Humanities desk
< March 6	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 8 >

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.

March 7

Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Iran

In the article Unitary state, it listed that Afghanistan, Iran and Sri Lanka. I understand that Bangladesh appoints people as Divisional Commissioner and District Commissioner. What about Afghanistan's President? What are the names for the leaders of provinces and districts of Afghanistan? What about Sri Lanka's President? What are the names for leaders of provinces and districts of Sri Lanka? What are the names for the leaders of provinces and district of Iran? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are asking about Afghanistan's president. Here is a list of Afghanistan's governors. Marco polo (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why was correction to caption rejected?

in the history of world war 2 article "FOCKE-WULF Fw190" i attempted to correct the caption of a photograph of a Fw 190A4 painted as a captured usaaf aircraft. the original caption incorrectly identified the location as a base in europe and the aircraft as a possible example evaluated by the test group. the correct caption should read that the aircraft was located in tunisia,north africa in 1942-3 the mto. this aircraft was operated by the 85th fighter squadron/79th fighter group of 12th air force. my father was an officer/pilot with the twelfh and flew this aircraft. the light blue area on the fuselage near the cockpit/canopy is the patch of the 85th fighter squadron. this unit was known as the "flying skulls". see-http://members.aol.com/brimiljeep/WebPages/SquadronPatchAAFPage.html on that page you will see the insignia of the 85th fighter squadron. my father had a photograph of him flying this focke-wulf fw 190. the photo was taken from another aircraft flying in formation. in the photo the side of the fuselage is clearly visible with the squadron insignia---my father is also clearly recognizable. my correction was an effort nto correct an error and contribute to your data base. the flying photo also appeared in a monthly issue of "wings" a sentry magazine that was highlighting the focke-wulf fw 190 german fighter aircraft. the picture was included as an example of some that were captured when the germans quit north africa in 1943. hope this helps. contact details removed. my father was an air force officer for 32 years. the first plane he ever flew was a Boeing P-12 in 1937. he retired in 1970 as a full colonel. his last position was as chief of staff of 8th air force at westover afb ,mass.Hal whiteman (talk) 05:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with the editing of an article, you should take it up on that article's talk page. FiggyBee (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FiggyBee. The editors who undid your change had no idea where you got your information. In particular, if you can provide info about the specific issue of Wings, that would almost certainly address their concern. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judicial Terror and the Third Reich

The Socialist underground press called what the Nazis did to the Jews after 1935 'Judical Terror.' I would like to know how this worked in practice in the period before the outbreak of the war? It's not so much grand set piece pogroms I am asking about-and here the obvious example is the Night of Broken Glass. Rather I am thinking of the day to day process of persecuation, the way the police and the other agencies of the state acted to enforce discrimination. I would also like to know what impact Nazi policy here had on the public at large? Thank you for your time. Vic Viking (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Freisler, Judges' Trial -- AnonMoos (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst other things, Vic, the Kripo-the main branch of the Criminal Police- was given specific instructions in June 1937 to arrest all those guilty of breaking the Nuremberg Laws, and send them to concentration camps. In June 1938 the definition of asocials was extended to all Jews who had served minor prison sentences in the past. This meant in practice that they could be rounded up and sent to concentration camps, as over 1500 were, even those in full-time employment, and only released on promise of emigration. This was to be the first such mass round-up in the history of the regime. Other official actions along these lines made it all but impossible for Jewish people to earn a living. The whole point of this organised 'police terror' was to force as many Jews as possible to leave Germany. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mathews and the Bakewell tart: source for this?

In your description for the bakewell tart, you give reference to a book by Ben Mathews (1839). I am struggling to find the title to the book, could you reveal the title so i can source it.

84.71.149.244 (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched high and low at Wikipedia and the web for the Ben Mathews mentioned at our article Bakewell tart, anonymous questioner. And I have searched using all combinations of Ben-or-Benjamin and Mathews-or-Matthews. I used whole phrases at Google, enclosed in quotes like this: "Ben Mathews". No luck. The text of our article appears to be borrowed, and has been borrowed in turn at many other places, it seems: but no more information comes to light.

Anyone have an idea?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 07:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the other "contributions" of the anonymous editor who inserted this, it looks like vandalism. I've removed it, as well as other old vandalism. --Lambiam 23:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteenth Century Battle, won against the odds?

