Humanities desk
< October 11	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 12

Chinese and New Zealand Holiday

Does anybody know what the differences and similarities are between Chinese New Year and New Zealand's New Year celebrations???

Any help wound be much appricated, many thanks, POKEMON RULES 00:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarity is that they are both held once a year. Difference is that the years aren't the same length. :) DirkvdM 07:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the differences and similarities between gathering, preparing, cooking and eating of food for the Chinese New Year and New Zealand's New Year celebrations?

Once agian, many thanks, POKEMON RULES 22:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess a 'traditional' NZ new year would encompass outdoor activites, bbq, camping, beer, parties... similar to a lot of other countries with European origins... minus of course the snow and cold weather. The article Chinese New Year should let you know what goes on in that part of the world. Boomshanka 01:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn 166

Can anyone identify "Hymn 166" for me? It's mentiioned in the ODNB entry for John Boson (writer), his dates were 1655-1730. DuncanHill 00:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, would it be that old parlor favorite

Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle;.

of the mighty conflict sing;.

tell the triumph of the victim,

to his cross thy tribute bring.

...or would that be Hymn 166 from the Rig Veda, book x, you know, the one that begins

रषभं मा समानानां सपत्नानां विषासहिम Wetman 01:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 'Hymn 166' seems to be mentioned in the ODNB entry for Thomas Boson (bapt. 1635, d. 1719), who's said to have translated it into Cornish. It doesn't look to me like a reference to an early English hymnal such as Miles Coverdale's Goostly Psalms and Spirituall Songs. Thomas Boson's ODNB biographer, Matthew Spriggs, may have drawn 'Hymn 166' from one of the sources he lists, and Padel's The Cornish writings of the Boson family (1975) looks like the most likely one. You could try checking that to see if 'Hymn 166' is explained there. Xn4 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - both for spotting my error and for pointing me in a likely direction - good work! DuncanHill 21:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, have found a translation by Thos. Boson of the Hundredth Psalm on a site of Late Cornish texts, but no mention of "hymn 166". This will need more digging! DuncanHill 21:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should say the Hundredth Psalm is probably what you're after, as that was a great Puritan favourite and a likely candidate for translation. If so, then someone has bungled. Xn4 21:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Sufis

Are there Hindu Sufis, or is there a such thing as Sufi Hinduism? --Vikramkr 00:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sufis are by definition Muslim or Muslim-inspired. Specifically, they are Muslim practitioners of mysticism. There are two main Hindu traditions that incorporate mysticism: Vedanta and Yoga. Practitioners of the latter are known as yogis and might be considered rough Hindu counterparts of the Sufis. Marco polo 20:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Sufis are by definition Muslim, but traditions aren't always so clear-cut. See this article on "Hindu Sufism".--Pharos 04:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Tito to Saddam

Tito fell, the region became overrun by factions. Now same thing is happening in Iraq?--Mostargue 02:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And then the Yugoslavia was split up, so should the same thing happen to Iraq? A big difference is that Yugoslavia was a recent construct, after WWI. However, Iraq has for very long been a unity, as Persia. This goes waaaay back, so now I wonder if there has always been a ruler like Hussein to keep the country together. I assume the differences between the factions aren't a recent thing. A very important question to answer if one is to make a decision on what should happen with Iraq (who is to make that decision is an entirely different matter). DirkvdM 07:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Iraq is very much a constructed state. The modern state is the successor of the Kingdom of Iraq, which was the British Mandate of Mesopotamia, which was itself created from part of the Ottoman Empire following the First World War, resulting from the Sykes-Picot Agreement made between Britain and France in 1916. This is an extract from a history thesis:

Iraq constructed, pulled out of thin air, void of nationalistic leanings or reason for existence, Iraq from its birth was a nation provided with artificial boundaries, leaders, and basic reasons for existence.

