Combat of Deining, 22 August 1796

Combat of Deining, 22 August 1796


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Combat of Deining, 22 August 1796

The combat of Deining (22 August 1796) was the first of two delaying actions fought by General Bernadotte which gave General Jourdan and the Army of the Sambre-and-Meuse a chance to escape from a dangerous position on the River Naab. Jourdan had crossed the Rhine in July 1796 and had followed the retreating Austrian army of General Wartensleben up the Main, then to Nuremburg and finally east to the banks of the River Naab. Wartensleben had been retreating in order to give the Archduke Charles, the overall Austrian commander, a chance to combine his armies and defeat the two French armies invading Germany one by one. In late August the Archduke's plan began to pay off. On 16 August he left the Danube at Neuburg and Ingolstadt and moved north towards Neumarkt.

When Jourdan advanced east to the Naab he left General Bernadotte to guard his right-rear at Neumarkt. As the Archduke approached his position, Bernadotte realised that he was badly outnumbered – the Archduke left the Rhine with 24 battalions of infantry and 50 squadrons of cavalry, while Bernadotte only had 6,000 infantry and 1,200 cavalry. Despite this weakness he decided to conduct a fighting retreat in an attempt to give Jourdan a chance to retreat from the Naab along the best route, which led back to Nuremburg. On 21 August Jourdan was sixty miles east of Nuremburg, while Bernadotte was only twenty file miles south east of the city.

Bernadotte took up a position at Deining, where the road from Regensburg to Neumarkt crosses the White Laber (a small river that flows south from Neumarkt, joining the Altmühl at Dietfurt. At Deining the Laber runs through a steep sided but fairly shallow valley giving the French a good defensive position. The village of Deining is on the eastern bank of the Laber, while the French took up a position on the hills to the west.

The Archduke advanced carefully towards the French position. On 22 August the French were pushed out of their advance posts in Deining quite easily, and the Archduke then ordered General Hotze to cross the Laber. At this point Bernadotte launched a counterattack, and pushed the Austrians back out of the village.

This French success was short-lived. The Archduke called up reinforcements, and then pushed Bernadotte's division back out of the village and the valley. Bernadotte then retreated north-west to Neumarkt and took up a new defensive position on the wooded hills north of the town. On the following day the Austrians forced him to retreat again (combat of Neumarkt, 23 August 1796). On the same day Jourdan began his retreat from the Naab, but despite Bernadotte's efforts the Archduke was able to catch the French close to the Naab (battle of Amberg, 24 August 1796), inflicting the first of a series of defeats that forced Jourdan to retreat back to the Rhine.

Napoleonic Home Page | Books on the Napoleonic Wars | Subject Index: Napoleonic Wars


Military

A military, also known collectively as armed forces, is a heavily armed, highly organized force primarily intended for warfare. It is typically officially authorized and maintained by a sovereign state, with its members identifiable by their distinct military uniform. It may consist of one or more military branches such as an army, navy, air force, space force, marines, or coast guard. The main task of the military is usually defined as defence of the state and its interests against external armed threats.

In broad usage, the terms armed forces and military are often treated as synonymous, although in technical usage a distinction is sometimes made in which a country's armed forces may include both its military and other paramilitary forces. There are various forms of irregular military forces, not belonging to a recognized state though they share many attributes with regular military forces, they are less often referred to as simply military.

A nation's military may function as a discrete social subculture, with dedicated infrastructure such as military housing, schools, utilities, logistics, hospitals, legal services, food production, finance, and banking services. Beyond warfare, the military may be employed in additional sanctioned and non-sanctioned functions within the state, including internal security threats, population control, the promotion of a political agenda, emergency services and reconstruction, protecting corporate economic interests, social ceremonies and national honour guards. [1]

The profession of soldiering as part of a military is older than recorded history itself. [2] Some of the most enduring images of classical antiquity portray the power and feats of its military leaders. The Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC was one of the defining points of Pharaoh Ramses II's reign, and his monuments commemorate it in bas-relief. A thousand years later, the first emperor of unified China, Qin Shi Huang, was so determined to impress the gods with his military might that he had himself buried with an army of terracotta soldiers. [3] The Romans paid considerable attention to military matters, leaving to posterity many treatises and writings on the subject, as well as many lavishly carved triumphal arches and victory columns.


Plans Edit

The French planned an invasion of southern Germany in 1796. General of Division (MG) Jourdan with the Army of Sambre-et-Meuse would advance from the middle Rhine while MG Jean Moreau would cross the river farther south with the Army of Rhin-et-Moselle. Jourdan held a bridgehead over the Rhine at Neuwied while MG Jean-Baptiste Kléber commanded his left wing based on an entrenched camp at Düsseldorf. Moreau's army comprised 71,581 infantry and 6,515 cavalry. He organized these into a Right Wing under MG Pierre Ferino, a Center led by MG Louis Desaix, and a Left Wing commanded by MG Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr. [1]

Field Marshal Archduke Charles commanded the Army of the Lower Rhine. Charles and his deputy, Feldzeugmeister (FZM) Wilhelm von Wartensleben faced Jourdan along the Lahn River. This stream flows in a southwesterly direction into the Rhine near Koblenz. To the south, FZM Maximilien, Count Baillet de Latour positioned his Army of the Upper Rhine to defend against Moreau. [ citation needed ]

