Humanities desk
< July 15	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 17 >

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.

July 16

Last menu on Titanic

This was the last meal as served in the dining saloon on the RMS Titanic; however, I never heard of half of it, I was wondering if anybody could give me a vague translation of what everything is; i.e. if i ordered "Consommè Olga," what would i really be eating. Definately a menu for the upper class :P. Thanks guys --Hadseys 00:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The First-Class Menu

As served in the first-class dining saloon of the R.M.S. Titanic on April 14, 1912
First Course
Hors D'Oeuvres
Oysters
Second Course
Consommé Olga
Cream of Barley
Third Course
Poached Salmon with Mousseline Sauce, Cucumbers
Fourth Course
Filet Mignons Lili
Saute of Chicken, Lyonnaise
Vegetable Marrow Farci
Fifth Course
Lamb, Mint Sauce
Roast Duckling, Apple Sauce
Sirloin of Beef, Chateau Potatoes
Green Pea
Creamed Carrots
Boiled Rice
Parmentier & Boiled New Potatoes
Sixth Course
Punch Romaine
Seventh Course
Roast Squab & Cress
Eighth Course
Cold Asparagus Vinaigrette
Ninth Course
Pate de Foie Gras
Celery
Tenth Course
Waldorf Pudding
Peaches in Chartreuse Jelly
Chocolate & Vanilla Eclairs
French Ice Cream

A consomme is a clear soup, served as an appetiser, perhaps in this case named after some notable individual (or the chef's wife!). The rest seems reasonably self explanatory. Clio the Muse 01:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Google "Consomme Olga" for several rundowns on this famous menu, which you may have got from Gary Fisher's guide to the menu. What makes consommé a Consommé Olga instead of just consommé are the thin slices of poached scallops lying on the bottom, which you should see looking down through the perfectly clarified brown liquid in your soup plate, and the garnish of matchstick-thin julienne of cucumber and celeriac lightly scattered over the top. --Wetman 02:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hors d'oeuvres is just the French word for "appetizer", so it's contents could vary from place to place. Mousseline sauce is another word for Hollandaise sauce, a mixture of butter, lemon and egg. Filet mignon is the French word for "fillet steak" (not sure what Lili is, sorry), Lyonnaise simply means "cooked with onions" (as in Lyonnaise Potatoes). Farci means "stuffed". Parmentier just means "contains potatoes" (after potato pioneer Antoine-Augustin Parmentier), although in this context, I think it means mashed potato. Punch a la Romaine is a punch with champange, lemons and oranges. Squab means roasted pigeons(!), foie gras is made from the livers of force-fed geese and chartreuse jelly is a gelatin dessert made from chartreuse liqueur. I'm not sure what Waldorf Pudding is, but it may be related to the famous Waldorf salad, which is a quite sweet salad similar to fruit salad. Laïka 09:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mousseline sauce is Hollandaise sauce combined at the last minute with whipped cream; filet mignon Lili is beef tenderloin with artichoke hearts and potatoes; chateau potatoes are fried in butter; Waldorf pudding is a crème brûlée with apples and walnuts (these ingredients also appear in Waldorf salad). Gdr 09:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, like, I'm a dieter and haven't eaten for four hours, and then I have to read the excruciating details of this ten course meal eaten by a bunch of rich pigs who had the pleasure of dying straight afterwards, so they didn't have to worry about their waistlines. Gimme stuff about speeding tickets, anything but this :-) 203.221.126.197 20:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence! This is (approximately) what I had for dinner yesterday, give or take a few courses, but with a better dessert. Edison 23:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What did you have that was better than Waldorf pudding and Peaches in Chartreuse Jelly? :) Corvus cornix 18:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what's "French" ice cream? 68.39.174.238 16:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ice cream from France. Clio the Muse 22:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's actually ice cream made with a extra heapin' helpin' of egg yolk, which is what makes French vanilla ice cream different from vanilla ice cream. - Nunh-huh 22:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say the fifth course seems a little parsimonious..... green pea? Just the one? DuncanHill 22:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GDP of Qing

The List of largest empires article lists the 1912 Qing as having one of the largest Gdps even ahead of the french. considering their weakness this is unlikely. can someone provide info. --Gary123 01:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there is necessarily any direct relationship between GDP and political strength. The Qing Dynasty was weak for a whole range of political, military, social and cultural factors, quite independent of the economic activity generated by its huge population base. However, that particular statement on relative GDPs is sourced to Angus Maddison's The Contours of the World Economy, 1-2030AD, published in 2006 by the Oxford University Press, so I suggest that you look for the detailed information there. Clio the Muse 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd heard of the Ching Dynasty and the Manchu Dynasty, but the Qing Dynasty is new to me :) DuncanHill 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Pope

Has anyone ever heard of a girl, who was a pope, named Justine.