I am looking for a good example of a nineteenth century battle where a weaker army won in the face of greater odds. I would particularly like to know by what means the victorous general was able to prevail over his opponent, what tactics he used in bringing victory? Was there the element of luck that Napoleon thought essential for a good commander, or was there something less nebulous at work? I suppose what I really want to know is waht are the qualities that make an outstanding commander in the field? 81.151.6.121 (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Battle of Chancellorsville from the American Civil War. Lee was outnumbered two to one. What we call luck is always in play on both sides and can therefore be discounted. Lee won by daring, good reconnaissance, deception, and energy. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Battle of Brice's Crossroads in the American Civil War, Confederate General Nathan Forrest with about 3200 men defeated Union General Samuel Sturgis who had about 8500 men. Forrest in several other Civil War actions defeated larger Union forces. Edison (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last stand may be of interest, but most of them did not end well. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like Milkbreath, I, too, would select Chancellorsville, Lee's great masterpiece, the one engagement that simply leaps to mind here. He was daring because he had to be daring, dividing his weaker army not once but twice, almost certainly the road to suicide for any other commander. But there is something else worth raising here, something in Lee's make-up that Milkbreath has not mentioned; namely the almost intuitive ability he had to read the mind of his opponent. Nowhere was this better demonstrated than at Chancellorsville, where Joseph Hooker,-like a rabbit caught in the headlights-, might be said to have lost the battle before Lee won it. Lee was also fortunate, it also has to be said, in the invaluable support he had from his Right Arm! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Isandlwana The Zulu nation had 10 times more men but they were armed with spears and cow hides. They annihilated a formation of thousands of armed men. Lotsofissues 11:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotsofissues (talk • contribs)

Lotsofissues, have you actually read the article you linked? At Isandlwana exactly one thousand British soldiers faced 25,000 Zulus. Yes, the British were armed with Martini-Henry rifles, but the defensive perimeter was too large and the guns prone to jamming, allowing the Zulus to penetrate the line with ease. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So African auxiliaries don't exist? Why do you only count 1400 British soldiers? Their perimeter was overextended because of poor leadership. Does that detract from Zulu victory? Do Mead's mistakes undermine the claim that Chancellorsville was Lee's masterpiece? In this clash of breech loading rifles against spears, you still claim the disadvantage of being outnumbered? LOLERCOASTER The British had the invincible factor. And they lost. Lotsofissues 09:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There were a lot of incompetent generals in Europe during the 19th century but I can't name them offhand.
Sleigh (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Lotsofissues. Please do not misunderstand me: I am not in any sense discounting the significance of the Zulu victory. My remark was addressed to your contention that 'they annihilated a formation of thousands of men', which is bound to give an entirely misleading impression. Yes, there were local raised troops, but the Natal Native Contingent was not only badly armed but of a highly uneven quality. The British command had a poor opinion of their fighting ability, keeping them in reserve at the outset of the battle, a position from where most would seem to have deserted, hence their relatively low casualty rates. Indeed, it is uncertain to me just how many of the NNC were actually engaged. The Wikipedia article says that over 477 'others' were killed; but it also says that British casualties amounted to 852 officers and men out of a force of 1400. Of this only 55 officers and men are said to have escaped, which leaves some 500 men unaccounted for.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the 'invincibility factor', which in the circumstances would seem to be a quite nonsensical expression. Indeed, as I have already said, the Martini-Henry rifle, which should in theory have given the British superiority over the larger Zulu army was prone to jamming, and is now considered to be one of the factors in their defeat. The simple fact remains that the British were overwhelmed by considerably superior numbers. So, if you read 81.151's question again you should be able to conclude that Isandlwana is quite out of place here.

Incidentally, as I have already said, the Union commander at Chancellorsville was Joseph Hooker, not George Mead. Mead's V Corps was kept in reserve throughout the battle, one of the factors in Hooker's defeat. If you read once again what I wrote above you will see that I make it quite plain that Hooker's mistakes were an important part of the Confederate victory; that he 'might be said to have lost the battle before Lee won it.' Clio the Muse (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, do you think Hooker would have won if he pressed the attack as Mead wanted? On second thoughts I think I will post this below as a new question. 217.43.8.37 (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

