetics which describes a plosive sound articulated with the glottis (the opening between the true vocal cords which is located in the larynx and affects voice modulation through expansion or contraction).  A coup de main ( literally “stroke of hand”  is a military term meaning “surprise attack” but is sometimes used in other contexts; if successfully executed, it could be said to be a coup de maître (a master stroke).  A coup de poing (literally “stroke of fist”) is persuasion by means of violence (sometimes used loosely of coercion or implied violence); in archaeology it describes a hatchet or hand-axe.  A coup de soleil is an attack of sun-stroke.  A coup de theatre is (1) a sudden or unexpected event in a play (the work either of the author, director or performer) or (2) a theatrical trick, twist or gesture staged for dramatic effect.  A Coup de vent (literally “stroke of wind”) is a whirlwind or other gust of unusual strength.  A coup d'œil (literally “stroke of eye”) is “a comprehensive glance; a general view” which in military use refers to a “rapidly sizing up of a position and estimating its strategic advantages and drawbacks”.

Gestapo

Gestapo (pronounced guh-stah-poh or guh-shtah-poh (German))

(1) A branch of German police under the Nazi regime (1933-1945) comprising various sections.

(2) A critical descriptor of any organ (usually) of a state which to some degree resembles Nazi Gestapo, especially in the brutal suppression of opposition (often initial lower-case).

(3) By extension, any oppressive force, group or tactic.

1933: An abbreviated form of the German Geheime Staatspolizei (the construct being Ge(heime) Sta(ats)po(lizei)); literally “secret state police”.  Gestapo is a proper noun.

A typically German abbreviation

It’s an urban myth that Hugo Boss designed the uniforms of the Gestapo.  The field officers of force didn't wear uniforms and in that sense operated in the manner of police detectives while some administrative (district) staff wore much the same garb as their SS equivalents.  When operating in occupied territories under wartime conditions, Gestapo wore the same field grey as the SS with a few detail differences in the insignia.  Hugo Boss was one of a number of companies contracted to produce the uniforms of the SS (Schutzstaffel (literally "protection squadron" but translated variously as "protection squad", "security section" etc)).  The SS began (under different names) in 1923 as a party organization with fewer than a dozen members and was the Führer's personal bodyguard.  The SS name was adopted in 1925 and during the Third Reich evolved into a vast economic, industrial and military apparatus more than two million strong to the point where some historians (and contemporaries) regarded it as a kind of "state within a state".  Of the SS, that's a more accurate description than of many of the apparatuses of the party and state but it was a feature of the Nazi period (not well-understood until after the war) that the internal dynamic was one of a permanent state of institutional struggle for dominance, reflecting Hitler's world view.  Post-war analysis by economists revealed the extent to which this system created structural inefficiencies.

The meme-makers found Hugo Boss's corporate history hard to resist.

The investigative & operational arms of Gestapo comprised the Sicherheitspolizei (SiPo; Security Police) and the Kriminalpolizei (Kripo; Criminal Police), the final structural shape achieved in 1936 when Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945) was granted control of all police forces in Germany, this having the general effect of formalizing the all forces branches of the Himmler’ apparatus.  It was a reward for Himmler’s role in the Nacht der langen Messer (Night of the Long Knives), also called Unternehmen Kolbri (Operation Hummingbird), the bloody purge between 30 June-2 July 1934, when the regime carried out a number of extrajudicial executions, ostensibly to crush what was referred to as "the Röhm Putsch".  The administrative change was notable for marking the point at which control and enforcement of internal security passed from the state to the party, something reinforced in 1943 when Himmler was appointed Interior Minister.

The Gestapo was in 1946 declared a “criminal organization” by the international Military Tribunal (IMT) conducting the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) and although the idea of an organization being criminal seemed novel to many, there were precedents.  Under the Raj, the British India Act (1836) provided that if a man was proved to be a member of the Thuggee (the Thugs, a group of professional robbers and murderers who strangled their victims), regardless of whether his conduct disclosed any actual offence, he might receive a life sentence with hard labor and in laws were passed in the US declaring the KKK (Ku Klux Klan) criminal, a model used in 1919 by the state of California to outlaw “criminal syndication”.  Under Soviet law, someone could even be deemed a member of some organization, even if they didn’t actually belong to it, something of a Stalinist companion the crime of “unspecified offences”.  Germany too had “a bit of previous” in the approach, the Weimar Republic (1918-1933) making it a crime to belong to any “anti-government secret organization”, in 1923 gazetting the Communist Party, the National Socialist Party (the Nazis) and the German People’s Freedom Party among the proscribed.