--206.162.204.6 01:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)CAST[reply]

You may be thinking of Pope Joan. Antandrus (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict...)Do you mean Pope Joan? A.Z. 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any advance here on , say, Pope Joan? Might as well go for the hat-trick! Clio the Muse 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't anyone ever ask about the Cadaver synod? There's so much juicy stuff in the history of the papacy. Chestnuts, anyone? Antandrus (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cadavers and chesnuts? Try having a look at John XII, allegedly killed by a jealous husband who found him in bed with his wife! Clio the Muse 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John XIII (who clearly didn't learn from his predecessor) was also killed by a jealous husband, while Leo VII suffered a heart attack during sex. John XII had reportedly turned much of the Vatican into a brothel ushering in "Pornocracy" ("Rule of the Harlots"); this is perhaps the only other time a woman has controlled the Roman Catholic church, as the papacy was controlled behind the scenes by Theodora and Marozia, who gave birth to John XI, who was in turn possibly conceived by Sergius III. Laïka 08:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a list of sexually active popes. A.Z. 04:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OT. Isn't that a rather silly euphemism for popes who had children? I assume they're all in some sense "active".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's a list of sexually active popes. The easiest way to confirm a pope was sexually active if children result. Other then that, it relies on accusations and circumstancial evidence. Other popes may or may not have been sexually active, we have no way of knowing Nil Einne 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, the randy ones didn't all have children. All RC Western-rite clergy take a vow of celibacy, which means abstaining from all forms of voluntary sexual activity, including masturbation and "hands free" activities (viewing porno, say). It's a tough life, but that's the theory. Thus, the assumed norm is that popes have been practising self-denial since at least as far back as when they became ordained as priests (usually in their 20s). We all know the reality in many cases (vide the Archbishop of Los Angeles's apology today) - but for encyclopedic purposes we have to assume the default position (... or was that the missionary position?). -- JackofOz 13:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone mentioned Pope Joan yet?--91.84.93.47 12:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the article on Pope Joan might be useful. --24.147.86.187 13:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The book Pope Joan translated by Lawrence Durrell from Emmanuel Royidis is a saucy read. It gives a detailed and entertaining account of her life (completely fictional as far as I know) and was banned by the Church for a long time. 80.2.202.130 19:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose that it's possible that the original poster has somehow conflated Pope Joan and Justina of Padua? Carom 18:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nietzsche

In the book Fascism for Beginners Nietzsche is described as an ultraconservative thinker. Is this true? Stockmann 05:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nietzsche was one of the most radical thinkers of the nineteenth century, and his works are filled with ideas and concepts that attacked the status quo and offered new options, such as his treatment of emotivism in the face of conservative morality, and his postulation of the eternal recurrence in opposition to Hegel and other philosophers' emphasis on synthesis and progress. It is easy to misunderstand his work and see connections to things he opposed, and given how prolific he was as a writer the problem of interpretation can become quite complex. If you would like more information please do ask. Yanksta x 07:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The central nugget that Hegel proposed that his students with an interest in history would have to respond to was the idea of progress. Hegel's zeitgeist and the dialectic meant that we would eventually move forward and forward toward Civilization. This idea is classic Liberalism -- the idea of progress and improvement, the betterment of the bad, the elimination of evil in sufficient time. Nietzsche's examination of history led him to no such conclusion, and Marx's led him to believe that the means of progress in Hegel were wrong. Nietzsche believed that progress was much more a case of the will, of the superior strength of those who break free. Yes, this was radical. Yes, it ended up validating both ultimately conservative (Social Darwinism and its adherents among the laissez-faire crowd of industrialists) and making brutes feel good about themselves and laying the groundwork for Naziism, but it was not at all conservative in Nietzsche's hands. It was the repudiation of the entire Judeo-Christian tradition, for one thing. So Nietzsche was no conservative, but conservatives like Ayn Rand could quote him to feel good about trampling on others. Geogre 13:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what you consider conservative. I would advise you to read the political views-section on his wikipedia article, follow some of its links and make up your own mind.

Let me give you an example of one in which you can read Nietzsche as conservative: Nietzsche distrusted the masses, claiming that they have only herd instinct. Therefore he opposed both democracy, socialism and equal rights. He favoured the master morality of the nobleman over the slave morality, which holds that we are all equal. He was an elitist, valuing those individuals, Übermenschen, who can overcome this herd mentality. This inegalitarianism can be considered conservative.

As you can see from the previous answers, it really depends on what you think is conservative and which part of Nietzsche's philosophy you emphasize. C mon 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laissez-faire was not conservative at the time, nor is it compatible with Nazism. Ayn Rand was elitist, certainly, but did not (so far as I know) advocate trampling on anyone. Perhaps Geogre did not mean to imply any such thing. —Tamfang 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rather suspect that Nietzsche will forever remain one of those people half-understood at best, always in a sense standing in the shadows; always tainted by association with the darker currents of German history. In Fascism for Beginners, the book alluded to by Stockman, he is depicted in cartoon form, walrus-moustache and all, saying "Our ideal is to achieve the superman by collective experiments in discipline and breeding." Nasty stuff, certainly; but is it true; is this the message that should be taken? No, it is not: it's rubbish.