June operations Edit

On 4 June 1796, 11,000 soldiers of the Army of the Sambre-et-Meuse, under François Lefebvre pushed back a 6,500-man Austrian force at Altenkirchen, north of the Lahn. On 6 June, the French placed Ehrenbreitstein Fortress under siege. At Wetzlar on the Lahn, Lefebvre ran into Charles' concentration of 36,000 Austrians on 15 June. Casualties were light on both sides, but Jourdan pulled back to Niewied while Kléber recoiled toward Düsseldorf. Feldmarschal-Leutnant (FML) Pál Kray's 30,000 soldiers bested Kléber's 24,000 at Uckerath east of Bonn on 19 June, prompting the Frenchman to continue his withdrawal to the north. [2]

Meanwhile, operations of the Army of the Rhin-et-Moselle progressed more successfully for the French. On the 15th, Desaix and 30,000 French troops defeated FML Franz Petrasch's 11,000 Austrians at Maudach near Speyer. The French suffered 600 casualties while Austrian losses were three times as heavy. [3] Part of Moreau's army under MG Jean-Charles Abbatucci mounted an assault crossing over the Rhine at Kehl opposite Strasbourg on 24 June. The defenders were French émigrés and the forces of minor German states belonging to the Holy Roman Empire. They fought gamely, but were beaten with the loss of 700 men while the French lost 150. On 28 June, Desaix defeated FML Anton Sztaray's Imperial troops again at Renchen, inflicting 1,400 casualties for only 200 French killed and wounded. In the following weeks the Austrians determined some of their Imperial German allies to be unreliable and disarmed them. [4]

In reaction to the defeats in the south, Archduke Charles left Wartensleben in command of 35,000 men along the Lahn, put 30,000 troops into the fortress of Mainz and rushed south with 20,000 soldiers to reinforce Latour. [5]

July operations Edit

After a minor clash at Rastatt on 5 July, Archduke Charles and Latour took up a position at Malsch with 32,000 troops. On 9 July, Moreau defeated the Army of the Upper Rhine at the Battle of Ettlingen. The archduke retreated 60 kilometres (37 mi) to Stuttgart, where he skirmished with the French on 21 July before continuing to withdraw east. [6] When Jourdan heard of French successes against the Army of the Upper Rhine, he went over to the offensive. After a series of minor victories at Neuwied, Giessen, and Friedberg in der Wetterau in early July, the French pressed Wartensleben back to Frankfurt am Main. [7]

August operations Edit

Charles ordered Wartensleben to unite with him in order to crush Moreau. However, his colleague proved unwilling to cooperate. On 11 August, Moreau overpowered the outnumbered archduke at the Battle of Neresheim. The Austrian southern wing retreated to the south bank of the Danube at Donauwörth. To the north, Jourdan pushed Wartensleben back through Würzburg and Nuremberg. Kléber clashed with Kray on 17 August at Sulzbach-Rosenberg, 14 kilometres (8.7 mi) west of Amberg. [8] Charles' strategy of falling back before the two superior French armies while seeking an opportunity to combine against one of them had so far failed. [ citation needed ]

Reconnaissance Edit

A change in Austrian fortunes came when an alert cavalry brigadier, General-Major Friedrich Joseph, Count of Nauendorf detected an opportunity during a wide reconnaissance. He sent a note to Archduke Charles, "If your Royal Highness will or can advance 12,000 men against Jourdan's rear, he is lost." [9] Charles left 30,000 men under Latour to watch Moreau, and hurried north with 27,000 to find Jourdan still pressing Wartensleben near Amberg. On 22 August at Neumarkt in der Oberpfalz, Charles brushed aside one of Jourdan's divisions under MG Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte. [10] This placed the archduke squarely on the French right rear. [ citation needed ]

Combat Edit

The total forces available were 48,000 Austrians and 45,000 French. [11] On 24 August, Charles struck the French right flank while Wartensleben attacked frontally. The French Army of Sambre-et-Meuse was overcome by weight of numbers and Jourdan retired northwest. The Austrians lost only 400 casualties of the 40,000 men they brought onto the field. French losses were 1,200 killed and wounded, plus 800 captured out of 34,000 engaged. Instead of supporting his colleague, Moreau pushed further east. [12]

Results Edit

On the same day as the Battle of Amberg, Moreau inflicted a sharp defeat on Latour at the Battle of Friedberg in Bavaria. On 1 September, Moreau clashed with Latour and Nauendorf at Geisenfeld, 16 kilometres (9.9 mi) southeast of Ingolstadt. [13] At the same time, Charles' victorious Austrians pursued Jourdan's beaten army. The widening gap between the two French armies finally caused Moreau to abandon his gains and pull back toward Ulm. The Battle of Würzburg, fought on 3 September, would determine the winner of the campaign. [ citation needed ]


The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles?

Various campaign books, including, but not limited to:

Frederic Natusch Maude, Ulm Campaign 1805.

Karl von Stutterheim, A Detailed Account of the Battle of Austerlitz.


Christopher Duffy, Austerlitz 1805.

Christopher Duffy, Eagles Over the Alps.

Francis Lorraine Petre, Napoleon and the Archduke Charles.

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

I wasn't sure if to include all of those operations in the Gallic Wars that didn't involve any concrete engagements. If you want to run up the score and include those as victories in the chart then by all means go ahead.

As for Uzita, I suppose that could be considered separate from Zeta. He didn't succeed in taking Uzita but he was more or less successful in the surrounding skirmishes. You can include a separate siege of Uzita as a defeat though.