81 asked for an example of a victorious "weaker army" up against great odds. It amazes me that you think 10x, 25x, 100x, or whatever greater manpower nullifies great odds. Again--like a broken record--in this battle pitting spear against rifle, numbers are insignificant to figuring the balance sheet of advantage. Why? Because the gun is invincible! A defensive position bristling with the firepower of many volleys per minute is invincible against men running up. It's nonsensical given the circumstances that anybody got within the length of half a football field. Yet, the Zulus won, beating the most unfavorable odds. Lotsofissues 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In a battle of a large army armed with assegais vs a small army armed with unreliable firearms, I'd go for the former. Especially as the former were a very well disciplined force, nullifying that usual advantage that European powers had over native opposition. Chuck in the extraordinary Zulu bravery and military prowess, it's correct to say that while it was a tremendous victory for the Zulu, it doesn't fit the criteria the questioner asked for. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not what you're looking for, but what about the retreat from Kabul? The failure there was political, rather than military, but the end result was the destruction of the British force. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC) And, of course, the retreat from Moscow, which just scrapes in under your criteria. --Major Bonkers (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Dickens question: his political views?

Thanks to those who responded to my question on Dickens and Utilitarianism. I would now like to know more about the author's political views. For example, was he in favour of Chartism? Was he a Conservative, a Liberal or a Radical? Would he have been in favour of votes for women? I short, what is the best way of summarising his views on the great political questions of the day? Mrs 'Arris (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens agreed with Carlyle, right? So that would make him more of a conservative. He thought America was a big mess. My guess is that he would have been against votes for women, though I'm not sure he said anything about it directly. Wrad (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was more of a working class socialist than a conservative - at least modern day conservatism. Most of his books appear to feature people in positions of power (or wealth) who are cruel/unkind/uncaring, and people in positions of poverty who are honest/caring/worthy of help and often I get the impression from his works that he favoured helping the poor and had a general contempt for the rich. Could be wrong mind you, i've not read a lot of his work and i've never 'studied' it. ny156uk (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're absolutely right that he cared about the poor, the conservative thing about him is the way he says that should be done. He agrees with Carlyle. Carlyle was considered a conservative because he favored the monarchy and he favored the class structure as it was, he just argued that rich people should be nicer to poor people. Dickens' A Christmas Carol portrays the transformation of a crusty rich old man into a man who helps poor people. the rich man, however, is the one with the power. In any case, Dickens was not as liberal as John Stuart Mill and the like. Wrad (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens hated poor-houses and exploitative factory-owners, but he also hated workers' strikes, and had little sympathy with radical politics or most attempts at broad sweeping social reforms (look at his take on prison reform near the end of David Copperfield...). AnonMoos (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens was a middle-class, middle-brow, radical progressive-understood in the nineteenth century sense of the term- and something, on occasions, of an old-fashioned Tory paternalist, though I am quite aware that he would have hated to be described in such a fashion! He hated backward-looking aristocratic reaction, the abuse of power by traditional elites; but he feared the consequences of revolution even more, the essential message of A Tale of Two Cities. No, he was not in favour of Chartism, as we can guess from hostile sentiments he expressed in his correspondence (Letters, III, 282). He celebrated the fall of the French July Monarchy in 1848, while worrying about the spread of 'public bedevilments to England.

His fear of the urban under-class was fully expressed in The Old Curiosity Shop, which takes Little Nell and her Grandfather into England's dangerous industrial heartlands. He hated, above all, forms of demagoguery, which, in his view, exploits the oppressed for selfish political ends. He is generous in his perceptions of the labouring-poor, those, that is, who are deserving of such generosity; people like Betty Higden in Our Mutual Friend. It is best, one supposes, that people like this do not think for themselves over-much, otherwise they end up like the muddle-headed Stephen Blackpool in Hard Times!

But, as far as I am concerned, the best possible summary of Dickens, the great moral campaigner, is that given by George Orwell towards the end of his masterly essay on the subject:

When one reads any strongly individual piece of writing, one has the impression of seeing a face somewhere behind the page. It is not necessarily the actual face of the writer. I feel this very strongly with Swift, with Defoe, with Fielding, Stendhal, Thackeray, Flaubert, though in several cases I do not know what these people looked like and do not want to know. What one sees is the face that the writer ought to have. Well, in the case of Dickens I see a face that is not quite the face of Dickens's photographs, though it resembles it. It is the face of a man of about forty, with a small beard and a high colour. He is laughing, with a touch of anger in his laughter, but no triumph, no malignity. It is the face of a man who is always fighting against something, but who fights in the open and is not frightened, the face of a man who is generously angry — in other words, of a nineteenth-century liberal, a free intelligence, a type hated with equal hatred by all the smelly little orthodoxies which are now contending for our souls. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens' modern-day biographer Peter Ackroyd quotes approvingly Walter Bagehot's description of Dickens as a "sentimental radical" and states (with supporting references to Nicholas Nickleby and Barnaby Rudge) "Dickens can pity individuals and individual suffering [...] but he changes his attitude when such individuals are grouped together in a crowd, or 'mob'." With reference to Dickens' attitude to Chartism, he adds that in the late 1830s when the Chartists were active "there is no indication that [...] Dickens played anything but the part of a concerned spectator who did not feel himself to be actively engaged in any of the popular credos of the moment". Around this time Dickens described Robert Peel's Tories as "people whom, politically, I despise and abhor" whilst when a journalist he worked for the liberal/radical Morning Chronicle though as discussed above did not see eye-to-eye with the Utilitarianism espoused by many of the radicals of his time. Valiantis (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were occasions when he became more conservative, such as after Cawnpore, IIRC. AllenHansen (talk) 07:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Glorious Revolution

Just wondering if anyone could help me: Was the Glorious Revolution of 1688 popular in Scotland and Ireland? I am aware that James II's policies of Catholic toleartion would obviously have been popular in Ireland, therefore winning him some support there and that there were some Catholics who would have been remained loyal to James in Scotland, but were those Scots who were members of the Kirk hostile to William and Mary or welcoming? Finally, how much of an affect did the Enlgish deciding who should rule Scotland and Ireland have an affect on both Anglo-Scottish relationships and Anglo-Irish relationships? Sorry if the question seems complex, its just I am unsure of just how important the Glorious Revolution was! Any help would be much appreiciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.163.242 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lovely article on the Glorious Revolution that will probably help answer your question quite well. A quick read suggests that there were some Catholic supporters in Ireland and Scotland, but James II's policies also spawned the Jacobite Risings in Scotland, and the Williamite War in Ireland. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in our article on Jacobitism, which discusses opposition to the Glorious Revolution in Scotland and Ireland. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

172.189, on a point of fact, while the English most certainly decided who would rule in Ireland, this is not really the case in Scotland, which still, at that time, was a separate kingdom, with its own government and political institutions. While the government of James VII had not been as unpopular as it had been in England, it was not particularly popular either. The Scottish Privy Council was therefore content to go along with the Glorious Revolution, even though it had been made in the south. Who should occupy the vacant Scottish throne was not decided until the spring of 1689 by a Convention of Estates, on condition that the new monarchs accepted the Claim of Right, the Scottish equivalent of the English Bill of Rights.

The rule of William and Mary was to be particularly welcome in the southern Lowlands, because it produced, in 1690, a Presbyterian settlement to the question of Church government, replacing the Episcopacy favoured since the Restoration in 1660. Jacobite support for James, such as it was, was at this time confined to the western Highlands, to those areas fearful of a restoration of the power of the Campbells. Although some Jacobites were Catholics, others were Episcopalian Protestants, including John Graham of Claverhouse, the leader of the 1689 rising.

The situation in Ireland was altogether different, as the vast majority of the Catholic population supported James. Indeed, there was no Glorious Revolution in Ireland; it had to be carried there by conquest. The defeat of the Jacobites in 1691 left the way open for the Protestant Ascendancy and the subsequent discrimination against Catholics enshrined in the fearsome Penal Laws. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Income Before Taxed

As a sole proprietor, what is the most money you can make before you are required to claim it on your taxes? Here7ic (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What country? --NellieBly (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA. Here7ic (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference Desk does not give legal advice. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its not legal advice. It would be legal advice if I was asking for a course of action. I'm asking for a stated fact. Here7ic (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that, while there is a threshold below which you aren't taxed, you are required to claim all forms of income. The point at which enforcement kicks in is poorly defined -- for instance, an audit is unlikely to crack down on a typical teenager's babysitting income. — Lomn 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about an income within a thousand dollars? Here7ic (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IRS has one hell of a web site. The publication I found here (after a search of about two minutes, hint, hint) says that you have to file if you get $400 or more. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard Weir