Conservative by background and upbringing, Nietzsche was to become a great intellectual rebel, about as far from conventional thought, morality and politics as it is possible to conceive. Early in his career he rejected the reassuring Lutheran doctrine in which he had been raised, writing to his conventionally-minded sister, "If you wish to strive for peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you wish to be a disciple of truth, then inquire." If God was dead, if there was no absolute standard to judge divinely-sanctioned values, then literally the whole structure of human belief systems collapsed. Life was without meaning; there was no sure ground on which to stand. Far from being conservative to any degree, this was arguably the most radical conclusion in all of nineteenth century thought, by several degrees more destructive of accepted practice than anything found in Marx. Taking this position, it would have been logical for Nietzsche to follow Schopenhauer, whom he greatly admired, into a philosophy of cultural pessimism. But he did not. If there were no God-given values then values would have to be created. The hero, or the superman, is a moral, not a racial concept. It's about transcendence; it's about self-discovery. Above all, it is about the moral evolution of individual human beings. Think, question, live; take nothing for granted; question all assumptions; test all authority. I can not imagine anything less conservative, less reactionary.

After his death his life was 'usurped', if that is the right word, by his sister, Elizabeth Föster-Nietzsche, who did her best to ensure that his radical thought was modified to fit in with the prevailing trends in contemporary German life, militarism and all. But Nietzsche hated the national power worship that emerged in Germany after the Franco-Prussian War-"Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, I fear the end of German philosophy". He added to this in 1887, writing "I have no respect left for present-day Germany, bristling, hedgehog-fashion, with arms. It represents the most stupid, the most depraved, the most mendacious form of the German spirit that ever was." He even went so far as to claim that he was of Polish ancestry, and declared himself to be a 'good European' rather than a German.

The point is that Nietzsche is the supreme individualist; the philosopher of the individual; of freedom; one who despised the 'herd mentality', whatever form it took, or however expressed. He is not anti-liberal; he is rather opposed to the hidden assumptions that liberalism contains, the notion of a single collective and utilitarian good. His political outlook is far closer to that of the anarchist, or the libertarian, than any other; opposed in ever way to the collectivist trends in twentieth century thought and practice. The Nazi State, in other words, is the very antithesis of Nietzsche. As for Hitler, there is no evidence that he ever read his work, beyond a few bowdlerised extracts; and he most certainly did not understand. I wonder just how much he would enjoyed reading that he was among the Schlechtweggekommene-the losers and misfits who, according to Nietszche, embraced anti-Semitism to explain and excuse their own failings? Human, all too human! Clio the Muse 00:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I completely disagree with the statement that he was not anti-liberal. In fact, liberalism was defined by the people Nietzsche was against, and I do not believe that individualism is "freedom." Individualism is egoism unless there is something more to it, and there is something more to it in Nietzsche. Modern libertarians fit with Nietzsche, but only because they despise being asked to cooperate in society, and not because Nietzsche was a libertarian. Although Nietzsche admired Jews, he also said that Hebraism was the great trick of the slave to get the master to protect him.

Given how many other disciples of Hegel were breaking out and either trying to save Fichte's History in another way or ripping up the idea of shared essence in history, finding this particular one who made it so darned easy to turn to Nazism charming is repellent to me. We may forgive Heidegger, but Nietzsche's wickedness is by his own volition. Geogre 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An extraordinary and rather impassioned value judgement, if I may say so, Geogre, not, I think, worthy of your usual standard of intellectual detachment. You are, of course, at liberty to disagree with me on this or any other matter; but might I suggest that you look a little deeper into the career of Martin Heidegger after 1933. If 'we'-and I assume by that you are referring to yourself- are prepared to forgive that, 'we' are prepared to forgive anything. To describe Nietzsche as 'wicked' is, quite frankly, and I can find no other way of expressing this, intellectually illiterate. I have no idea what "one who made it so darned easy to turn to Nazism charming is repellent to me" actually means. However, I have said all I intend to here and will add nothing further. People are at liberty to make up their own minds, in reading, and understanding, the original texts. A little less passion and a lot more understanding, if you please. Clio the Muse 03:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passion? These are matters that in fact, from a philosophical point of view, engage morality on every level. In fact, it is only by an exceptionally blind reading of liberalism that we come to the notion that progressivism (which Nietzsche rejected) implies throwing our moral sense into neutral. The "we" and "forgive" are references to W. H. Auden's In Memoriam W. B. Yeats, where he said that in time we will forgive Yeats (for being a fascist) for the single virtue of writing well. We can forgive Heidegger enough to try to prise out his philosophy from his self, but Nietzsche cannot be offered such a salve because his philosophy is the willing desire to claim a superiority of the individual over all moral and social sense.