Remarkably (commented upon even at the time), the Orpo (Ordnungspolizei (Order Police, the “policemen” in the usual sense of the word)) and the Kripo weren’t included in the indictment on the basis they remain “civilian organizations”.  In the trial, the defense raised a number of technical points about the state of German law operative at the time the events being judged transpired and the court accepted some of these but anyway on 30 September 1946 ruled the Gestapo a criminal organization, thus implicating all members (excluding only some clerical & ancillary staff and those who had ceased to be employed prior to 1 December 1939.  In legal theory, this meant all operational SiPo staff active after 1 December 1939 could individually have been indicted in accordance with the available evidence and the expectation was that at least those most senior or accused of the more serious crimes would have faced trial.  However, there was no follow-up “Gestapo” trial, “punishment” limited to those Gestapo staff held in Allied internment camps, almost all of who were released after three years.  Although the Allied Control Commission (ACC) which administered occupied Germany allowed local courts to conduct trials, the number of Gestapo officers tried was comparatively low and even when convicted, the period spent in detention prior to trial was deducted from their sentence, a convention not extended to the seven sent to Spandau Prison after the main trial.  Only in first the Russian Zone (and later as the German Democratic Republic (GDR)) were many Gestapo officers charged and sentenced, almost all released after 1957.

For the majority, like many Germans they were subject to the “denazification” process, the prize of which was to gain a “Certificate of Exoneration”, a piece of paper which appealed to the famously sardonic Berlin sense of humor, soon dubbed the Persilschein (Percil Certificate), an allusion to the popular washing detergent which promised to make clothes “whiter than white”.  Most Gestapo staff received a Persilschein and many either resumed their employment in the new German state and ultimately were credited for pension purposes with their service during the Nazi years.

Politicians often reference the Nazis when attaching their opponents and "Gestapo" is a popular slur. 

Even before World War II (1939-1945) began, the word "Gestapo" had entered the English language as a synecdoche for “police state tactics” and it was in this sense Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) on 4 June 1945 used the word in a broadcast for the UK general election, warning a Labour government (“the socialists” as he called them) would inevitably create such an apparatus to enforce the myriad of regulations and controls they were proposing:

“….there can be no doubt that socialism is inseparably interwoven with totalitarianism and the abject worship of the state. …liberty, in all its forms is challenged by the fundamental conceptions of socialism. …there is to be one state to which all are to be obedient in every act of their lives. This state is to be the arch-employer, the arch-planner, the arch-administrator and ruler, and the arch-caucus boss.

A socialist state once thoroughly completed in all its details and aspects… could not afford opposition.  Socialism is, in its essence, an attack upon the right of the ordinary man or woman to breathe freely without having a harsh, clumsy tyrannical hand clapped across their mouths and nostrils.

But I will go farther.  I declare to you, from the bottom of my heart that no socialist system can be established without a political police.  Many of those who are advocating socialism or voting socialist today will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them.

No socialist government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently-worded expressions of public discontent.  They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance.  And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil.  And where would the ordinary simple folk — the common people, as they like to call them in America — where would they be, once this mighty organism had got them in its grip?”

Essex man: Clement Attlee at home, mowing the lawn, Stanmore, Essex 19 April 1945.

It was a controversial statement and even many of Churchill’s Conservative Party colleagues distanced themselves from the sentiments.  The man being accused of planning this police state was Clement Attlee (1883–1967; UK prime-minister 1945-1951) who had served as Churchill’s deputy in the National Government (1940-1945) and was one of history’s more improbable figures to be painted an incipient totalitarian.  The electorate wasn’t persuaded and in the 1945 election Labour won a huge majority of seats in what is described as a “landslide” although the numbers are distorted by the UK’s “first-past-the-post” system; Labour gathered well under half the votes cast but that pattern has subsequently been typical of UK elections and in 1951 the Conservatives actually returned to office despite Labour out-polling them.  Attlee had responded to Churchill’s speech the next day:

“The Prime Minister made much play last night with the rights of the individual and the dangers of people being ordered about by officials.  I entirely agree that people should have the greatest freedom compatible with the freedom of others.  There was a time when employers were free to work little children for sixteen hours a day.  I remember when employers were free to employ sweated women workers on finishing trousers at a penny halfpenny a pair.  There was a time when people were free to neglect sanitation so that thousands died of preventable diseases.  For years every attempt to remedy these crying evils was blocked by the same plea of freedom for the individual.  It was in fact freedom for the rich and slavery for the poor.  Make no mistake, it has only been through the power of the state, given to it by Parliament, that the general public has been protected against the greed of ruthless profit-makers and property owners. The Conservative Party remains as always a class party.  In twenty-three years in the House of Commons, I cannot recall more than half a dozen from the ranks of the wage earners.  It represents today, as in the past, the forces of property and privilege.  The Labour Party is, in fact, the one party which most nearly reflects in its representation and composition all the main streams which flow into the great river of our national life.”

Synecdoche

Synecdoche (pronounced si-nek-duh-kee)

In the study of rhetoric, a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part, the special for the general or the general for the special; a member of the figurative language set, a group which includes metaphors, similes and personification; it describes using part of a whole to represent the whole.

Late 1400s: As a "figure of speech in which a part is taken for the whole or vice versa," synecdoche is a late fifteenth century correction of the late fourteenth century synodoches, from the Medieval Latin synodoche, an alteration of the Late Latin synecdochē, from the Ancient Greek συνεκδοχή (sunekdokhḗ) (the putting of a whole for a part; an understanding one with another (and literally "a receiving together or jointly" (ekdokhē the root of interpretation)) from synekdekhesthai (supply a thought or word; take with something else, join in receiving).  The construct was syn- (with) + ek (out) + dekhesthai (to receive), related to dokein (seem good) from the primitive Indo-European root dek- (to take, accept).  The construct of the Greek form was σύν (sún) (with) + ἐκ (ek) (out of) + δέχεσθαι (dékhesthai) (to accept), this final element related to δοκέω (dokéō) (to think, suppose, seem).  The alternative spellings syndoche & synechdoche are rare.  Synecdoche, synecdochization & synecdochy are nouns, synecdochic & synecdochical are adjectives, synecdochize is a verb and synecdochically is an adverb; the noun plural is synecdoches.  

Synecdoche vs. Metonymy

It’s one of those places in English where rules or descriptions overlap and it's easy to confuse synecdoche and metonymy because they both use a word or phrase to represent something else (and there are authorities which classify synecdoche as merely a type of metonymy although this appals the more fastidious).  Technically, while a synecdoche takes an element of a word or phrase and uses it to refer to the whole, a metonymy replaces the word or phrase entirely with a related concept.  Synecdoche and metonymy have much in common and there are grey areas: synecdoche refers to parts and wholes of a thing, metonymy to a related term. The intent of synecdoche is usually either (1) to deviate from a literal term in order to spice up everyday language or (2) a form of verbal shorthand.  In the discipline of structural linguistics, it's noted the distinction is between using a part to represent the whole (pars pro toto, from the Latin, the construct being pars (part) + prō (for) + tōtō, the ablative singular of tōtus (whole, entire)) or using the whole to represent a part (totum pro parte , from the Latin, the construct being tōtum (whole) + prō (for) + parte, the ablative singular of pars (part)).

The Pentagon, Arlington County, Virginia, USA.  Advances in technology have made the site vulnerable to long-range attacks as early as the 1950s and many critical parts of the military's administration are now located elsewhere.  After construction ended in 1943, for some 80 years the Pentagon was (in terms of floor area) the world's largest office building.  It's place on this architectural pecking order has since been supplanted by the Surat Diamond Bourse in Gujarat, India, opened in 2023.

Forms of Synecdoche

(1) A part to represent a whole: The word "head" can refer to counting cattle or people; hands for people on a specific job or members of a crew etc.

(2) A whole to represent a part: The word "Pentagon", while literally a very big building, often refers to the few decision-making generals who comprise the Joint Chiefs of Staff or more generally, the senior ranks of the US military.  However, the use of "the White House" (a smaller building) operates synecdochically to refer to "the administration" rather than "the president" and while it should be reasonable to assume some interchangeably, under both Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021), it's been not uncommon to hear "the White House" being quoted "clarifying" (ie correcting" something said by the president .    