On a recent visit to Edinburgh I was told a story about the Wizard Weir. This was apparently a real person who lived I think in the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries. I have been looking here for more info but can find nothing. Is it just a tall tale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.242.83 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That'll most probably be Major Thomas Weir, also known as "the wizard of West Bow". Google has a few snippets about him including [1], [2], [3] and also it has been put forward that he was the inspiration for the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde.[4] Nanonic (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interesting essay on the subject of Thomas Weir by the Scottish historian David Stevenson, entitled Major Weir: a Justified Sinner? (Scottish Studies, 16, 1972). The author links the case to the Presbyterian obsession with Predestination. Weir made a voluntary confession to his crimes and refused all attempts to persuade him to seek the pardon of God. Even on the gallows, when he was bid to say 'Lord be merciful to me', he responded as before: "Let me alone-I will not-I have lived like a beast and I will die like a beast." The theme of strict predestination, and the possible adverse moral implications of such theology, was later taken up by James Hogg in his novel The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner Clio the Muse (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the...? Joseph Goebbels' flamboyant "camp" uniform

Goebells created a flamboyant blue suit as a uniform for himself, unlike that of any of the other Nazi's. Today, this would be seen a being rather camp Further more, Hiter apparently enjoyed being deficated on. I do not mean to imply that homosexuals enjoy defication, please dont take this the wrong way, but in the light of these to aspects of thier personalities relate to the Nazi persecution of homosexual persons. Thanks people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the above question on the miscellaneous desk and thought that people here would be better informed to give a good answer. Is any of this true, or is it just a load of cobblers? Do you believe it? (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously some confusion between Joseph Goebbels and Herman Göring here. It was the latter, not the former, who was known for his 'camp' uniforms, once wearing a coat that Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister, described as the sort of thing that a 'high grade prostitute wears to the opera'. Hitler's alleged coprophilia was a piece of war-time black propaganda, that made its way into the academic mainstream via the absurd conduit of 'psychohistory, represented most particularly by Robert Waite's Hitler: the Psychopathic God, a work best ignored. The Nazi presecution of homosexuals had absolutely nothing to do with the individual eccentricities, or otherwise, of their leadership; and one of the most noted homosexuals in the leading ranks of the Party was as butch as they come. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It began here [5] Julia Rossi (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler might have enjoyed deification. --Lambiam 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has he not already been deified?! Yes, I was sorely tempted to have fun with that, Lambian, but was mindful of the injunction about not making light of a questioner's poor grammar and spelling! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there black propaganda about Roosevelt and Churchill propagated by the Germans to equal that produced by the Allies about the German leaders? Edison (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly a lot of mud thrown in their general direction, but that was of a public nature. Black propaganda is altogether more invidious, unusually percolated through in a medium that conveys a degree of verisimilitude. The British secret service specialised in this sort of thing, using Sefton Delmer, amongst others, to pass on 'revelations', most often about the alleged sexual perversions of the Nazi leadership. The aim was to cause dissension and weaken morale. There is a Wikipedia article on Black Propaganda that you might refer to Edison, though it's quite disappointing in the lack of detail. I do not personally know of any German black propaganda directed against Allied leaders, which is not to say, of course, that it does not exist. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the rumor that Franklin Roosevelt had syphilis, with additional lurid detailis of how he got it. [6] says the rumor dated back to his first Presidential campaign, but that Hitler was fond of repeating it. Thought to be untrue. Edison (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Bones? The Road of Bones, Siberia

I was watching a dvd of Eawan McGregor and Charley Boorman on their motorbike trip around the world. On the road of bones just before Magadan in Siberia there was some discussion of those who died in its construction, the 'intelligent' the 'educated' and so on. Is this true? It made Stalin sound a bit like Pol Pot, but surely there had to be something more to his style of government considering the technical advances of the USSR during his period of rule? Was the purge simply about destruction and nothing else? Did Stalin do nothing to attract people to his side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dun Sin Ane (talk • contribs) 20:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can read all about it at Great Purge, which quotes a figure of 1000 executions per day by the NKVD in '37 and '38. So far as the army goes, our article says: "The purge of the army removed three of five marshals (then equivalent to six-star generals), 13 of 15 army commanders (then equivalent to four- and five-star generals), eight of nine admirals (the purge fell heavily on the Navy, who were suspected of exploiting their opportunities for foreign contacts), 50 of 57 army corps commanders, 154 out of 186 division commanders, 16 of 16 army commissars, and 25 of 28 army corps commissars. In total, 30,000 members of the armed forces were executed." Definitely not a sustainable mode of operation. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to what the purges were about, it was to remove people from the party ranks who were not fully in line with party ideologies (i.e., had just joined because the party was in power). The educated suffered disproportionately because anyone from the upper classes of society was automatically under suspicion. There had been purges before the Great Purge, but they just involved removing party membership, rather than executions or labor camps (see Purge of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union). — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very real misperception of the purpose and function of the Great Purge in the Stalinist scheme of things. You are right to raise doubts, Dun; for along with the stick there was also a carrot, and the Soviet Union did not in any sense resemble the Cambodia of Pol Pot, where destruction ruled for the sake of destruction. I would suggest that you or, indeed, any anyone else interested in the issues raised here read Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's Cancer Ward. I would draw your attention in particular to the figure of Pavel Nikolayevich Rusanov, the technocrat who did very well out of the old order, and is worried by the changes introduced after Stalin's death, which represent a threat to his status and position. He serves very well as an archetype for those who emerged, phoenix-like, out of the ashes of the purges, a new class of specialists with limited political vision, not unduly concerned that their place in society was achieved at the expense of others.