Furthermore, Nietzsche's philosophy, when it isn't an emotional outburst itself (and yet we must approach it dispassionately? that's not very Nietzschean) it filled with logical inconsistencies. For example, it is the moral good to reject the moral good, and it is the destiny of man to have will that will overcome in a personal, psychological Ragnarok, and yet there is no basis for that compulsion, no reason to suppose that better than another solution. The only thing behind it is Social Darwinism, and that is a placidly amoral or immoral system.

I do not begrudge anyone reading Nietzsche and forming his or her own opinion, but seeing him as cute or tragic or charming is repugnant to me.

When I was 15, I went through Zarathustra, ...Will, and Twilight of the Gods, and at 15 it was appealing. At 15, it seemed profound. I'm glad that I didn't buy the romance of the life and allow it to excuse the oddity and irrationality of the philosophy, though. History is littered with sad lives, as is the present moment, and these deserve our common social sympathy (which Nietzsche hated), but they in no way excuse the life that makes itself the validation for anti-rational (and anti-intellectual) egoism, on the one hand, and organized "eugenics" on the other. I am glad that I found Kant after Nietzsche and Marx after him and Kierkegaard after him. Nietzsche is a philosophical blind alley for a reason. Geogre 13:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

finding this particular one who made it so darned easy to turn to Nazism charming is repellent to me I wonder if this individual has ever read a single book by Nietzsche. --Taraborn 07:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's beneath comment. Geogre 13:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, you claim that Nietzsche can best be seen as close to an anarchism. I disagree. It is clear that he was not a collectivist, communist, syndicalist or mutualist anarchist, which all basically advocates communal decision-making and voluntary mutual cooperation: herd mentality.

Moreover his relationship with individualist anarchism, such as Max Stirner's is ambiguous at best. Nietzsche was critical of egoism and atomism, which form the core individualist anarchist thinking.

More importantly, each form of anarchism is not only about absolute freedom, but also about equal freedom for all, whether equal rights, equal votes or equal shares of resources. For Nietzsche, as proposed above, equality was the core of slave morality.

Saying that Nietzsche was (close to) an anarchism, is only based on a comicbook understanding of what anarchism is: "Anarchism is absolute freedom." C mon 08:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let me refresh my memory: what was it I wrote? His political outlook is far closer to that of the anarchist or the libertarian, than any other; opposed in every way to the collectivist trends in twentieth century thought and practice. If you will forgive me I think I will hold to this view, and to my comic book understanding of anarchism (and, presumably, libertarianism), your disapproval notwithstanding. Clio the Muse 08:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Nietzsche "wicked" in this way is going too far (though of course he delighted in wicked provocations, in another sense); even the antecedent accusation of "a superiority of the individual over all moral and social sense" seems reductionist to me, since these sweeping formulations ("the individual," "all...") will not hold up if pressed to explain every interesting idea Nietzsche developed in his remarkable career as a writer (as Geogre acknowledges, but only with the further accusation that Nietzsche is "full of inconsistencies"). If I had to guess at what makes my Nietzsche so different from Geogre's, it's probably that I reject the idea that Nietzsche can profitably be evaluated as a systematic moral philosopher working in the tradition of other systematic moral philosophers. Perhaps reading Fichte et al. is the preparation academic philosophers have for their hack analyses of Nietzsche's doctrines. But that doesn't mean we're working correctly or with nuance when we try to distill Nietzsche from that kind of perspective. I just read Heine's Ludwig Börne, a wonderful book (as stuffed with inconsistencies as the best of Nietzsche!) that no one would confuse with philosophy, but which was clearly the forerunner to some of Nietzsche's most distinctive characteristics as a writer and pronouncer of judgments. I honestly believe that one would have to classify Heine as an intolerant Nazi enemy of society by some of these principles. It's my opinion, that any conversation about Nietzsche and the values to which he was friend & enemy will be quite impoverished if it can't include an explanation of how in his works he finds it so important to profess his love of Bizet over Wagner, his sympathy with Chamfort rather than the past generations' tedious and pious German writers (including philosophers for the most part), with Sallust over the Latin writers Nietzsche had encountered earlier & had made the future star philologist the "worst Latin pupil" in the class, etc., etc. I respect Geogre's alternative view of Nietzsche, and perhaps from that perspective I am just a humanistic dilettante blindly seduced by the wit and grace with which Nietzsche has dressed up the iron machine of his wicked philosophy, but I don't think so—it's just too obvious to me that Nietzsche's works themselves are largely significant because of their mastery of this same kind of artistic polemical vein (I'll call it the Heinean). It's a corollary that Nietzsche's riches often consist in containing multitudes & inconsistencies. Wareh 16:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Obviously much depends on which of Nietzsche's works one reads & which not. I think it advisable to give due consideration to The Wagner Case, Human, All Too Human, The Twilight of the Idols, The Gay Science, Ecce Homo, and Daybreak, which may not feature on as many philosophy syllabuses as some other texts. And, finally, on the "blind alley" proposition, I think much of what has come after Nietzsche, including presumably something Geogre would value (I'll name Max Weber exempli gratia) is unimaginable in the form it took without Nietzsche's influence. Wareh 16:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin and Stalin

Could I have some details, please, on the relationship between Lenin and Stalin. Stockmann 05:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean their personal or political relationship? For both see Lenin and Stalin?