(3) A synecdoche may use a word or phrase as a class to express more or less than the word or phrase actually means: The USA is often referred to as “America” although this is a term from geography while "USA" is from political geography.  The word "crown" is often used to refer to a monarch or the monarchy as a whole but in some systems (notably the UK and Commonwealth nations which retain the UK's monarch as their head of state) the term "The Crown" is a synecdoche for "executive government".  

(4) Material representing an object: Cutlery and flatware is often (and often erroneously) referred to as "silver" or "silverware" even though there may not be a silver content in the metal although, "silver" being also a term referencing a color, the use is thought acceptable.

(5) A single (acceptable) word to suggest to the listener or reader another (unacceptable) word; commonly used as a linguistic work-around of NSFW (not suitable for work) rules on corporate eMail or other systems: “crock” or “cluster” are examples, pointing respectively to “crock of shit” and “cluster-fuck”.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Vagina & Vulva

Vagina (pronounced vuh-jahy-nuh)

(1) In anatomy & zoology, in many female mammals, the moist, tube-shaped canal part of the reproductive tract which runs from the cervix of the uterus through the vulva (technically between the labia minora) to the outside of the body.

(2) In botany, the sheath formed by the basal part of certain leaves where they embrace the stem.

(3) A sheath-like part or organ (now rare even in technical literature).

(4) In colloquial (and now general) use, the vulva, or the vulva and vaginal passage collectively.

(5) In derogatory colloquial use, an un-masculine man; a weakling (now rare, “pussy” the preferred modern term).

1675-1685: A creation of Medical Latin, a learned borrowing of the Latin vāgīna.  As used in anatomy, the seventeenth century coining was a specialized application of the Latin vāgīna (a sheath, scabbard; a covering, holder; sheath of an ear of grain, hull, husk) of uncertain origin, the suggestion by some etymologists it may have been cognate with the Lithuanian vožiu & vožti (to cover with a hollow thing) dismissed by others as “speculative” or even “gratuitous proposal”.  The use in medicine is exclusive to modern science, the Latin word not used thus during Antiquity.  Vagina is a noun, vaginal & vaginalike are adjectives, vaginally is an adverb; the noun plural is vaginas or vaginae (the old spelling vaginæ is effectively extinct); the part of the anatomy used for copulation & childbirth in female mammals and a similar organ exists in some invertebrates.

The vluva and vagina have for centuries attracted the coining of slang terms, not all of them derogatory.  Borrowed from zoology, "camel toe" directly references the vulva's labia majora. 

In idiomatic use “vaginamoney” is (often embittered) slang for alimony, child support etc, money paid by men to ex-partners after the sundering of a relationship.  One slang form which may not survive is "hairy check book" (cheque book outside the US) because (1) checks are declining in use and (2) body-hair fashions have changed.  In psychiatry, the condition vaginaphobic describes “a fear of or morbid aversion to vaginas) and vaginaphile (an admiration for vaginas) is listed by only some dictionaries which is surprising given authors are so often given to write about them and painters are drawn to painting them (in the sense of oil on canvas etc although there’s doubtless a niche for applying paint directly).  Dating from 1908, the term “vagina dentata” entered psychiatry and its popularization is usually attributed Austrian psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) although this perception may be attributable to Freud’s works being better known and more widely read, the term used by many in the profession.  The Latin vagina dentata (toothed vagina) referenced the folk mythology in which a woman's vagina contained teeth, the implication being a consequence of sex might be emasculation or at least severe injury.  The tale was also used as a warning about having sex with unknown women and as a way of discouraging rape.  The vivid imagery of a vagina dentata (in somewhat abstract form) was used by the US military as a warning about the dangers of STIs (sexually transmitted infection (once known as sexually transmitted diseases (STD) & VD (venereal disease).  Some writers have speculated on what this revealed about Freud and his much discussed understanding of women.

Vulva (pronounced vuhl-vuh)

(1) The external female genitalia of female mammals (including the labia, mons veneris, clitoris and vaginal orifice.