Iran is much more cohesive - geographically and culturally - and was formerly known as Persia. -- !! ?? 12:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! DirkvdM 17:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little confusion here. Dirk seems to be thinking of Iran, which used to be called Persia. Like Yugoslavia, Iraq is also a "recent construct", having been created by the League of Nations and the British from former parts of the Ottoman Empire after the First World War. Indeed, there's another parallel, which is that most of Yugoslavia had also been part of the Ottoman Empire, although most of it wasn't still Ottoman at the beginning of the Great War. While most Iraqis are Arabs, it's entirely arguable now that the creation of a composite country including (for instance) a significant Kurdish minority has turned out badly. But I don't think we can look back now and say that those who created Iraq ought to have seen the matter in that light at the time. Xn4 12:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One minor amendment, Xn4. None of the future Yugoslavia was controlled by the Ottomans at the beginning of the Great War. They had been driven out in 1912 during the First Balkan War. Clio the Muse 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mostargue. Part of your question (is it a question?) seems to be in danger of being lost, so let me clarify some more of the basic facts.

You have, I think, drawn a very interesting and valid parallel here, as the political dynamics at work were essentially the same in both cases, allowing for all due difference in cultural and religious traditions. Both Yugoslavia and Iraq were entirely artificial political creations, arising from the whole Versailles peace process that followed the Great War. Both were based, in essence, on a pattern of domination and subordination; in the case of Yugoslavia the subordination of the other constituent nations, most particularly the Croats, to the Serbs; and in the case of Iraq the subordination of the Shia and the Kurds to the new Sunni ruling class, favoured by the British in the Mandate of Mesopotamia and the later Hashemite kingdom. In both cases the state, the nation itself, could only be maintained by strong central authority, that had the effect of building up ethnic and religious grievances. Well before the emergence of Josip Broz Tito the centrifugal tensions within Yugoslavia led to the creation of a royal, and Serbian, dictatorship under Alexander I. So, in essence, Yugoslavia was no better than Greater Serbia. Tito, part Croat and part Slovene, managed to moderate the acute ethnic tensions (which became especially bad during the Second World War), but they never went away. He died; Yugoslavia died.

In Iraq the army in particular was the vehicle for Sunni domination. After the overthrow of the monarchy in the 14 July Revolution of 1958 Saddam Hussein eventually emerged as the new strong man, in charge of a secular state, though one based on the systematic suppression of Kurdish and Shia dissent. His removal only exposed Iraq for what it always was: a coalition of the unwilling. It seems such a pity that the leaders of the western alliance did not have a better understanding of the facts of history. Clio the Muse 23:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I barely dare open my mouth (fingers?) again in this thread, but I'm wondering about one thing. Neither your explanation, nor the Yugoslavia and Versailles treaty articles make it clear to me how Yugoslavia was formed. Was the unification an initiative from within or from the outside? The reason I wonder is that countries that are created by outsiders usually have internal troubles to say the least. Most notably former colonies (with boundaries that don't reflect former boundaries), but also Liberia, Sierra Leone and Israel. Are there examples of such countries that remained peaceful (excluding cases where one party was overwhelmingly more powerful than the other(s))? DirkvdM 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the Great War, Serbia and Austria-Hungary were the two powers in the territory which later became Yugoslavia, and they fought on different sides. (As you will know, the rivalry between Serbia and the Austrians provided the spark which set off the War.) The Serbians fought hard and suffered catastrophic casualties, facing German and Bulgarian forces as well as those of Austria-Hungary. More than half of all Serbian men were killed or wounded, and most of the country's young men. Having lost Serbia itself, the remains of the Serbian army retreated into Greece and went on fighting and were able to recover Serbia during September 1918, as the Central Powers were collapsing. The war ended on 11 November 1918, and a few weeks later, amid the ruins of the Austrian Empire, the victorious Serbs set up the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, which later became 'Yugoslavia' (which means the country of the South Serbs). Even these names are revealing. 'Serbs, Croats and Slovenes' omitted mentioning the Macedonians, the Bosnians and the Montenegrins: the Macedonians aren't Serbs (most of them speak a language close to Bulgarian); the Bosnians divide into Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats, and Muslim Bosniacs; the Montenegrins are ethnically and religiously close to the Serbs, but don't consider themselves Serbs. The Bosniacs, although Slavs, were of course identified more with the Ottomans than with their Christian fellow Slavs. So the name 'Yugoslavia' was an attempt at a name which would include all of these nationalities. It failed, of course, to include the Albanians of Kosovo and Macedonia, who aren't Slavs. Even the name of the country was a clue to its lack of homogeneity. Xn4 21:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was formed by a combination of factors, political and strategic. The Serbs, as Xn4 has outlined, were well enough placed in 1918 to take advantage of the implosion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, by creating an enlarged slav state, loosely based on Wilsonian principles of self-determination. In practice it was military opportunism, given retrospective justification by the Allies. I used the expression the 'Versailles peace process' as a convenient umbrella term for the whole of the post-war settlement, though the treaties that affected Yugoslavia specifically are Trianon with Hungary-from whom the Serbs got most of their expanded territory-and St. Germain with Austria. Clio the Muse 00:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam or Hussein?