I'll give you a short overview: Before Lenin's arrival in Petrograd in 1917, Lenin lived in exile in Switzerland and Stalin still lived in Russia, earning money for the party by robbing banks, thereby basically sustaining Lenin and the other Bolshevik exiles. Stalin followed Lenin's leadership loyally. I read in a recent book review of Young Stalin by Simon Sebag Montefiore that Stalin adored Lenin. After Lenin's return, the revolution and civil war, in which Stalin played only a minor role, Stalin rose to power with support of Lenin and the entire Bolshevik leadership.

In 1922 Stalin became General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, a post which he held until his death and which gave him considerable power. By then, Lenin's health had weakened and he retreated from active politics. In the beginning of 1923 Lenin wrote a political testament (Lenin's Testament) in which he warned the party for Stalin's rising power. He wrote that "Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution." In a post-script, written weeks later, he was even more critical, advising the politbureau to remove Stalin from his post "That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin in having only one advantage, namely, that of being more tolerant, more loyal, more polite and more considerate to the comrades, less capricious, etc." Stalin and others however prevented this political testament from becoming known to the general public.

In summary: Stalin worked for Lenin as loyal party militant. After his rise to power and Lenin's retreat from politics, Lenin began to worry about Stalin's personality and his power over the party.

Does this sufficiently answer your question? C mon 17:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see now; how close was the relationship between Lenin and Stalin? Try, if you can, to get hold of The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; Short Course, an English version of which was published in 1939. Here you will find them as twins; or, better still, a combination known as Lenin-Stalin. Of course, there is a lot of fabrication here; but it is not all fiction. There was, indeed, a close political partnership between Lenin and Stalin, closer, in many ways, than that between Lenin and Trotsky or any other leading Bolshevik. Stalin was, in many ways, Lenin's ideal mentor; a man who acted rather than argued; an implementer, not a theoretician. Stalin's knowledge of the national minorities on the fringes of the old Russian Empire was particularly valuable, leading Lenin in 1912 to describe him as a 'wonderful Georgian.'

Stalin's role in 1917 was undramatic; but he built up a reputation as a steady and devoted follower of the Bolshevik leader, and was not noted, unlike some of his colleagues, for taking a principled stand against any of Lenin's actions or policies. Lenin recognised him as a "good worker in all responsible jobs." Bit by bit the bond between the older and the younger man grew stronger, until Stalin was one of a small group, including Sverdlov and Trotsky, consulted on all emergency matters. Stanislaw Pestkowski, who worked closely with Stalin at this time in the Commissariat of Nationalities, later recalled "Stalin would frequently be summoned by phone, or Lenin would simply appear at the door and ask Stalin to join him." Stalin continued reliable and loyal, and Lenin continued to make use of him in a variety of tasks. It is no exaggeration to say that, by the end of the Russian Civil War, Stalin was Lenin's closest political friend. In 1926 Lenin's sister, Maria, wrote that he "valued Stalin very highly...and would give him the most intimate instructions, instructions of the sort one can only give to someone one particularly trusts."

Yet Lenin seriously underestimated Stalin's true ability; above all his biting intellect. When Maria tried to warn him that Stalin was more intelligent and dangerous than he conceived, Lenin retorted "He is absolutely not intelligent." Lenin estimated in 1921 that it would take five more years of 'apprenticeship' before Stalin, or any of the other younger Party leaders, would be in a position to succeed him. But Stalin was ruthless as well as ambitious, and the real shift in his 'filial' relationship with the older man came with the onset of Lenin's illness. It was then that Stalin used his formidable personal and organisational skills to make his own bid for the leadership.

Asked by the Central Committee to supervise Lenin's treatment, Stalin used this position to his own advantage. Lenin, increasingly incapacitated by a series of strokes, continued to trust Stalin, though the latter began to act in an ever more arbitary fashion, which suggests that he thought Lenin was finished politically. It was now that he took a step that could have proved fatal; no longer the follower, he acted like an independent leader, taking a different approach to Lenin on the political situation in Georgia. Lenin, once aware of the situation, realised that he had lost control of his protégé. In December 1922 he began writing his Political Testament, in which Stalin is accused of not managing the huge powers he has accumulated with "sufficient care." Still later he recommended that the 'crude' Stalin be removed from the position of General Secretary. A final rupture between the two men came ever closer n March 1923, after Stalin had made some offensive remarks to Krupskaya, Lenin's wife. Stalin apologised for this, but Lenin was now set on his removal. But it was too late. Lenin died in January 1924. Embalmed, deified and silent, he was of much greater use to Stalin. Clio the Muse 02:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unification of germany in 1871