(2) In helminthology, a protrusion on the side of a nematode (multivulva used to describe a phenotype of nematode characterized by multiple vulvas).

(3) In arachnology, the spermatheca and associated ducts of the female reproductive system (also known as internal epigyne or internal genitalia).

(4) An internal genital structure in female millipedes (known also as the cyphopod).

Late 1300s: A learned borrowing from the Latin vulva, from the earlier volva (womb, female sexual organ) (perhaps in the literal sense of a “wrapper”), from volvere (to turn, twist, roll, revolve (also “turn over in the mind”)), probably from volvō (to turn, to roll, to wrap around), from the primitive Indo-European root wel- (to turn, revolve), the derivatives referring to curved, enclosing objects.  In the 1970s, when Volvo automobiles weren’t noted for their precise handling, journalists enjoyed noted the translation of the Latin volvō as: “I roll”.   It was akin to the Sanskrit उल्ब (úlba) (womb).  The adjectives vulvalike (also vulva-like) & vulviform both describe objects or designs having the shape of a vulva.  Vulva is a noun, vulval, vulvaless, vulviform, vulvar, vulvate & vulvic are adjectives; the noun plural is vulvas, vulvae or vulvæ.

Ms Gillian Anderson’s “vagina dress”

Gillian Anderson, Golden Globes award ceremony 2024.

There’s nothing novel in the critical deconstruction of the dresses worn on red carpets but the one worn at the 2024 Golden Globe ceremony by actor Gillian Anderson (b 1968) also attracted the attention of word nerds.  Designed by Gabriela Hearst (b 1976), the strapless, ivory corset gown was embroidered with individually stitched embellishments in the shape of vulvas, each of which absorbed some 3½ hours of the embroider’s time.  In an allusion to her sexual wellness brand (G spot), when interviewed, Ms Anderson said she wore the piece: “…for so many reasons. It’s brand appropriate.”  The response in the press and on-line appeared to be (mostly) positive but what did attract criticism was the widespread use of “vagina” to describe the designs, a descriptor used even by Ms Anderson herself.  The more strident of the critics seemed to detect sexual politics in what they claimed was anatomical imprecision, the implication being this lack of respect for gynaecological terminology was casual misogyny; doubts were expressed that anyone would dare confuse a scrotum with the testicles.

Anatomical diagram (left) 1958 Edsel (centre) and the detail on Gabriela Hearst's gown (right).  Although Ms Anderson probably didn't give the 1958 Edsel a thought, it does illustrate why her use of "vagina" to describe the embroidered motifs is defensible.

The pedants are correct in that technically the “vulva” describes on the external portion of the genitalia that leads to the vagina; the vulva including the labia majora, labia minora, and clitoris.  The labia is also a complex structure which includes the labia majora (the thick, outer folds of skin protecting the vulva’s internal structure) and the labia minora (the thin, inner folds of skin directly above the vagina).  However, for almost a hundred years, the term “vagina” has widely been used to refer to the vulva and has come to function as a synecdoche for the entire female genitalia and so prevalent has the use become that even medical professionals use “vagina” thus unless great precision is required.  Still, given Ms Anderson’s brand is concerned with such matters, perhaps the historically correct use might have been better but the actor herself noted “…it has vaginas on it” so linguistically, her proprietorial rights should be acknowledged.

The Edsel, the grill and the myths

1958 Edsel Citation convertible.

Although it went down in industrial history as one of capitalism’s most expensive failures, objectively, Ford Motor Corporation’s Edsel really wasn’t a dramatically worse car than the company’s companion brands Ford & Mercury.  Indeed that was one of the reasons for the failure in the market; sharing platforms, engines, transmissions, suspension and some body parts with Fords & Mercurys, the thing simply lacked sufficient product differentiation.  That sharing of components (and assembly plants; Ford sending the Edsels down the existing production lines in the same factories) also makes it hard to believe the often quoted US$300 million (between US$2.5-3 billion expressed in 2024 values) Ford booked as a loss against the abortive venture as anything but an opportunity taken by the accountants to dump all the bad news in one go, certain taxation advantages also able to be gained with this approach. 