Why is Saddam Hussein almost invariably referred to as Saddam? Is that his 'last' name? His children are called Hussein, so that doesn't make sense from a western point of view. Or is it because there are so many Husseins? And is there only one Saddam, as the redirect suggests? DirkvdM 07:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam is his name. In traditional Arabic naming, one doesn't have a surname, but rather a name with a collection of modifiers: in Saddam's case, Hussein is a patronymic. His children are often called Hussein, but that's because we're imposing western conventions: for example, Uday Hussein is more fully called Uday Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti, 'Uday the son of Saddam the sun of Hussein of Tikrit'. There's a discussion of this in footnote 1 at Saddam Hussein. Note that in Arabic, names are generally also meaningful words, so Saddam's full name can be translated as 'Stubborn, the son of Handsome, the son of Noble, from Tikrit'. Algebraist 13:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion of this: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/January_2007#Arabic_Names. While Saddam's family observed "traditional Arabic naming" and appended the father's first name as a second name, many other Arabs have been passing down surnames for centuries without any suspicion that it is a "Western convention" or any less "traditional" (though some might argue it shows Ottoman influence). Wareh 13:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've gathered, the term Saddam to refer to Saddam Hussein came in use during the Gulf War of 1990/1991. This was a rhetorical device, intended to belittle Saddam Hussein, to purge him of any prestige he could derive from his position as president. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Saddam means 'one who confronts'. Which doesn't sound too bad. But it isn't quite as positive as Hussein, which means 'beautiful' or 'handsome'. Btw, I suspected something similar, that that name was used in the West because it sounds like 'Sodom'. Something like renaming the Viet Minh 'Viet Cong' because that sounds more like a big danger (King Kong). DirkvdM 15:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Aecis, I seem to remember hearing that Baghdad had a Saddam Stadium and Saddam Museum and Saddam Airport or what-have-you, and that Mr son-of-Hussein dropped the "Tikriti" because people started to notice how many officers shared it. —Tamfang 08:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valuation

How do you convince Tom and Dekey that Valuation is a professional? Every Body can carry out property valuation.Do you agree?Please i beg your help even refferencesGeorgekalusanga 08:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean convince someone that valuation is a profession? Well you can never be sure of convincing anyone of anything, but you could show them a good dictionary, such as the OED, which has the following entries:

"Valuer: One who estimates or assesses values; a valuator.

Valuator: One who estimates the value of things; esp. one appointed or licensed to do so; an appraiser.

Appraiser: One who appraises: spec. a person appointed and sworn to estimate the value of property.

Assessor: One who officially estimates the value of property or income for purposes of taxation."