after reading all your articles on the unification germany , i cant clearly get the reason for unification other than bismark's ambition.and what was the condition in germany ,except for the domination of austria is there any other?Angelofwrath 07:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What made the Unification of Germany politically possible was the rise of nationalism among German-speaking people, partly in response to the Napoleonic Wars, partly as a general trend in 19th century thought (see Romantic nationalism). Popular sentiment for unification was demonstrated by the Frankfurt Parliament that was established in the wake of the revolutions of 1848. The successful conservative reaction against the revolution and the flight of the liberals and revolutionaries (mostly to the United States) gave the political power to the monarchists and in particular to the aristocracy of the Kingdom of Prussia (the Junkers) whose military power made the imposition of German unification by force a practical option. Otto von Bismarck provided the leadership that made it happen. Gdr 12:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Gdr has said is quite right. Beyond this, it is important to remember that the growth of the print media during the 18th and 19th centuries had facilitated the cultural unification of the German-speaking lands, which formed the background for the nationalistic response to French domination of the politically divided German states during the Napoleonic Wars. Also, the economic unification of Germany was largely completed before its political union through the German Customs Union and the growth of the railroad network. Unfortunately, our article on the German Customs Union fails to convey the importance of this organization, which established a single market among members, which included most of the German states at its founding in 1834 and all but a few along the German seacoasts by 1854. As industrialization and the growth of trade increased the wealth and the economic power of the German middle classes, they sought a commensurate role in politics. This increased political ambition may have been as important as the Romantic nationalism of an earlier (Napoleonic) generation in the calls of the 1848 Frankfurt Parliament for liberal democracy and national unification. While the conservative reaction dashed the hopes of the liberals, Bismarck and the wealthy industrialists with whom he was often allied perceived the both the likelihood and the advantages of unification and undertook to coopt the liberals' nationalism and to bring about unification on their own terms. The terms on which they brought it about maximized the advantages for Prussia and its industrialists through monetary union, a constitution that buttressed the political power of the wealthy, and an expansion of military power that also helped to spur the growth of heavy industry in Prussia. Marco polo 16:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question has been so well covered in both of the above responses that I only have one or two points of further clarification. Thomas Nipperdey, the historian, published a two volume history of Germany from 1806 to 1918. He opens the first with the words "In the beginning there was Napoleon", and the second with "In the beginning there was Bismarck." Great man theory has long ceased to be a fashionable branch of history, but in a very real sense it remains true that Napoleon and Bismarck were the twin poles around which modern Germany took shape; Napoleon, because in the great War of Liberation against the French the Germans might be said to have discovered their own nationality for the first time; Bismarck, because he gave Germany its final shape and direction.

So, by the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars there was a nascent sense of national identity in Germany, beyond the petty states, an identity frustrated by the Vienna settlement, which, in the German Confederation, might be said to have resurrected the ghostly form of the old Holy Roman Empire, under the domination of Austria and the Habsburgs. The national idea never entirely went away, and was fully revived in the Revolution of 1848. Political unification became a serious possibility, but in two distinct forms Grosssdeutschland or Kleindeutschland-Great Germany or Little Germany. The first with the Austrian lands, German or not; the second, without Austria, German or not.

It was Bismarck's aim to create a new Germany, not led by the Liberals of 1848, but by his own conservative elite; not led by Austria, but by Prussia. His original intention at the Frankfurt Diet had been to oppose liberal nationalism, and simply to insist on an equal place for Prussia in the Confederation. But he was not long in seeing that nationalism could be turned to his own political ends, and that a Germany could be created, devoid of Austria, which would magnify Prussian power. He did not discard liberalism; he turned it into an ally of monarchism and militarism. The German question was thus decided on the basis of 'iron and blood', a marriage of realpolitik and idealism. Kleindeutschland was thus Great Prussia. Clio the Muse 03:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC) thank you for the information ,Angelofwrath 06:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the distinction between Grossdeutschland and Kleindeutschland a bit baffling. Why was Austria not perceived as just another German-speaking state among others? Was it just the strength of their empire that made them different, or were there other reasons why they weren't considered an integral part of the German nation? 84.239.133.38 06:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand your bafflement. The point to hold in mind is that even the Habsburg lands that were inside the German Confederation incuded areas, particularly in Bohemia and Moravia, that were not German-speaking at all. Now, while a Czech-speaking minority might conceivably have been included with Grossdeutschland, just as Polish and Danish minorities were eventually included within Kleindeutschland, the problem would still remain what to do with all of the Habsburg territories outside the borders of the German Confederation, including those areas occupied by Hungarians, Poles, Serbs, Croats, Romanians, and so on and so forth. A unified Germany based on the Grossdeutschland solution would therefore have required the dismemberment of the Habsburg lands, a process they are unlikely ever to have agreed to willingly. To include all of these lands would have made a nonsense of German nationality and identity. It would also have swamped Prussia. Kleindeutschland was the only solution for Bismarck. Grossdeutschland would have to wait for Adolf Hitler. Clio the Muse 07:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add to Clio's response that Austria proper was indeed seen before 1866 by most Germans as another German state. Even after 1866, many southern Germans, particularly in Bavaria, were reluctant to accept the "Kleindeutschland" solution, because they feared Prussian and Protestant domination. They would have liked to find a Grossdeutschland solution in which Austria would continue to counterbalance Prussia, but after 1866, this was no longer really possible. The German Customs Union, which excluded Austria, had already created an economic Kleindeutschland. This, together with the mutual assistance pacts that Bismarck arranged after 1866; the upwelling of national feeling that accompanied Bismarck's move against the ancestral enemy, France, in 1870; and the creation of a federal imperial constitution that guaranteed some autonomy to the southern German states finally pushed the southern German states to accept membership in a Germany that excluded Austria. In fact, many continued to consider (German-speaking) Austrians "an integral part of the German nation", which explains the popular appeal, both in Kleindeutschland and in Austria, of Hitler's Anschluss. Marco polo 15:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and careers