1959 Edsel Corsair two-door hardtop.

The very existence Edsel was owed to a system devised by Alfred P Sloan (1875–1966) while president of General Motors (GM).  Sloan is now mostly forgotten by all but students of industrial & economic history but he was instrumental in the development some of the concepts which underpinned the modern economy including frequent product changes (for no functional purpose), planned obsolescence and consumer credit.  What the Sloan system did was provide GM’s customers with a “status ladder” in which the company could produce a range of products (with substantial cross-amortization) at price points which encouraged them to “step up” to the next level as their disposable income increased.  At one point, GM’s brand-range had nine rungs but the Great Depression of the 1930s necessitated some pruning and what eventually emerged was a five rung system: Chevrolet, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick & Cadillac.  In the 1950s, when the US economy enjoyed the unusual conjunction of rising incomes, stable prices and a remarkably (by both historic and contemporary standards) small disparity between the wealth of the rich and poor, this produced the swelling middle class which was the target market for most consumer products and certainly those on the Sloan ladder.  Ford had in 1938 added a rung when the Mercury brand was spliced between Ford and Lincoln but in the mid 1950s, the MBAs convinced the company the Sloan system was the key to GM’s lead in the market and they too re-structured the company’s products into five rungs: Ford, Mercury, Edsel, Lincoln & Continental.  Actually, in a harbinger, the loss-making Continental Division lasted barely a season, folded into Lincoln before the Edsel debuted for the 1958 model year but the MBAs kept the faith.

It turned out to be misplaced although in fairness to them, the circumstances in 1958 were unfortunate, a short but sharp recession shocking consumers who had become accustomed to growth and stability, believing that such unpleasantness belonged to the pre-war past.  The Edsel never recovered.  Although sales in 1958 were disappointing, given the state of the economy, it could have been worse but Ford’s market research (focus groups a thing even then) had identified problems and in response toned down the styling and moved the brand down-market, notionally to sit between Ford & Mercury, a gap which in retrospect didn’t exist.  Sales dropped that year by about a third and the writing was on the wall, although surprising many, a pared-down Edsel range was released for 1960 using Ford’s re-styled bodies but it seemed not many were fooled and fewer than 3000 left the factory before late in 1959 the end of the brand was announced.

1960 Edsel Ranger Sedan.

Really little more than a blinged-up Ford, the Edsel failed because for such a "hyped" product it was a disappointment and in that it can be compared to something like the administration of Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017).  Barack Obama was not a bad president and he didn’t lead a bad government, indeed most objective analysts rate his term as “above average” but he disappointed because he promised so much, the soaring rhetoric (“highfalutin nonsense” as the press baron Lord Beaverbrook (1879-1964) would have put it) which offered hope and change never realized.  There was also the Elsel’s styling.  There was much clumsiness in the detailing (although the whole US industry was similarly afflicted in 1958) but the single most polarizing aspect was the vertical grill assembly, controversial not because it was a regression to something which had become unfashionable in the “longer, lower, wider” era but because of the shape which to some suggested a woman’s vulva.  Many said that (some preferring “vagina” or “genitalia”) though in those more polite times some publications were reluctant to use such language in print and preferred to suggest the grill resembled a “toilet seat” although that was (literally) a bit of a stretch (and Chrysler's Virgil Exner (1909–1973) was already applying them to trunk lids); more memorable was Time magazine’s “an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon”.

1958 Edsel (left) and 1958 Oldsmobile (right).  One can see why someone at Time magazine thought of "an Oldsmobile sucking a lemon".

1958 Edsel Bermuda “Woody” station wagon.  The “woody” nickname was applied to the station wagons from all manufacturers although after the early 1950s the “wood” was a combination of fibreglass and the DI-NOC plastic appliqué.  The look was intended to evoke the look of the partially timbered-bodied station wagons in production until the early 1950s (Chrysler in the 1960s even did a few convertibles recalling earlier models) and in the US the look lasted until the 1990s.  Ford’s attempt in the 1960s to tempt British & Australian buyers with the charms of DI-NOC proved unsuccessful.