Addressing the specific issues you raise it is well to remember that these specialists- technocrats and bureaucrats of all sorts-had been emerging steadily during the course of the 1930s. Such people, Pavel Rusanov and his kin, were the real basis of Stalin's power, not the NKVD and the apparatus of terror. They were almost always Party members, replacing the old non-political specialists, whom Stalin distrusted so much, the people who had raised all sorts of practical objections to the over-optimistic targets of the First Five Year Plan. The new wave included many who were to reach the most senior ranks in the party; men like Leonid Brezhnev, Andrei Gromyko and Alexey Kosygin. I suspect that it was these sorts of individuals that Trotsky had in mind when he wrote The Revolution Betrayed in 1936: the new 'pyramid of bureaucrats' upon which Stalin's power depended

Stalin needed to ensure that the new apparatchiks were kept on side. Their loyalty had to be assured, in other words, by more than propaganda and sloganeering. This was done by increasing consumer spending during the Second Five Year Plan of 1933 to 1937, information which does not appear in the Wikipedia article on the subject. It was during this period that rationing was lifted and all sorts of consumer goods appeared for the new Soviet middle-class, including cameras, gramophones and radios. There was also a rise in the production of all sorts of luxury goods for the new political elite, anything from chocolates to champagne.

This was a time of general retreat from what might be called 'Bolshevik asceticism', with a new emphasis on the compatibility of Consumerism and Communism. Just as the inconvenient old-guard was being swept aside in the purges, propaganda began to place its greatest emphasis on the material rewards of labour. This, of course, meant a retreat from the illusions of Marxist equality. For the new labour aristocracy was rewarded well beyond its needs.

So, yes, not all took the road of bones. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most powerful woman in the Soviet Union

Is there any one woman who could make a claim to having been the most powerful woman in the history of the Soviet Union? Looking back at claims of famous Soviet citizens, no woman stands out in the political or military realms. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Furtseva was no slouch in the Khruschev era. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, Corvus, you would be really hard pressed to find many powerful women in the higher reaches of the CPSU, for the simple reason that-for all its revolutionary pretensions-it was a remarkably sexist organisation. The only figure of any significance that I can think of among the Old Bolsheviks is Alexandra Kollontai, and she was hardly in the first rank. It may be an indication of just how seriously Stalin perceived women in politics that she is the only one of the old guard, not within his circle, to have survived the Great Purge. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for both answers. Corvus cornix_talk 00:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the extremely radical gender equality policies of the Bolsheviks, I don't really think it's accurate to describe them as "remarkably sexist". Keep in mind that this was the same regime that legalized abortions in the 1920s, and even if that was reversed during Stalin, there were still opportunities for women in the Soviet Unions that weren't available in the West until well after WW II.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, please forgive me for saying so, but you seem, ever so slightly, to be missing the point here. My remarks were directed at the power structure of the CPSU, to the almost complete absence of women in the higher ranks of the Party and the State, from the earliest days onwards. It is quite possible to be both progressive in theory and sexist in practice when it comes to the exercise of power. A gender equality policy at a lower level in no way militates against this argument. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smokie Norful song with birds singing

Today I heard a Smokie Norful song with a title like "For All the Lord Has Done" or "For What the Lord Did". It seems to have the word "ding-a-ling" in it, and contains a reference to birds singing. What song is this? I can't find it anywhere online, even though I looked up all of Norful's albums on Amazon and googled for

"smokie norful" bird singing

as well as "smokie norful" birds sing and other variations. Wiwaxia (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]