Maybe Uzita should be indecisive - a series of tactically indecisive actions outside the town without a full commitment to attacking the town itself. Incidentally, the British engagement that I'm thinking of is the successful siege of Cassivellaunus' stronghold.

I think there are two operations that are worth listing by virtue of their strategic importance, maybe simply as 'campaign against. ': the Spanish campaign as praetor (since he was acclaimed Imperator for it), and his Belgic campaign of 53, where he personally forced the surrender of the Nervii, Senones and Menapii. Looking again at the Rhine campaigns, they were strategically insignificant, and the decisive aspect of the Veneti campaign wasn't an action by Caesar, but the naval victory of Crassus.

So, I think if we add Hispania Ulteria, Cassivellaunus' stronghold, Belgica 53 and Uzita, I think that finishes the tally!

Nuclearguy165

Maybe Uzita should be indecisive - a series of tactically indecisive actions outside the town without a full commitment to attacking the town itself. Incidentally, the British engagement that I'm thinking of is the successful siege of Cassivellaunus' stronghold.

I think there are two operations that are worth listing by virtue of their strategic importance, maybe simply as 'campaign against. ': the Spanish campaign as praetor (since he was acclaimed Imperator for it), and his Belgic campaign of 53, where he personally forced the surrender of the Nervii, Senones and Menapii. Looking again at the Rhine campaigns, they were strategically insignificant, and the decisive aspect of the Veneti campaign wasn't an action by Caesar, but the naval victory of Crassus.

So, I think if we add Hispania Ulteria, Cassivellaunus' stronghold, Belgica 53 and Uzita, I think that finishes the tally!

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

Markdienekes

Indeed. In fact, Marcellus had to report to the senate to answer to two defeats:

The question of depriving Marcellus of his command was debated in the Circus Flaminius before an enormous gathering in which all orders of the State were represented. The tribune of the plebs launched his accusations, not only against Marcellus, but against the nobility as a whole. It was due to their crooked policy and lack of energy, he said, that Hannibal had for ten years been holding Italy as his province he had, in fact, passed more of his life there than in Carthage. The Roman people were now reaping the fruits of the extension of Marcellus' command, his army after its double defeat was now passing the summer comfortably housed in Venusia. (Livy, 27.21)

Nuclearguy165

Markdienekes

Nuclearguy165

DiocletianIsBetterThanYou

Updated again! (I had forgotten about the Siege of Puteoli):

The Military Career of Hannibal Barca
By @markdienekes, with additions
Original List

Spanish Campaigns
221 BC: Conquest of Althaea, the capital of the Olcades
220: Conquest of Hermandica, against the Vaccaei
Conquest of Arbacala, against the Vaccaei
Battle of the River Tagus, against the Carpatani and allies
219: Conquest of Saguntum

From Spain to Italy
218: Two-month campaign in northern Spain (

4 engagements? Pol. 3.35: 'Crossing the Ebro, he set about subduing the tribes of the Ilurgetes, Bargusii, Aerenosii, and Andosini as far as the Pyrenees, and having reduced them all and taken some cities by assault, with unexpected rapidity indeed, but after many severe engagements and with great loss, he left Hanno in command of all the country on this side of the river, placing the Bargusii under his absolute rule, as he mistrusted them most, owing to their friendly sentiments toward Rome.')
Battle of the Rhone Crossing, against the Volcae
Battle alongside Brancus of the Allobroges against the brother of Brancus
Battle at the White Rock, against the Allobroges
Conquest of an important town of the Allobroges
Battle against an ambush force in a gorge

Italian Campaigns - Early Phase
218: Conquest of the capital of the Taurini
Action at the Ticinus
Battle of the Trebia
217: Cavalry Action between Hannibal and Scipio near Emporium, which prevented Hannibal from seizing Emporium (X)
Battle of Victumalae
Battle near Placentia (-)
Battle of Lake Trasimene
Action against Centenius (the ambush and capture of Servilius' cavalry)
Battle of Ager Falernus
Action at Geronium (-)
Battle of Geronium (-)
216: Battle of Cannae

Italian Campaigns - Middle Pre-Capua Phase
216: Conquest of Nuceria
First Battle of Nola (X)
Conquest of Acerrae
Battle against Junius Pera
216-215: Conquest of Casilinum
215: Siege of Cumae (X)
Second Battle of Nola (X)
214: Siege of Puteoli (X)
Third Battle of Nola (-)
212: Conquest of Taras (Tarentum)
Battle of Capua (-)
Battle of the Silarus
First Battle of Herdonia
211: Battle of the Volturnus (X)
Battle of the Anio

Italian Campaigns - Middle Post-Capua Phase
210: Second Battle of Herdonia
Battle of Numistro (-)
Actions at Venusia (-)
209: Battle of Canusium
Battle of Caulonia
208: Battle of Petelia
Action near Venusia (the death of Marcellus)
Attempted Capture of Salapia (X)
First Relief of Locri
207: Battle of Grumentum (X)

Italian Campaigns - Late Phase
205: Second Relief of Locri (X)
204: First Battle of Croton (-)
203: Second Battle of Croton (-)

African Campaign
202: Battle of Zama (X)

Service under the Seleucids
190: Battle of Side (X)

Service under the Bithynians
180s: Sea Battle against Pergamon


Length of Reign: 70 years

Though he wasn’t formally crowned until 1950, King Bhumibol became the ninth king in Thailand’s Chakkri dynasty in 1946 after his brother, Ananda Mahidol, died (there was then an accession ceremony [PDF], but in Thailand the king doesn’t become full king until consecration). According to The New York Times, “Thais came to see this Buddhist king as a father figure wholly dedicated to their welfare, and as the embodiment of stability in a country where political leadership rose and fell through decades of military coups.” He reigned until his death in 2016 at the age of 88, making him Thailand’s longest-reigning monarch.