Property valuation requires comprehensive knowledge of local property markets, which is why estate agents employ professional valuers.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

n informal

As you say, anyone can carry out a property valuation, but it will be seen as an informal valuation and will have little weight if not done by someone professionally qualified. In the UK, we have people called "chartered valuation surveyors", whose abilities are verified by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. If another professional were to rely on a valuation by an unqualified person then in some circumstances it could amount to professional misconduct. In any event, it would be taking unnecessary risks. Xn4 12:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who are "Tom" and "Dekey"? Would knowing who they are help one of us better understand the question? Bielle 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam and Stalin

Since today seems to be Saddam Day I thought I made as well add another question. Did Saddam admire Stalin? Can the be compared? Please don't tell me they were both dictators! 217.43.13.176 08:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, this is coverted in the Saddam Hussein article on here:

Saddam was also a great admirer of Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin. During the 1970s, he visited all fifteen of Stalin's seaside dachas in Abkhazia which dotted along the coast of the Black Sea. In a meeting with Saddam in 1979, Kurdish politician Mahmoud Othman recalled that his office included a library of solely books on the Soviet leader. Saddam's visit to the dachas was said to be one of the inspirations for Saddam's construction of the grand palaces built in Baghdad and Iraq.

How odd. You learn something new every day. (There are references in the article itself, if you want to follow up on it.) --24.147.86.187 14:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam studied Stalinism in Cairo and admired Stalinist sayings like: "If there is a person there is a problem; if there is no person there is no problem". Although Saddam was anti-communist, the way the Baathist party constructed a one-party state after the 1968 revolution is reminiscent of Stalinism, and its policies are reminiscent of Stalinization.qp10qp 20:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at their mustaches. —Tamfang 08:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"role of women in india's struggle for freedom"

how can i make the project on the topic "role of women in india's struggle for freedom"? please help me in making my project. please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.177.169.22 (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start by studying articles such as women in India, feminism in India, and women in Hinduism and following up some of the links from there. You local library will also be very pleased to help you.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 19:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find The History of Doing: Women's Movement in India by Radha Kumar of some use here, though its account of the struggle for freedom by Indian women is far more broadly based-it has to be-than the mere politics of India's struggle for freedom. Clio the Muse 00:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Women in British India

Please I should like to know more about the changes in the position and status of Indian women in the days of the late British Raj up to independence. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusam M (talk • contribs) 05:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kusam, assuming you are working on a different theme from the above you should look at Women in Colonial India ed by J. Krishnamutry; Recasting Women ed. by Sangari and Vaid; Forging Identities ed. by Z. Hassan; and Women and the Hindu Right ed. by T. Safkar abd V. Butalia. You will find some interesting and pertinent papers spread across these anthologies. Clio the Muse 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English crown jewels

Can anyone tell me anymore about the fate of the crown jewels after the execution of Charles I in 1649? K Knut —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them were destroyed by Oliver Cromwell. They were not, of course, the Crown Jewels dating from the Anglo-Saxon period, which had been lost by King John in crossing a swampy area in the east of England called The Wash. It was the replacement set of crown jewels which was mostly melted down by Cromwell. In The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual, Sherlock Holmes discovers the missing crown. Xn4 12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not totally true. There is the legend that King John lost a large portion of the English Crown Jewels while crossing the Wash but this may have been a tale invented at a later date. It is known that the most important Anglo-Saxon piece survived until 1649; the crown of King Alfred the Great (ruled 849 - 899AD). This crown may not have actually been that of King Alfred and is widely considered to have been the later crown of (Saint) Edward the Confessor (ruled 1040 - 1066), which was redesignated to Alfred (a more national and less "catholic" figure) following the protestant reformation. Nevertheless it was a priceless piece predating the Norman Conquest. I say priceless in an historical sense only, lamentably the gold from it was sold at just £248... A description of this artifact can be found here: [1]. As for what happened to the various pieces, those items found in the Tower of London were "totalie broken and defaced" before being sent in pieces to the Mint for melting into coins. Of the crown of Alfred/Edward the record states this was simply "despatched to the mint". Some smaller pieces of regalia were sold off intact and many of these - an example is the anointing spoon - as well as many of the original gem stones were returned after the restoration in 1660 and incorporated into the new crown jewels made in 1661. James Frankcom (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In July 1649, some six months after the king's execution, an act was passed resolving that "the personal Estate of the late King, Queen and Prince shall be inventoried, appraised and sold. Except such parcels of them as shall be thought fit to be reserved for the Use of State." When the said inventory was completed in August the Commons then ordered that it be handed over to trustees appointed for the purpose "...who are to cause the same to be totally broken: and that they mealt down the gold and silver of them; and sell the jewels for the best advantage of the commomwealth." In the period from mid-December 1649 to mid-January 1650 almost every item of the regalia was disposed of. The instructions given to the trustees were precise enough to ensure that the most potent symbols of English royalty were not sold off intact, but were instead to be "totallie Broken and Defaced." The state crown, valued at the time at the huge sum of £1,100, was taken apart, the pearls going to some, the sapphires to others, the gold to the Mint to be turned into coins. It was a political act. The state orb, another priceless artifact, yielded a mere £57 worth of gold when melted down. Saint Edward's regalia, including the coronation crown, passed directly to the Mint. All had to be made anew after the Restoration. Clio the Muse 00:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a very good idea of the possessions of Charles I, due to the sale inventory and the previous inventory compiled in around 1639 by Abraham van der Doort. -- !! ?? 10:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Sealion

