Letters to the editor

Revisiting a historic battle

I enjoyed the article “Re-enactors gather for battle of Austerlitz” (Nov. 30, World) about the bicentennial of the Battle of the Three Emperors. The re-enactment was successful thanks to the Czechs who masterfully arranged this significant historical event. The battle took place near the small Czech town called Slavkov u Brna, about 15 miles east of Brno. Napoleon spent a week in Brno before the battle and another week after the battle.

On Dec. 2, 1805, Napoleon directed the battle from a small summit; 71,000 soldiers of his army defeated 91,000 soldiers of the combined Austrian and Russian forces. A part of the Russian army drowned in a frozen pond. The defeated forces had 19,000 dead and injured,whileNapoleon’s “Grande Armee” suffered 9,000 casualties.

One curious aspect to this part of history is that after this battle, many French soldiers remained in the region, and today many Czech citizens have French names. A close colleague of mine who is of Czech-Moravian origin says his grandfather was of half-French ancestry on his mother’s side. This may explain his grandfather’s French surname but not the reason for the ancestor’s decision to remain in a foreign land instead of returning home to France to celebrate a great victory for his nation.

I believe it is time that the famous Battle of Austerlitz be renamed the Battle of Slavkov to correspond with today’s reality. After all, the Czechs call it by its Czech name — Slavkov u Brna — because it was on Czech soil that Napoleon won his greatest victory. Official road maps show Slavkov u Brna but not Austerlitz — an Austrian-German name from the era of Napoleon.

The Battle of Slavkov (Austerlitz) lasted only one day (about six hours), following which the Russians retreated and Austria agreed to a truce. Stricken by the news of Napoleon’s victory at Slavkov (Austerlitz), the British chancellor of the exchequer, William Pitt, died on Jan. 23, 1806. Hopefully, the organizers of the bicentennial re-enactment will include in their post-event report a full account of this historic battle and related facts that describe it in its full dimension.

GEORGE J. SVEJDA

Silver Spring

The future of the Iraqi republic

The Wednesday Commentary column “What’s next for Iraq?” and most news coverage of Iraq seem to suggest that our only alternative for Iraq is to pressure its distinct peoples to stick together in a single Iraqi state. This conclusion suggests that success can come only if the Shi’ite Arabs do not dominate Iraq politically even though they are a majority of the population (65 percent).

The Bush administration does, however, have another alternative, and that is to respect the wishes of the Iraqis when they voted earlier for a new constitution — and again this month — and let them form themselves eventually into two or more states, namely a predominantly Kurdish state and a predominantly Shi’ite state, with fair treatment for the Sunni Arabs located in sparsely populated eastern Iraq. Kurds and Shi’ites have been in their respective regions for more than 1,000 years. Many of the Sunnis, however, moved in with the relatively recent Ottoman and British occupations of the past century. Even without dealing with the Turkish-Kurdish question that preoccupies the Europeans, it should be pointed out that Syria is predominantly Sunni, but it has a sizeable Kurdish population in its north.

A hundred years ago, Sweden solved its “colonial problem” by granting independence to Norway. Malaysia allowed Singapore to separate and become independent in 1965. All four got richer and happier as a result. Turkey similarly settled a mixed-population area with Greece in 1923 by an agreed boundary supported by the great powers. It has since been generally peaceful.

Story Continues →