I am trying to establish whether any religions limit their supporters / followers from any specific careers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.32.232 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I imagine there are many examples of jobs or careers that are incompatible with the principles of certain religions. One example that springs to mind is that Quakers who accept the Peace Testimony may not serve as combatants in the armed forces. Gandalf61 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question and has myriad responses. Gandalf points toward the broad; add the issues that various religions that have with careers in a host of sectors, from anything connected to sexual services, through abortion/euthanasia, to conventional banking. Furthermore, looking at the specific/unique detail in the religions will bear further fruit... to give one example, if you are an Orthodox Jew and a Kohen to boot, many careers are problematic, if they involve being under the same roof as (or in close proximity to) corpses. Some Rabbis may give exemptions if said career choices involve direct saving of life. Otherwise, this can rule out museums, hospices, cemeteries, crematoria, morgues (etc) as workplaces and (for some) medicine as a career. All in all, this is a question that would take many hours to answer in a remotely thorough fashion. --Dweller 11:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC) (expanded Dweller 12:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Atheist cannot be racecar drivers. Well, we can, but we get our rights trambled everytime we try to practice. XM 20:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

???. Let me guess, they say something about God before racecar practice? Or is this more moping about your speeding ticket? In either case I'm not sure it is really a helpful answer. --24.147.86.187 14:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of restrictions on atheists that apply in speedways. Also, as far as I'm aware you received the speeding ticket because you were illegally speeding on the public road not because you were an atheist. The only reason atheist came up is because you in theory may not be allowed to testify but that has nothing to do with your speeding and also is unlikely to be true as others have explained Nil Einne 22:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a novel I wrote a while back, one of the sub-characters is a Jehovah's Witness. He refuses to take part in the military draft because his religion doesn't allow him serve in the military. This continues to his refusal to accept a nomination for the Presidency because he cannot serve in government and then a refusal to take part in his inaugural ceremony after being elected because of he cannot serve in government. Though it isn't on topic, he is the most popular of the five Presidents because he doesn't even move to Omaha to serve. --

Kainaw^(what?) 21:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims also cannot be bankers--no lending money with interest. Kanmalachoa 06:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not entirely true. See Islamic banking. The Rhymesmith 07:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - there are many Islamic banks - for example, Al-Rajhi Bank, National Commercial Bank, and the Islamic Bank of Britain. Gandalf61 09:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that it would quite difficult for Muslims, Jews, and many kinds of Christians to be prostitutes. The Jade Knight 09:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butchers is the one that springs to mind to me for various religions.hotclaws 10:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some work places that require a sterile environment disallow divout Sikhs, Jews and Muslims as the beard can drop hairs into food/electronic equipment. Likewise, anyone who steadfastly refuses to shave can be disallowed from certain careers in the army as the beard interferes with the gas mask (although you are allowed to join provided that you shave a thin strip for the seal around the mask. Laïka 23:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

references for gopi krishna

I am looking for references on followiong statements

In the 1970s he founded together with Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker a research foundation "for western sciences and eastern wisdom".[citation needed] And also the name of the foudation, I hae found several sources stating the same phrase (in german and english) but never with a name, they seem to be taken from wikipedias statements. I have looked to several foudations with similar goals but do not find the names of either Gopi Krishna or Carl Friedrich.

He chose the path of yoga due to his circumstances. His father renounced the world to lead a religious life leaving his twenty-eight year old mother with the responsibility of raising him and his two sisters. His mother now pinned all her hopes for success on her only son.[citation needed] This should be in one a bio of Gopi Krishna, but I have none Teardrop onthefire 14:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the Institute for Consciousness Research ? DuncanHill 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avignon papacy period