I would like to know what the evidence is that Hitler really intended to invade Britain in 1940. Captainhardy 11:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quote here from Operation Sealion by Egbert Kieser, a quite comprehensive paperback: "There is not a single clue that Hitler ever really did intend to occupy the British Islands. There is much evidence that in a complete misapprehension of the actual situation, he intended from the outset to force Britain into concluding a peace agreement by means of a massive threat, in order thereby to clear the way for his attack upon Russia." However, quoting from the same volume: "But would he have stopped it, had the Luftwaffe won and the British still not thrown in the towel?" Random Nonsense 12:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of Hitler's "real" intentions is poor, because he did not like to write things down. But there were certainly preparations, whether a ruse or not. -- !! ?? 13:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is true that Hitler had a tendency not to reveal his intentions in writing, apart from an unguarded moment, it is possible to follow his footsteps quite closely in the period between June 1940 and June 1941, in such a manner to make his precise goals fully transparent. To begin with detailed planning on Operation Sealion did not start for more than a month after the Fall of France, during which period Hitler had hoped the British would make peace of their own accord. The whole thing, in other words, was a strategic afterthought. The invasion directive itself, moreover, is remarkably vague (contrast it with Directive Number 21-Case Barbarossa), calling for grand gestures and imprecise goals. There is also the quite absurd suggestion that a 'surprise' crossing be made of the English Channel. The quest, for example, for 'total air superiority' was both excessive and unnecessary. It simply delayed matters and forced German fighters further and further into English air space, to the outer limits of their fuel capacity. All that was really needed was local air superiority over the Channel and the invasion beaches, which could easily have been achieved with the right degree of will and effort. Yet, even with local air superiority (and total air superiotity!) German naval forces were simply unequal to the task, as were the river barges assembled for ferrying troops across the Channel.