As much as the sedans and convertibles, the Edsel station wagons were just as unwanted.  The Bermuda station wagon was offered only for the 1958 model year and it managed sales of only 2,235, 779 the nine-seater version with an additional row of seating in the rear section, a configuration which was always popular with US buyers in the era before mini-vans and SUVs.  The three-row Bermuda was the rarest of the 1958 Edsels but collectors still price them below the convertibles.  If the vulva-themed front end was confronting, there was a strangeness too at the rear, the turn-indicator lights in the shape of an arrow, a traditional symbol to indicate the intended direction of travel but bizarrely, the Edsel’s arrows pointed the opposite direction, something necessitated by the need to blend the shape with that of the body’s side moldings.

Shturmovik

Shturmovik (pronounced sturm-oh-vic)

The Russia word used to mean “Ground Attack Aircraft”.

1939-1941: From the Cyrillic штурмовик (shturmovík) which in English is written sometimes as the simplified (phonetic) Stormovik or Sturmovik.  The word is a shortened form of Bronirovanni Shturmovik (Bsh) (armed stormtrooper) and was the generic term in Russia for aircraft designed for this role; in English it was a synecdoche for the Ilyushin Il-2.

A flight of Ilyushin Il-2s.

The definitive Shturmovik was the Илью́шин Ил-2 (Ilyushin Il-2), a remarkable platform which provided a template for future airframes of its type.  Over 36,000 were produced, an all-time record for combat aircraft and one more impressive still if the 7000-odd of its closely related successor (Ilyushin Il-10) are included, the family total thus close to 43,000.  Although not as ascetically unhappy as the infamously ungainly French bombers of the era, the Il-2 was not a delicate, elegant thing in the style of something like the Supermarine Spitfire or a muscular form like the North American P-51 Mustang and one popular nickname adopted by the Soviet infantry viewing from below was “hunchback” although those better acquainted with its construction and purpose preferred “Flying Tank”.

The idea of “flying tank” is a useful one to explore.  Many theorists in the early 1930s had advocated the use of low-altitude aircraft, flying at relatively slow speeds as the most effective weapon which could deliver ordinance with sufficient accuracy to neutralize tanks and other armored vehicles in battlefield conditions.  That implied the need for an airframe to both carry heavy weaponry and sufficient armor to resist attack from the ground and air, a combination judged impossible to produce because the engines at the time lack the power needed for such heavy machine.  The engines did during the 1930s became more powerful but the conceptual breakthrough was in the design of the airframe.  Previously, designers had done essentially what the nineteenth century naval architects did to make the early “ironclads”: attach additional metal plates over an existing lightweight structure.  Even at sea that limited performance but did (for a while) make the craft close to impregnable; it couldn’t however produce a military aircraft with its need for specific performance over different ranges.  The solution was to make the armor an integral part of the shell, protecting the crew, engine and fuel tank, the weight of this central unit some 700 kg (1540 lb), a number offset by not having also to support the weight of a conventional fuselage, the steel part of that having little supporting structure inside, the armor used as a structural member.  It was an approach which in the post-war years would be implemented in cars as the “safety-cell”, the central passenger compartment onto which the other components would be added.

Ilyushin Il-2 with 37 mm ShFK-37 cannons.

Early in July 1941, some two weeks into Operation Barbarossa (the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union), the Wehrmacht (the German armed forces) first became aware of the Shturmovik which initially they compared to the Luftwaffe’s (the German air force) Junkers Ju 87 (Stuka) dive-bomber which had been such an effective ground-forces support weapon in the conquest of Poland and then Western Europe, its limitations not exposed until it was deployed in the early days of the Battle of Britain (July-October 1940).  The Ju 87 could support a heavier bomb-load than the Il-2 but, equipped with automatic cannons, rockets, machine guns, and bombs, the Russian aircraft was much more lethal.  The Germans however quickly identified the weak points and that most had been rushed into service with pilots provided with neither adequate training or the tactics needed to protect each other in flight, especially during attacking runs.  Moreover, they lacked the optical sights needed accurately to aim their weapons and while the thick armor surrounded the pilot and engine, the structure behind the cockpit was plywood, highly susceptible to damage (tail-gunners suffered a death rate seven times that of the pilots because the gunner’s portion of the airframe was mostly of plywood).