The U.N. Is Commemorating Haiti's Role in Ending the Slave Trade. Here's Why

UNESCO has chosen Aug. 23 to commemorate the International Day for the Remembrance of the Slave Trade and Its Abolition, but the historical significance of that day may escape many. On the night that spanned August 22 and 23, 1791, slave rebels in the French colony of Saint-Domingue started the Haitian Revolution, the only instance of a successful slave rebellion in world history and the founding event of the first modern black republic. More than the American Revolution and its aftermath, which resulted in the gradual abolition of slavery in the northern states, the Haitian Revolution, which continued until 1804, constitutes a landmark in the history of abolition. It highlighted the abuses of slavery and dealt a blow to the Atlantic Slave Trade, the profitable and inhumane traffic in human beings from the west coast of Africa to European colonies and countries in the Americas.

The history of abolition begins with those who resisted slavery at its inception. African resistance to enslavement&mdashepitomized in the more than 200 shipboard insurrections that dot the four centuries of the slave trade and in maroon communities of runaway slaves on both sides of the Atlantic&mdashis often forgotten in the recent scholarship on African nations&rsquo participation in the slave trade.

The &ldquoBlack Jacobins&rdquo of Haiti were not only influenced by the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of the French Revolution of 1789, but also by the long tradition of petit marronage and slave resistance established by enslaved Africans in Saint-Domingue. Under the brilliant military leadership of Toussaint Louverture&mdashwho warded off challenges to his authority by slaveholders, free men of color, French emissaries and the armies of the slaveholding British and Spanish empires&mdashblack Saint-Dominguans laid the foundation for Haitian independence after 13 years of unremitting warfare. Louverture was eventually imprisoned and died in France, but his successors defeated the world-conquering army of Napoleon, who, after the first French Republic attempted to abolish slavery, re-established the practice in the rest of the French empire.

More than 300 years after Christopher Columbus landed in Hispaniola, destroyed its native population and introduced African slavery, the island witnessed the birth of the independent Republic of Haiti, its native name, on Jan. 1, 1804. The Haitian Declaration of Independence simply stated, &ldquoWe have dared to be free, let us be thus by ourselves and for ourselves.&rdquo

Four years later, on that very date, Britain and the United States abolished the African slave trade. Interestingly enough, the first instances of modern racial slavery did not take place from Africa to the Americas but among the native Taino population of Hispaniola, who virtually disappeared through warfare, disease and enslavement by the Spanish. In the long history of the slave trade and European colonization of the Americas, the Haitian revolutionaries were truly &ldquoAvengers of the New World.&rdquo

Their bloody, decisive challenge to slavery and white supremacy&mdashnotwithstanding Haiti&rsquos subsequent political instability and poverty, which were aggravated by the colonial policies of its erstwhile rulers&mdashbecame sanctified in abolitionist memory.

French abolitionists in the Société des Amis des Noirs, or society of the friends of the blacks, founded in 1788, campaigned for the rights of free people of color and the abolition of the slave trade. The French abolitionist Abbé Henri Grégoire viewed the Haitian republic, not the United States of America, as the custodian of revolutionary ideals and a beacon to the world.

The link between the Haitian Revolution and the British movement to abolish the slave trade was also intimate. British abolitionist Thomas Clarkson wrote one of the first briefs in defense of the slave rebels of Saint-Domingue in 1792 and argued for an end to the slave trade. Clarkson became an unofficial ambassador of Haiti, lobbying the French to recognize it.

American abolitionists too praised the Haitian Revolution. In his &ldquoThe Rights of Black Men,&rdquo Abraham Bishop of Connecticut asked antislavery societies to assist the Haitian revolutionaries with &ldquopen, the tongue, the counsel, the sword&hellipand money.&rdquo The founder of the African Masonic Lodge, Prince Hall of Boston, asked enslaved blacks to look to their &ldquoAfrican brethren&rdquo in Haiti for inspiration. Black and white abolitionists would long praise Haiti, &ldquothe glory of the blacks and the terror of tyrants.&rdquo They demanded that the United States government extend diplomatic recognition to Haiti, which the Lincoln administration finally did during the Civil War.

The best exponents of revolutionary abolition were the slaves themselves, whose world-historical actions forever changed the dynamic in the battle between slavery and freedom in the Americas. How apt it is then that, in 1994, Haiti asked UNESCO to map &ldquoThe Slave Route,&rdquo to remember the victims of the slave trade and slavery&mdashand that the U.N. has named the day that the Haitian Revolution began as abolition day. Haiti&rsquos abolitionist heritage belongs to all of humanity.

Historians explain how the past informs the present


1787

May 14: Congress agrees to hold a constitutional convention in Philadelphia to deal with the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.

May 25September 17: The Constitutional Convention meets and results in the creation of the U.S. Constitution. It needs to be ratified by nine states before it goes into effect.

July 13: The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 was enacted by Congress, including policies for creating new states, accelerated westward expansion, and fundamental rights of citizens. Arthur St. Clair (1737–1818) is made the first governor of the Northwest Territory.