So, what was the real purpose of the whole charade, apart, that is, from bluffing the England into surrender? Look east, always east! The magician was already at work, deceiving openly with one hand, while moving secretly with the other. Everything connected with Sealion was open and obvious; everything connected with Barbarossa was caried out under the tightest of security. Even the supposed moves against Britain in the Balkans and the eastern Mediterranean merely allowed Hitler to redeploy his troops and secure his southern flank prior to his one true aim-war with Russia. When Barbarossa begins the world will hold its breath and make no comment. Clio the Muse 01:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think Hitler would have done if he had won air superiority? The Home Fleet would not have been much use under an unconstrained bombardment from the Luftwaffe. I wonder how much longer the RAF could have held out, if the German effort had not been diverted to civilian targets. -- !! ?? 10:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However inner-Yugoslavian political circumstances forced him to include the conquest of Yugoslavia in his Balkan Campaign. I has often been argued that this delay which cost the Wehrmacht precious summerweather was the first reason for German failure in the Soviet Union. Hitle referred to the Soviet Union as Britain´s Festlandsdegen (continental sword). He held tthe opinion Britain ´s reason not to surrender was that it hoped for Stalin´s intervention. Thus by breaking the Soviets Britain would abandon all hope and make peace. --Tresckow 12:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tresckow, I am familiar with the argument that the delays caused by Operation Punishment had serious consequences for the Barbarossa timetable. While I would not dismiss it altogether, I think it is one that can be overplayed. After all, the campaign itself took just two weeks to complete and fitted well within Hitler's general Balkan strategy, providing a perfect cover for the eastward movement of the German army. He had in Operation Marita-Directive Number 18-already drawn up his own plans for an invasion of Greece, well before Mussolini got into difficulty. Can you imagine that Hitler would have invaded Russia without first securing his southern flank, particularly the crucial Romanian oil reserves? Did Hitler go to war with Russia to get at Britain? It may have been a bonus but it was far from being the overriding consideration. His programme is set out clearly in Mein Kampf, one of the most honest and consistent testamemts in political history. Clio the Muse 00:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to say, really. A full scale daylight bombardment of unprotected British cities may have forced the government to negotiate, though you have to bear in mind the limitations of the German bomber wing, which was really only geared to the short-term Blitzkrieg strategy. Your second point on the Home Fleet is worthy of some more detailed consideration, because it may help to explode some of the myths still nurtured about the Battle of Britain and the unique role of the RAF; for it was the Royal Navy, and not the Air Force, that prevented a German invasion. On this point Dr. Andrew Gordon, head of maritime history at the Joint Services Command Staff College, has written;

To claim that Germany failed to invade in 1940 because of what was done by the phenomenally brave and skilled young men of Fighter Command is hogwash. The Germans stayed away because while the Royal Navy existed they had not a hope in hell of capturing these islands. The navy had ships in sufficient numbers to have overwhelmed any invasion fleet-destroyers' speed alone would have swamped the barges by their wash, hardly a need fot guns.

And this, I must add, is not just a sailor's perspective, because it has been supported by Dr. Christina Goulter, a specialist in the history of air warfare, and by none other than Alfred Jodl, who said that in the face of the Navy a cross-Channel invasion would be to "send my troops into a mincing machine."

Would the ships not have been vulnerable from the air? Not according to Dr Gordon, or the Navy itself, which always maintained that fast moving ships at sea, able to manoeuvre quickly, were 'pretty safe from attack.' The destroyers lost in the Dunkirk evacuation-six in all-had been stationary at the time. During the earlier Norwegian campaign, when the ships had kept on the move, the Navy suffered no significant loss. Remember, too, at this time the Luftwaffe had no armour-piercing bombs, and was thus unlikely to have caused any real damage to the big capital ships. The Luftwaffe, moreover, had no crews specialising in naval attack, and no torpedo bombers. For Hitler to have gambled in these circumstances, placing his best troops in nothing better than river barges, would have risked a serious reverse. It simply was never going to happen. Clio the Muse 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I understand it, roughly half of the large vessels at Dunkirk were sunk or damaged, and nearly all of the remainder were damaged: out of 42 large vessels involved at Dunkirk, the British lost 6 destroyers, the French also lost 3 destroyers, and 19 destroyers were damaged; and nine other other large vessels were sunk. The small vessels did not do much better: 200 smaller ones out of about 700 were sunk. And that was with a spirited RAF defence - the RAF lost over 170 aircraft, slightly more than the Luftwaffe.

The Japanese (or, indeed, Americans or British) did not seem to have that much of a problem bombing "fast-moving" Naval vessels, which were, later in the war, much better equipped for anti-aircraft operations. Exactly how difficult is it modify a bomber to drop a torpedo? -- !! ?? 17:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you read the above again you will note that the key to evading successful strikes by the enemy was speed and maneuverability, and I do stress that this is not my view but that of the Admiralty. The destroyers lost at Dunkirk were attacked while virtually stationary. The Japanese aircraft later in the war were armed with the armour-piercing bombs that were necessary to sink capital ships, like the Repulse and Prince of Wales. More than that, they had pilots who had undergone intensive training in forms of naval attack, used at Perl Harbor and elsewhere. The Germans did not, or at least not until Fliegerkorp X made ready for the 1941 attack on Crete. As far as your final question is concerned, I really have no idea, and you will have to seek technical advice. What I do know is that the Germans had no torpedo bombers, nor did they attempt any modifications of existing aircraft. More important than that, they had no pilots trained in this form of skilled naval attack. One does not launch torpedos, after all, in the same fashion as dropping bombs. I am not trying to convince you of anything, merely laying out some simple facts. It makes no difference to me whether you accept them or not. Clio the Muse 23:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) The Admiralty may say that, but the Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse graphically shows how effective "speed and maneuverability" are when surface ships come under sustained aerial bombardment - aeroplanes have the whip hand, in terms of speed and maneuverability, over surface vessels.