Literally hundreds of Il-2s were lost to anti-aircraft fire or attacks by fighters, usually from the rear during bombing runs but, defying the expectations had infected the highest levels of the German political and military command, the Soviets were able to make good their losses of Shturmoviks and pilots, just as they were able to re-equip armored divisions with tanks, exceeding the capacity of the Germans ability to destroy formations.  As the war proceeded, the Shturmoviks increasingly came in waves and although the attrition remained high (the losses at a rate other allied forces would never have countenanced), the sheer weight of numbers meant the Soviets could overwhelm what were increasingly numerically inferior formations.  Noting the robustness of the Il-2, the Germans nicknamed them Betonflugzeug (concrete plane), acknowledging the ability to absorb punishment; others preferred Der Schwarze Tod (the Black Death).  The ability of the Soviet industrial machine to first maintain and later vastly increase production of things like aircraft and tanks was because of decisions taken by the Germans during the 1930s which afforded priority to create an air-force best suited to supporting brief, high-intensity conflicts (which came to be known as blitzkrieg (lightning war), thus the mass-production of small dive-bombers, medium-range light bombers and fighters rather than long-range strategic, heavy bombers.  As the Soviets moved their plant & equipment eastward (itself a remarkable achievement), the factories became immune from air attack as they were beyond the range of the Luftwaffe.  However, as the German advance stalled, production in Moscow resumed, increasing the available numbers and innovations appeared, one prototype even tested with a flame-thrower mounted in the nose.

Red Army Air Force Yakovlev Yak 9B dropping PTABs.

Another innovation first delivered by the Shturmovik was the Protivo-Tankovaya Avia Bomba (Anti-Tank Air-Bomb; the PTAB), one of the predecessors of modern cluster munitions and similar in concept to the contemporary German two-kilogram Sprengbombe Dickwandig (SD-2) (butterfly-bomb).  In Mid-1943, knowing the Wehrmacht’s Unternehmen Zitadelle (Operation Citadel) against Soviet forces in the Kursk salient was imminent, the Russians stockpiled the PTABs, producing almost a million of the 2 Kg devices, designed specifically so a Shturmovik could carry almost 200, each with a “shaped charge” warhead able to penetrate the armor of even the best protected tanks.  The battle of Kursk (July 1943) was the biggest tank engagement ever fought and for days some 8000 tanks (3000 German, 5000 Soviet) ranged around a vast battlefield of swirling heat, dust and death and although visibility at times restricted the use of air-power, the PTAB equipped Shturmoviks damaged or immobilized a verified 419 enemy vehicles.

RAF Hawker Hurricane IID with a 40mm Vickers anti-tank cannon fitted under each wing.  The pilots noted the "tank buster" moniker but preferred "Flying Can Openers".

The Shturmovik concept was quickly adopted by other air forces and one was rapidly improvised by the UK’s Royal Air Force to counter the threat posed by tanks in the North African campaign.  By 1941 it was apparent the Hawker Hurricane was no longer suitable in its original role as an interceptor and fighter but it was a robust, reliable and easily serviced platform and it proved adaptable to the ground attack role.  By early 1942 deliveries had begun of the Mark IID Hurricane and equipped with a pair of under-wing mounted 40mm (1.6 inch) canon, it proved an effective counter to the Africa Corps’ tanks in the Western Desert as well as fulfilling a similar role in the Burma theatre against the even more vulnerable Japanese armor; in both places they were dubbed, with some accuracy: “tank busters”.  The effect of the 40 mm canons was such that when fired, they perceptibly slowed the plane in flight but pilots learned techniques to compensate.  So convincing were the results that a generation of heavy fighters either designed for or able to be adapted for the purpose, Hawker’s Typhoon & Tempest and Republic’s huge P-47 Thunderbolt all as famed as “tank busters” as for any other part they played in the war, especially noted for their role in the development of air-to-ground rockets.

Lindsay Lohan in body armor.

Despite progress, notably the use of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, often casually referred to as “drones”) Shturmoviks have remained an important component of military inventories and some years after the end of the First Gulf War (1990-1991), one of the first conspiracy theories to appear on the then novel WorldWideWeb concerned them.  It was claimed a study the Pentagon conducted (using as targets Iraqi tanks abandoned in the Kuwaiti desert) concluded blocks of concrete dropped from aircraft were just as accurate as bombs as well as being cheaper and easier to produce, while equally effective in disabling a tank.  The conspiracy theory claimed that suggestions the concept be pursued was vetoed by the “military-industrial complex” which made much money out of building anti-tank bombs.