Talk:Copenhagenization

Dubious

I've labelled this as dubious; it seems a bit off the mark, if not an elaborate hoax.
"Copenhagenization" isn't a term for the practice of confiscating the warships of a defeated enemy or of anything similar; there is no mention of the word in either the OED or in Merriam-Webster.
At best it is a piece of military shorthand referring to the British victory at Copenhagen, along the lines of an author saying that one side 'did a Cannae', or that the enemy was 'Trafalgared'; a readership might well understand what is meant, but neither of those terms are formal expressions of anything, and certainly aren't notable in themselves.
And a google search for the term shows that, if anything, its primary meaning is in connection with cycling policy, not naval history; it has very little usage as that.
An external forum has already raised doubts about this article, but has found the earliest mention to be from 1808, by William Cobbett. In that context it may be akin to the term 'Coventrated', invemted by German propaganda after the bombing of Coventry; worth a mention there, but hardly a general term for fire-bombing then or after. Thoughts? Moonraker12 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

There's been no response to this, so I have re-written the article, without the unsubstantiated opinion it had before. The term seems to have had some limited use, but I'm still not convinced of it's notability. Ah well, Moonraker12 (talk) 01:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment)

The explanation section is in dire need of re-editing. It claims that "Copenhagen was the scene of another battle six years earlier, when under similar circumstances the British navy attacked the Danish fleet at anchor and destroyed it." This is not correct. Firstly, the circumstances were strikingly different, with the Danes being forewarned and possessing enough time to arrange an effective defence outside of the harbour. This attack did not lead to widespread condemnation of Britain, nor did it severely impact Anglo-Danish relations. The British fleet was also totally unfamiliar with the waters and operating in a very different political and strategic context. That is why the first battle didn't give rise to enduring terms or engender disgust, anger, or fear.

Secondly, the majority of the Danish fleet was not destroyed in 1801! If it was destroyed, how could it have been captured in 1807? At an absolute minimum, this page should refer to Ole Feldbæk's "The battle of Copenhagen 1801". Gareth Glover's "The Two Battles of Copenhagen 1801 and 1807" (pp. 208-210.) lists 18 remaining ships of the line in the Danish fleet, following the battle. The majority of the defensive line in 1801 was comprised of run down old vessels, floating batteries/platforms, transports, and gunboats. Those ships sunk or captured were effectively disposable and not representative of the Danish fleet - that was the very reason for their being anchored outside of the harbour in the first place. Their purpose was to protect the real navy, safe within the harbour. The Danish navy was safe at anchor during the battle, with the exception of a very small number of warships, stationed at the harbour mouth as a last resort. Those ships were unharmed during the battle.

Another issue is the complete lack of reference to actual terms used widely. The term "Copenhagening" or the phrase "to Copenhagen" were widely used by First Sea Lord Fisher during the first decade of the 20th century. For some reason, searches for that word redirect to this page, despite the total abscence of the word from the page in favour of one which has seen minimal usage. Why does this page exist? Why is it not named "Copenhagening"? The evidence presented for this term is incredibly minimal and the newspapers cited seem to have disparate understandings of the term's supposed meaning, though the excerpts are so short as to largely obscure the context. There is an entire article written on German fears about the "Copenhagening" of the German Home Fleet: Jonathan Steinberg, "The Copenhagen Complex", Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1914 (Jul., 1966), pp. 23-46. The following page even links this page to the actual word and gives a good definition: "Copenhagenization (naval) (AKA Copenhagening), an old term for a pre-emptive strike on a neutral state to eliminate a possible threat." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_(disambiguation)

The fear of being Copenhagened is about waking to suddenly find an overpowering force seizing or destroying your navy. This is the German understanding of the term, as per Steinberg 1966. Any other understandings are questionable. Azar Gat presumably shares this understanding, as do every other scholar cited. They are almost certainly not referring to 1801. The real Danish fleet was neither damaged nor captured in 1801 and that event was not of particular importance to other European states. That is why it didn't cause major upset in Britain and has largely been forgotten despite Nelson's sterling decision making! The second battle, on the other hand, remains one of the more well-known little-known battles. It culminated in the bombardment and occupation of Copenhagen, as well as the looting of the Danish dockyards and the seizure of the entire navy. If you truly believe any author is referring to the 1801, I feel it is necessary that you provide citations from that author to support that view. It really makes very little sense to refer to the 1801 battle where nothing of meaningful strategic consequence was lost to Denmark, when the 1807 battle saw Denmark lose everything.

One or two historians turning an "-ing" into an "-isation" is not a strong basis for a page. I see no meaningful reason for this page to be oriented around a word that has seen such minimal usage, when the authentic meaning behind the term has been more properly expressed through slightly different words and terms. Once the proposed edits have been made to more accurately reflect the events of 1801/1807, I hope someone will rename it "Copenhagening". The current contents could be rearranged, if they were deemed worth keeping. 2A00:23C4:1D81:D600:9158:18B9:46E0:19FA (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)MandMedBog

(I’ve separated this to a new section, per WP:TALK, as it doesn’t seem related to the comment above.
I can’t decide whether to delete this as a single edit rant or to make a reply. Moonraker12 (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC))

OK (going for option 2) I think you have missed the point of the article, here. The expression 'Copenhagenization' isn’t making any judgement on the events of 1807 (or of 1801); it is alluding to them in order to make a point about something else. Using them as a metaphor, I would suggest, for a knock-out blow delivered to a hitherto neutral nation and it's navy.

So 'Copenhagenize', (or 'Copenhagened', or 'Copenhagening', depending on what tense is being used) in the 19th century was used a couple of times by some American writers to express a concern that the US would be bludgeoned into submission sometime by having its coastal cities bombarded. (a reference to the events of 1807).

Contrariwise, in the early 20th century it was used to suggest the nascent German Navy might be destroyed at anchor in a pre-emptive strike (and in 1993 Gat used it to describe the actual destruction at anchor of the French fleet at Mers el Kebir) (which is better understood as a reference to 1801).

The whole point of this kind of metaphor is that the event alluded to should be so familiar to the reader that the comparison is immediately understood; the fact that this has to be explained means it’s a bit of a failure in that respect.

So if you feel the explanation needs re-writing I suggest you first get it clear in your head what is meant by the use of the term.

If you feel that the Danes weren’t beaten at the 1801 battle, or that they weren’t knocked out of any involvement in the war at the time, then take it up on that article's talk page; it really doesn't have any place here.

And if you think this page needs re-naming, take it to WP:RM; but I would point out that 'Copenhagenization' is the original form (per the Aurora, and Cobbett). Moonraker12 (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

So what's it mean?

As the header says, what does the term actually mean? The article never defines it. Burning down a navy, or a city? Doing so without a declaration of war? Doing so as a preventative measure?__Gamren (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gamren:: Good question! As I mentioned above, I’m not even sure it’s real word, but I thought it might well survive an AfD given the reliable-looking sources at the bottom, so I thought I would try re-writing it to make to clearer. It seems it is still not clear, so I’ve taken another pass at it. If you have any suggestions I’m all ears… Moonraker12 (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)