I think your emphasis on armour-piercing bombs is misplaced: the Japanese bombers were pretty ineffective in that engagement: it was the toropedoes that sunk Prince of Wales and Repulse - both were hit by five or six torpedoes; Prince of Wales was hit by only one bomb, which caused some minor damage but killed many wounded gathered on deck. In any event, I doubt whether the Admiralty have risked capital ships in the confined waters of the Channel, leaving them exposed to attack from U-boats and fast torpedo boats with little room to manoeuvre: more likely, they would have attacked an invasion fleet with destroyers and/or cruisers, and those vessels would have been more vulnerable to bombing, due to their lower levels of deck armour.

I am not saying that Hitler ever intended much more than a threat to invade Britain - but I think things could have got very sticky indeed for the UK if the Luftwaffe had continued its direct assault on the RAF, and ended up with the air superiority that the Germans never, in the event, achieved. -- !! ?? 09:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, this is just another of those questions which, by its very nature, does not admit of any definite resolution. Clio the Muse 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The German Luftwaffe or the air branch of the Navy must have had capabilities to some degree. They were constructing a carrier, German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin and had torpedoplanes Arado Ar 95.--Tresckow 15:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Tresckow, but the Graf Zeppelin, as I am sure you know, was never completed. As far as I am aware the Ar 95 was only ever intended for reconnaissance purposes. At any rate, it was never used by the German armed forces. A variation, the Arado Ar 195, was designed as a torpedo bomber, but never got beyond the prototype stage. The Graf Zeppelin, when completed, was to be equipped with the Fieseler Fi 167. Only a few of these were ever built, construction being halted altogether when the Zeppelin project was abandoned. I do not believe they were ever used as torpedo bombers, just as I do not believe that German aircrews ever received specialist training in this field of operations. Clio the Muse 22:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Darre and the environment

Your article on Walter Darre says he is quite influential on modern right wing extremists. Could he also not be seen as a prophet of the environment movement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastbank (talk • contribs) 13:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a comfortable antecedent for them, I feel sure, but, yes, you are right, there are many aspects to Walter Darre's thinking that could quite easily be fitted in to Green ecology. Darre, for example, in his capacity as Reich Minister for Agriculture, was an early exponent of organic farming. When you strip away the racism from Blood and soil and the other aspects of his oeuvre, then the familiar patterns emerge: the need for new farming techniques; a radical rethinking of the links between agriculture and industry; he even called for an end to 'globalisation', though in a different form of words! His first moves as Minister of Agriculture was to introduce security of tenure for medium and small farmers, followed by the implementation of a fair pricing system for their produce. He also wrote a series of articles, including one on the dangers of erosion. It was his view that soil was a living organism, part of a cycle of growth and decay, which, if misused, would have a serious impact on the quality of the food produced He was thus opposed to intensive forms of industrial farming and the unrestricted use of insecticides and chemical fertilisers. The problem for him was that his ideas on food production and the environment were at variance with the ultimate needs of the German war economy, and he was demoted in 1942. After the war he continued to defend and promote his ideas on small-scale and sustainable farming, including an attempt to found a society for the protection of the environment, right up to his death in 1953. Clio the Muse 02:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mithramat