October 27: The first of 77 essays called collectively The Federalist Papers is published in New York's The Independent Journal. These articles are written to persuade individuals in the state to ratify the new Constitution.

Before the end of the year, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey ratify the Constitution.


The Fascist Face Of Charlottesville Joined The Military. Then He Got Kicked Out.

The white nationalist featured in an infamous, viral photograph from the 2017 “Unite The Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, joined the U.S. military, HuffPost has learned, but was kicked out before he could attend basic training.

Peter Cytanovic, 24, was expelled from the Nevada National Guard in December after officials learned of his extremist ties through a Defense Department background check, authorities confirmed. His relatively swift dismissal from the National Guard appears to be a rare example of military officials taking proactive, decisive steps to keep an extremist out of the armed services.

On Aug. 11, 2017, Cytanovic was photographed holding a flaming tiki torch and screaming as he and other white nationalists marched in Charlottesville. The picture went viral and continues to haunt and shape Cytanovic’s life. His face of fury quickly became emblematic of the bloody and historic weekend , when a resurgent American white nationalist movement went mask off.

After publishing a series of stories about extremists in the military, HuffPost recently received a tip that Cytanovic described himself as a “U.S. Officer Candidate at US Army” on LinkedIn.

Although his name couldn’t be found in a Defense Department database of military service members, a “Peter Cytanovic VI” was listed in a directory of recent enlistees published in a 2020 issue of Battle Born - The Quarterly Magazine of the Nevada National Guard .

A spokesman for the Nevada National Guard confirmed that Cytanovic enlisted on Nov. 22, 2019, but that his stint in the U.S. armed forces lasted only a little over a year — and that he was ejected because of his “affiliations.”

“Initial criminal and fingerprint checks found no record that would deny enlistment,” Lt. Col. Mickey Kirschenbaum told HuffPost in a statement explaining how Cytanovic initially joined the U.S. military, which has regulations forbidding participation in extremist groups.

Because he had a four-year college degree, Cytanovic entered the Nevada National Guard as a Specialist E-4, the highest rank available to junior enlisted recruits. He started to attend monthly drills to prepare for Army Basic Combat Training. “However, during routine in-processing, Mr. Cytanovic was not able to obtain a security clearance,” Kirschenbaum said.

A Defense Department background check revealed that the FBI had opened an investigation into Cytanovic following his participation in the Charlottesville rally, Lt. Emerson Marcus, another spokesperson for the Nevada National Guard, told HuffPost.

That’s how the national guard learned of Cytanovic’s “affiliations,” Marcus said.

The FBI declined to comment on its investigation into Cytanovic, who was never charged with a crime in relation to the events in Charlottesville.

Pentagon spokesperson Candice Tresch said in an email that the Defense Department could not “discuss specific cases,” but noted that the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency “searches federal, state, local, and vendor records as part of the background investigation process” and also “obtains information from the applicant, prior and current employers, co-workers, neighbors, and references.”

The Nevada National Guard canceled Cytanovic’s orders for basic training on July 27, 2020, months before he was set to ship out. Months later, on December 17, he received a formal “entry-level separation” from the U.S. military.

Cytanovic — who, before enlisting, gave interviews in which he expressed regret for attending the Charlottesville rally and claimed, not all that convincingly , to renounce white nationalism — declined to comment on this story through a family member.

“The Nevada National Guard does not tolerate racist, extremist ideology,” Kirschenbaum said in his statement. “The Nevada National Guard took action immediately after discovering Mr. Cytanovic’s affiliations.”

But that’s not always the case. After HuffPost published a series of stories in 2019 helping expose 11 U.S. servicemen as members of the white nationalist group Identity Evropa, only six were kicked out of the military. The other five are still in the armed services, underscoring both the vagaries of military codes prohibiting extremism and how enforcement of those codes is often left to the whims and discretion of individual commanders.

Moreover, there’s evidence that even well-known white nationalists like Cytanovic can manage to join the military undetected.

Last month, HuffPost found that Shawn McCaffrey — a prominent white nationalist podcaster and former member of Identity Evropa — recently graduated from Air Force boot camp. (McCaffrey was also on the FBI’s radar, HuffPost learned, but the agency declined to say whether it ever alerted the Air Force about his extremism.)

Scholars of extremism have long warned about the dangers of far-right extremists joining the military, where they receive training they can then use to inflict violence on civilians. After an angry far-right crowd stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 15% of those arrested for their role in the insurrection had some sort of military affiliation.

In February, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a military-wide stand-down order, requiring commanders to have “needed discussions” about extremism with troops. Earlier this month, Austin wrote a memo outlining the Pentagon’s plans to improve the screening of military recruits for extremist beliefs.

A Defining Photograph

Anti-racist activists have long touted the importance of creating a social cost for embracing hate and white nationalism. Cyantovic’s abrupt dismissal from the National Guard is only the latest censure he’s faced for his appearance in Charlottesville — though at other times, his infamy has provoked soft-focused media coverage and special attention from school administrators.

There were hundreds of marchers in Charlottesville, but thanks to a shutter snap, Cytanovic became the face of hate. On the night of Aug. 11, 2017, as hundreds of white supremacists marched across the campus of the University of Virginia, photographer Samuel Corum focused his lens on Cytanovic — then a 20-year-old college student sporting a fashy haircut and a white polo shirt emblazoned with the Identity Evropa logo. Cytanovic held a tiki torch in his right hand, his mouth agape as he chanted “You will not replace us!” in angry unison with the ghoulish group.