In our article of Avignon Papacy it says that it started in 1309 and ends in 1377. In many sources I have come across it says it started actually in 1308 and ends in 1378. It is often referred to as a period of "about 70 years" - does that then mean actually 69 years? If it was actually from 1308 to 1378 then it would be exactly 70 years. Technically, which is more accurate - 69 years or 70 years?--Doug ^talk 21:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seventy years is a literary allusion to the Babylonian exile. Please leave it alone, especially since the begining and end dates of the Avignon period are both arguable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will not edit the dates in the article if you don't want them changed. However I still would like to know for my own knowledge, which would be technically more accurate as an actual "time period" for the Avignon papacy, that of 69 years or 70 years - leaving the dates in the article itself alone, since apparently they are a touchy subject. Any ideas on the answer to this from any others? Thanks.--Doug ^talk 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1309 is correct although there was a papal residence at Avignon before that, and it was moved back in 1377. What sources did you come across that say exactly 70 years? Adam Bishop 23:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do not believe myself that it was exactly 70 years and that's why I pointed out that it is often referred to as a period of 'about 70 years'. I think 68 or 69 is more accurate. I believe myself that 69 is the most accurate, however I am still confused from the many sources. For example: In our article Protestant Reformation it says Unrest in the Western Church and Empire, culminating in the Avignon Papacy (1308–1378)... (which is indicating 70 years). Again there is a book titled: The Avignon Papacy and the Crusades, 1308— 1378 by Oxford University Press, published 1986, indicating 70 years. In Wikipedia under 1300s it shows that the Avignon papacy started in 1308 (indicating 69 years / 1377 - 1308). Under 1378 however it says The Papacy makes a permanent move back from Avignon to Rome, ending the Avignon Papacy. - which gives an indication of 70 years (1378 - 1308). Under 1377 it says in May: Continuous riots in Rome induce Gregory XI to move temporarily back to Avignon. - indicating it was there through 1377, which would give a person the indication that it was there into 1378. If one went by above of 1308 as the start of the Avignon papacy, this would calculate as 70 years. In a book titled The Papacy: An Encyclopedia By Philippe Levillain, it says on page 1304 that the "Avignon exile" (Babylonian exile) was from 1308-78, indicating 70 years. The way I am understanding it is that Pope Clement V established a residence at Avignon in August of 1308 - giving one the indication this is the start of the Avignon papacy, therefore it is either 69 years or 70 years. Here in an article about Pope John Paul II it speaks under the section "Junior High" in Chapter 23 (page 283): A timeline shows how the papacy moved to Avignon in 1308 and returned to Rome in 1377. - indicating 69 years. So that's why I am confused on this issue. It depends if you say the Avignon papacy was permanently moved back to Rome in 1378 or if it temporarily was there in 1377. Also many sources (as you can see here) give an indication that the Avignon papacy actually started in 1308. So as close as I can figure the "Babylonian Captivity" (Petrarch phrase) was actually 69 years - since I would probably use 1308 as the start and 1377 as the ending. However even if you use 1309 as the start, there are so many sources that indicate 1378 as the actual ending of the Avignon papacy - that I still come up with 69 years. So because of Petrarch's phrase many have come to believe it was precisely 70 years - when in fact it is "about 70 years". Which would you favor, 68 years or 69 years?--Doug ^talk 12:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1308 to 1378 is also (quite rationally) arguable as a period of 71 years. Given this plus the ambiguities you've pointed out, I don't see how we can prefer anything to "about 70 years". — Lomn 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the whole question is a matter of definition: Did the Avignon period end when Gregory XI returned to Rome, with the end of his pontificate, or with the inauguration of his successor? (In the last two views, his return to Rome is only an interruption, like the return of Urban V.) All three views are defensible; I believe all three are held. The article really ought to explain them; but we should not choose between them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banknote

File:LastScanr.jpg

I got this banknote but don't know where it is from.Bewareofdog 23:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria DuncanHill 23:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) and the picture is Alexander Suvorov (I think) Algebraist 23:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The caption to the picture says "A V Suvurov" so I think that is likely. DuncanHill 23:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my reasoning. Someone should link to Transnistrian ruble, which has a much lower resolution picture. Algebraist 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the article on the Transnistrian rouble says it's Suvorov too. DuncanHill 00:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to end the ambiguity here, guys, beyond all doubt it is indeed the great Suvorov! Clio the Muse 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so - it does look like him :) DuncanHill 10:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great? Turks an Poles usually disagree (see Battle of Praga for details). Mieciu K 12:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great does not imply good DuncanHill 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does not, Duncan. Should I so judge Wellington because of the conduct of sections of the British Army during the Peninsular campaign? War may be a nasty business but Suvorov was one of the best practioners of the art, one of the greatest commanders in Russian history, at least the equal of Georgy Zhukov. This is really not the place to go in to detail on this matter but, by way of example, I urge any who are interested to read Suvorov's Italian and Swiss expedition. On a personal note I have to say that it disturbs me the extent to which old unhappy far off things and battles long ago continue to be fought on the pages of Wikipedia. I even came across a page-thankfully now deleted-on Estophobia! Clio the Muse 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the weaknesses - and strengths - of the English language is the way words shade in meaning. Suvorov was undoubtedly a good general - in the sense of effective, or 'winning, whether he was a good man is beyond my competence to judge. DuncanHill 23:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]