I have found a few websites that make the claim that Manicheanism is synonymous with Mithramat, which sounds suspiciously similar to Mithraism. Given that Mithraism and Manicheanism are reputed to have come from Persia, and Manicheanism is a syncretic faith, absorbing many other religious ideas from other faiths, I wonder how accurate this statement is? Can we say anything definite, given our very limited lack of information about these mainly extinct beliefs and lack of documentation? Is Mithramat a proper synonym for Manicheanism?--Filll 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal penalty for women who seek abortions

This video got me wondering: what was the punishment for US/UK women who sought out abortions before it was legalized? If there was only punishment for the providers, how was that legally justified? I know in the US the restrictions were state by state, but information on any would be good. Thanks. --Sean 18:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Abortion in the United Kingdom and Abortion in the United States. In the UK, abortion first became illegal in 1803, with the punishment of either the death penalty or exile to Australia. The death penalty was repealed in 1837 and the Offences against the Person Act 1861 replaced exile with life imprisonment. During the early twentieth century, various extenuating circumstances (rape, endangerment of life) were added. Under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act, both the provider and the mother could be punished with up to life imprisonment, although in practice, it tended to be less than that; the Abortion Act 1967 made abortion legal up to 28 weeks (later amended to 24), and outside this range, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act is still in effect, although punishments now tend not to be severe (the most recent prosecution resulted in a 12 month suspended sentence. Note that abortion is still illegal (except in cases of endangerment of life) in Northern Ireland, where the strict Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1945 is still in effect. Laïka 19:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ranks in the PLA

The article Ranks of the People's Liberation Army says that from 1927 to 1955, and from 1965 to 1988, the People's Liberation Army did not have a system of ranks. If that's so, then how did they tell who was supposed to be giving orders, and who was supposed to be following them? --67.185.172.158 22:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine-and I do stress that I am speculating here-that the 'chain of command' operated on much the same basis as in the Communist Party itself, with more authority being given to senior and more experienced cadre, people of proven loyalty. Badges of rank were abolished for a time in the Soviet Army, but that had little practical effect on established lines of authority. Clio the Muse 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

The article Guantanamo Bay Naval Base states that the US leases the area from Cuba. According to the article, "The lease was established in a 1903 agreement between the two governments, and its terms were modified in a 1934 treaty." Most treaties expire after a while. What I couldn't find anywhere, is when the 1934 treaty will expire. Or does it extend in perpetuity? A ecis^Brievenbus 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aecis, the 1934 treaty amended possession by the US from perpetuity to a 99 year lease. The treaty, however, can only be ended by mutual agreement. I have no idea what will happen in 2033! Clio the Muse 22:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that present day Cuba isn't the Cuba that signed the treaty (which was effectively a US colony) and it therefore doesn't recognise it. The US send the money (which I understand is ridiculously little), but Cuba doesn't touch it (leaves it in the bank) because they don't consider it theirs (well, more likely it's meant to defy the US). DirkvdM 15:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The annual payment established by the treaty concluded under the Platt Amendment in 1903 was for $2000 in gold coin, which was changed in 1934 to a dollar equivalent of $4085, a sum that has clearly been erroded by inflation ever since. The present Cuban government does not touch the money (though one cheque was cashed by accident) not because they do not consider it 'to be theirs', but because to do so would give the bargain legitimacy. Clio the Muse 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The treaty was arguably one of adhesion, because Cuba and the United States were not bargaining on equal terms. The U.S. was an occupying military power and ordered the Cuban government to include in its constitution the granting of right to naval bases. This was not reached by any equitable bargaining process. The U.S in 1903 [2] and in 1934 [3] was able to dictate terms to Cuba. A comparable abuse would have been if the French government, after they used their army and fleet to defeat the British at Yorktown in the American Revolution, had said they would not leave and would not allow the U.S. to have an independent government and constitution unless they granted France a permanent naval base at a desirable East Coast harbor in exchange for a nominal annual payment. This kind of abuse by an occupying power would not be legal under today's Geneva Conventions, and is an echo of late 19th-early 20th century gunboat diplomacy. It seems to ba a "grandfathered" abuse because it preceded some of the Geneva Conventions. In addition, the treaty allowed the U.S. to use the property only as a naval base, and said nothing about making it into an international prison colony. Edison 02:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]