The next day — as they rallied again near a statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee in a Charlottesville park, violently clashing with anti-fascist activists before a neo-Nazi drove his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, killing one person and injuring many more — the photo of Cytanovic started to go viral on Twitter. Online sleuths quickly identified him.

By the time Cytanovic stepped off a plane the next day at Reno-Tahoe International Airport, a news crew was there to greet him . The day after, his photo was printed above the fold on the front page of The Reno Journal-Gazette .

“I did not expect the photo to be shared as much as it was . I understand the photo has a very negative connotation,” Cytanovic said in one of the many interviews he gave at the time. “But I hope that the people sharing the photo are willing to listen that I’m not the angry racist they see in that photo.”

But he still called himself a white nationalist while claiming to condemn the carnage in Charlottesville. “I will defend tooth and nail my views as a white nationalist,” he said . “I love my culture and will fight for it, but never in a violent way.”

Cytanovic said he and his family started to receive death threats, and as the world grappled with the significance of Charlottesville — and with a white nationalist movement emboldened by the rise of former President Donald Trump — the photo continued to travel far and wide, accompanying hundreds of articles written in multiple languages.

By late December in the U.K., The Guardian named it one of “the best photographs of 2017.”

In February 2018, the photo appeared on flyers posted across the campus of the University of Nevada, Reno, where Cytanovic was studying political science and history. “UNR PROTECTS RACISTS,” the flyers declared. “UNRBlackHistoryMonth.”

Students had held protests and started petitions demanding Cytanovic be expelled, but school administrators declined to do so, citing the First Amendment. (Cytanovic did, however, resign his campus job driving students to and from class.)

A couple of months later, Cytanovic sat down for a sympathetic, softball interview on The Full Measure With Sharyl Attkisson , a show broadcast nationally by the right-wing Sinclair Broadcast Group . The episode was part of a series about “Snowflake Syndrome,” the idea that liberals are too intolerant of ideas with which they disagree.

Cytanovic recounted how his fellow students had tried to expel him over his participation in the Charlottesville rally, even though he’d allegedly had a political change of heart.

“My biggest mistake is that I stupidly said I am a white nationalist,” he said. “And at that time, I did believe I was. But after looking back at the movement, looking back at what happened, I realize that calling myself a white nationalist was very wrong and I no longer agree, I no longer see myself as such.”

Attkisson, the reporter, didn’t press him further on the subject.

Cyantovic had trouble presenting his senior thesis without friction. Angry students confronted him in the hallway immediately afterward. “Run Nazi, run!” they chanted, according to The Nevada Sagebrush , the student newspaper.

Cytanovic graduated from UNR, and perhaps wanting to escape his infamy, enrolled in a political theory master’s program thousands of miles away at the London School of Economics.

But the photo followed him across the Atlantic, too.

“‘White nationalist’ from infamous Charlottesville protest now reportedly studying at LSE,” read the headline from the Independent, a leading British newspaper, which printed the photo.

Once again, Cytanovic’s fellow students were protesting his presence on campus and calling for his expulsion, and once again, the school’s administration allowed him to remain enrolled. “LSE Protects Racists” read flyers posted across campus.

In June 2019, Cytanovic granted an interview request from The Beaver, the LSE student newspaper. He described being harassed by some students at the school but said administrators had been accommodating, offering him security and a list of professors he could call if he ever felt threatened.

Although acknowledging that white privilege exists and even calling himself a feminist, Cytanovic still defended his motivation for going to Charlottesville: to protest against the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue, which anti-racist activists wanted torn down.

“The reason I went to Charlottesville — was the Confederate statues, this love of culture being … destroyed,” he said, echoing a white nationalist talking point.

“I wasn’t wrong on everything,” Cytanovic added, defending the reasons he went to the rally. “I was wrong in the way I expressed it. I was never a neo-Nazi, and I didn’t understand what being a white nationalist was when I said I was one.” (His interviews from that time suggest otherwise.)

The London School of Economics did not return HuffPost’s request for comment as to whether Cytanovic completed his master’s degree program.

Six months after his interview with the student newspaper, he was back in Reno, enlisting in the Nevada National Guard.


Men Defining Rape: A History

In 2 Samuel 13:1-22, Amnon rapes his half sister Tamar. Nothing happens to him. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rape_of_Tamar_-_Le_Seur.jpg">Eustache Le Sueur</a>/Wikipedia

Men have been in the business of deciding when it is okay and when it is not okay to rape women for thousands of years. If Missouri Rep. Todd Akin’s claim that women’s bodies magically fend off rapist sperm or the GOP’s meditation on what’s really rape sound medieval to you, that’s because they are. Check out our timeline of the male notions and common-law statutes that have defined rape over time, and see for yourself which eras the GOP’s views on rape line up with:

Property theft: The Code of Hammurabi, one of the first sets of written laws, which dates to about 1780 BC (and contains the old “eye for an eye”), defines rape of a virgin as property damage against her father. If you were married, sorry lady: You were an adulteress. Punishment? You get thrown in the river.

Translation: Girl, you’re screwed. Batigolix/Fotopedia God is a dude: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says if you rape a virgin, you have to give her dad 50 shekels and take her to the altar.

Et tu, Roma? The Latin root raptus referred to the abduction of a woman against the will of whatever male controlled her life. What the abductor did with her was secondary.

Rape of the Sabine Women, by Giuseppe Cesari. Dirk Huijssoon/Fotopedia Todd Akin, 1.0: As the Guardian recently pointed out, one of the earliest British legal texts, Fleta, which was written around 1290, laid the foundation for Akin’s notion that if you get preggers, you weren’t raped: “Without a woman’s consent she could not conceive.”

(Mississippi and) The Middle Ages: During the 13th century, the severity of punishment under Saxon law varied according to the type of woman raped—whether she was a virgin, a wife, a widow, a nun, or a whore. That’s appropriately medieval. But in the United States, well into the 󈨞s (yes, the nineteen-nineties) some states still had laws that held statutory rape wasn’t rape if the woman was “impure“. Mississippi was the last state to ditch such a law—in 1998. King Edward I and his wife Eleanor. From an early 14th century manuscript/Wikipedia

Pre-wave feminism: King Edward I of England was a forward-thinking chap. He enacted the landmark Statutes of Westminster at the end of the 13th century. They redefined rape as a public wrong, not just a private property battle. The legislation also cut out the virgin distinction and made consent irrelevant for girls under 12, laying the basis for the modern principle of statutory rape.

“The wife hath given up herself”: In a treatise on capital crime and punishment from around 1670, English judge and lawyer Sir Matthew Hale wrote this little gem: “[T]he husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.” The law had quite a bit of traction. A man could legally rape his wife in North Carolina until 1993.

If you were brown: It didn’t count, whether you were a slave or a “savage.” And after abolition, the white legal establishment pretty much ignored rape against black women.

Rape to prove rape: Men in common law courts in the 18th and 19th centuries had a bit of trouble agreeing on how much proof a woman had to give to show she wasn’t lying. Some said the hymen had to be broken. Some said she had to provide evidence of semen. Virginity test, anyone?

Egyptian women protest the ruling military council’s “virginity tests” in December 2011. Ayman Mose/ZUMA Press “Absolute rape,” kind of like “legitimate rape”: English physician Samuel Farr was pretty certain women couldn’t get pregnant without an orgasm. The Guardian quotes the mansplanation from his 1814 Elements of Medical Jurisprudence: “For without an excitation of lust, or the enjoyment of pleasure in the venereal act, no conception can probably take place. So that if an absolute rape were to be perpetrated, it is not likely she would become pregnant.”

You can’t thread a moving needle: Or: If you don’t squirm a lot, it’s not rape. Dr. Lawson Tait, an eminent 19th century gynecologist and medical officer who helped police with criminal investigations, was “perfectly satisfied that no man can effect a felonious purpose on a woman in possession of her sense without her consent.” Said he: “You cannot thread a moving needle.”

Irina Misevic/Shutterstock

The FBI calls rape by its name: As the Post‘s Gerhart explains, the federal government used the “rather prim euphemism, ‘indecent assault,’ a phrase that seems as linguistically tortured as ‘legitimate rape,’ from the 17th century until 1929, when the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program renamed it like this: “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” That definition was still totally 17th century, btw.

Lady rules: Feminists had been fighting to raise the statutory rape age in states since the 1890s (in response, some legislators proposed raising the age of consent to 81). Nonwhite feminists had been fighting for equal treatment under the law. Second wavers gave the movement another push, demanding a range of other expansions to make the definition of rape gender neutral, include date rape, and scrap medieval marital exceptions and virginity requirements.

Sue Lyon in Stanley Kubrick’s 1962 Lolita. Zellaby/Fotopedia 83 years later: January of 2012: that’s when the FBI decided to update its definition of forcible rape. As Kate Sheppard pointed out last year, the year 1929 “was quite a while ago—before the Great Depression, before Mickey Mouse, and before the Empire State Building, to name a few. It was also before roofies had been invented and before date or partner rape were even concepts.” The new, expanded definition includes other forms of sexual assault, other genders, and instances where the “victim is incapable of giving consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity, including due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age.”

Backward, ho!: Last year, House Republicans pushed to limit taxpayer funding of abortions by excluding non-“forcible” rapes from federal abortion funding. Their plan failed. But the Republican war on women was just starting to heat up.

Johnny Andrews/ZUMA Press “Legitimate rape”: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Or, as Urban Dictionary puts it: “Rape between one man and one woman who are not married or even acquainted the only rape sanctioned by the Republican Party.”

Looking for news you can trust?

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.


KING, John (1759-1830).

b. 1759, 5th s. of Rev. James King, curate of Clitheroe, Lancs., later chaplain to House of Commons and dean of Raphoe, by Anne, da. and coh. of John Walker of Hungrill, Yorks. educ. Christ Church, Oxf. 1777 L. Inn 1781, G. Inn 1790, called 1790. m. 9 Apr. 1792, Harriot Margaret, da. of Rt. Rev. Charles Moss, bp. of Bath and Wells, 4s. 1da.

Offices Held

Law clerk, Home Office Jan. 1791-Mar. 1806 under-sec. Home Office Dec. 1791-Feb. 1806 sec. to Treasury Feb.-Sept. 1806 comptroller of army accts. 1806-d.

High bailiff, Westminster 1796.

Naval officer, Jamaica 1796-1818.

Bencher, G. Inn 1813, treasurer 1815.

Biography

King, a protégé of Lord Grenville, on becoming one of the under-secretaries at the Home Office under Henry Dundas with a salary of £1,500 p.a. in December 1791, stipulated ‘a pension equal to what he might have made at the bar’. There was some surprise that he did not go to the Foreign Office, but in Evan Nepean’s absence a third under-secretary was needed pro tem. at the Home Office where King was already law clerk with £300 a year. In August 1792 his post was confirmed on the resignation of Scrope Bernard. King’s family came from Hungrill, Bolton-by-Bowland, Yorkshire his clerical brother Walker had been private secretary to the Marquess of Rockingham at the Home Office in 1782 and was Edmund Burke’s friend, while his brother Thomas was tutor to Burke’s son Richard*. Many are the references to John King in Burke’s correspondence: they suggest that he was at that time an amiable factotum, importuned with errands by the great, with scarcely a notion of his own and best kept on a leash.1

On 5 Dec. 1793, Canning noted in his journal, ‘I dined with King—one of the under-secretaries of state for the Home department, and one of the worthiest and friendliest and best sort of men in the world’. King became under-secretary in chief when the Duke of Portland became Home secretary in 1794 and, though his official capacity did not dictate it, eventually aspired to a seat in Parliament. On 5 Aug. 1800 he informed Pitt that he had been offered an opening at Andover, as ‘the family Member’ on Lord Portsmouth’s interest, if he could obtain about £400 p.a. compensation for their sitting Member who was ‘little better than an idiot’. He was prepared to make ‘some personal sacrifice according to my means’ to achieve this, but offered to be governed by Pitt. Nothing came of this project. Evidently disappointed at Lord Grenville’s going into opposition late in 1801, King remained at his post, though he would have preferred the Duke of Portland to retain the Home Office. When Pitt returned to power in 1804, Portland evidently applied to him to make King a joint secretary to the Treasury with Sturges Bourne, but Huskisson was preferred. He remained at the Home Office, but exasperated Canning by his notion of how to prevent the authority of the Irish government from being undermined by John Foster*, that is by restoring Home Office control over the Irish chief secretary ‘compelling the Irish secretary to a more intimate and constant correspondence with him [King] . thus arming [the chief secretary] with power to combat Foster and all his host in Lord Hawkesbury’s name’. Canning could not stomach this and noted that it was quite different from King’s former ‘fine plans’ for Ireland. In November 1805 it was ‘whispered’ that he was to replace Long as Irish secretary.2

When Lord Grenville became prime minister in 1806, King was appointed by him joint secretary to the Treasury. Grenville’s brother Lord Buckingham urged the claims of William Henry Fremantle* but Grenville, under pressure from the Prince of Wales to choose a friend of his, wrote on 4 Feb.:

This persecution obliges me to adhere to the arrangement for putting King there. I had almost settled it so as to make room for Fremantle, but I must now close it as soon as I can. Possibly some means may arise hereafter of giving King his retreat, and putting the other there, which I believe would be the better arrangement, but which I cannot hazard now.

Huskisson makes it clear that King was patronage secretary, for he wrote to Lord Melville on 9 Feb. 1806:

Does [Lord Grenville] think that John King (as confidential secretary to the Treasury) can answer to him for the House of Commons and supply all that is wanting to his government in that quarter?

He needed a seat in Parliament: Thomas Grenville offered his seat for Buckingham, while Lord Buckingham was prepared to bring him in for St. Mawes if Sir William Young* were provided for, but it was for the Irish borough of Enniskillen that he was returned, the vacating Member having offered the seat to Lord Wellesley, who placed it at government disposal. He did not vacate an office he held in Jamaica on taking his seat.3

King made no mark in Parliament and soon found his duties uncongenial: a political opponent, Lord Lowther, maintained that he was ‘very unfit for his office’. On 3 July 1806 Lord Grenville informed the Irish secretary Elliot: ‘An opportunity has occurred which John King seems disposed to embrace of exchanging his present situation . for one of a different description’. Grenville thought King would be difficult to replace and wondered whether Marsden, the Irish under-secretary, would fit the bill, but it was Fremantle who succeeded to King’s office and seat in Parliament. King’s brother-in-law Charles Moss, Bishop of Oxford, commented:

Finding his health suffer very much from his attendance at the House of Commons King signified to Lord Grenville some time ago that it was his wish to give up his office as soon as his services could be dispensed with and as he preferred a place which would give him some occupation to a pension to which his long services fairly entitled him, it was determined that he should be one of the comptrollers of army accounts. Nothing can have been more friendly than the whole of Lord Grenville’s conduct towards him, and his disposition to promote his views with respect to his future establishment.

Lord Buckingham, who had pressed Lord Grenville through their brother Thomas to replace King by Fremantle, as the latter would be on more confidential terms with him, alleged to Fremantle that he now hoped to see

the fair influence of the crown fairly used to the support of government and not indirectly turned, as it was in repeated cases by King’s mismanagement, against us, a fact which Lord Grenville never would credit, though Lord Melville and George Rose, who were the principal agents upon King’s mind, could not keep their secret.4

King remained comptroller of army accounts, having attended his office the day before he was found dead in his bed in March 1830.5


Watch the video: DarthMod Napoleon Battle for Turin, August 1796


Comments:

  1. Gardami

    Early autumn is a time of change. I hope it does not leave this blog aside.

  2. Doum

    It also worries me about this issue. Give Where can I find more information on this topic?

  3. Unai

    Between us, in my opinion, this is obvious. I will refrain from commenting.

  4. Farris

    I think the topic is very interesting. I invite everyone to take an active part in the discussion.

  5. Kentigem

    It is remarkable, very valuable information



Write a message