Humanities desk
< November 26	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 28 >

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.

November 27

Republican single-party ambitions?

Earlier this year I saw an essay or position paper asserting Republican ambitions for permanent control of the Presidency and Congress. It listed most of the major players at the American Enterprise Institute as participants. It may have been an AEI document, an article in American Spectator, or something in TrueOut — I've looked at all three but can't find the article. Can anyone help identify it? I'd like to find a copy if possible. Faucon24 (talk) 08:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the phrase for this plan is the "Permanent Republican majority", if that helps. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be Project for the New American Century? Or perhaps, Contract with America? Corvus cornix_talk 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person most closely associated with the plan for a "permanent Republic majority" is Karl Rove, as discussed in this Slate article. However, I don't think that this phrase is the title of a document. Instead, it is just Rove's name for his political goal and the strategy he outlined to reach it. Marco polo (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazism and Stalinism

What were the main structural differences, if any, between the Nazi and the Stalinist states?217.43.14.232 (talk) 09:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first, one might say, was 'dictatorship by consensus', the other 'dictatorship by coercion'. That is to say, the Nazis were lifted to power on a wave of solid electoral support; and that while terror was employed, and continued to be employed, against opponents and outsiders, notably the Jewish community, there was otherwise an element of predictability about the whole thing. The Bolsheviks, in contrast, had seized power, and held on to it, in isolation from the population at large. This meant, in effect, that in achieving their political ends terror was central to the whole system of change and development; that no section of the community was exempt from a process that was arbitrary and unpredictable at all levels, and at most times. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And though I'd be the first to admit I don't know a ton about the basic power structures of either, my general impression from what I do know is that the Soviet state was at all points excessively bureaucratic (committees that oversaw committees that oversaw committees that oversaw committees) whereas the brief Nazi state was extremely streamlined (cf. Gleichschaltung) with much clearly delineation of power. As a consequence, if i were to draw sweeping conclusions from very little data here, I would say that in all areas except that of direct prosecution by secret police, the Nazi state was characterized more by quick action while the Soviet state was at almost all time characterized by muddling, red tape, and an almost deadening bureaucratic weight. (Again, when you are talking about secret police, the Soviets were no slackers, but in other areas...) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be surprised, 24.147, by just how 'uncoordinated' the Nazi state really was, a jungle of overlapping and competing authorities and interests. In the area of foreign policy, for example, there were, at one time, no fewer than three mutually antagonstic agencies at work; the Foreign Office itself as well as separate offices reporting to Joachim von Ribbentrop and Alfred Rosenberg. Unlike the Stalinist system, which proceeded along clear and predictable channels, the Nazi dictatorship was chaotically ill-organised, a reflection of Hitler's dislike of rational decision-making and bureaucratic order of any kind. Albert Speer has said of this 'I would often ask myself did he really work? Little was left of the day; he rose late in the morning and conducted one or two official conferences; but from the subsequent dinner on he more or less wasted his time until the early hours of the evening. His rare appointments in the late afternoon were imperiled by his passion for looking at building plans. The adjutants often asked me: "please don't show any plans today."' Clio the Muse (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, especially about Hitler's fondness for mutually competing/overlapping organizations. There were some instances in the Soviet state of this sort of behavior but I think you're right that it is more indicative of Hitler's management scheme than the Soviet one. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct, Clio, in describing some of the aspects of how the Third Reich was run under Hitler. However, I would like to fill out the picture more. It is true that Hitler woke late, but so did Churchill. It is also true that the Third Reich had many chaotic bureaucratic entanglements, but the same can be said for Stalinist Russia and even the UK and the US at that time. It was a matter of degree, perhaps, but Nazi Germany was not inordinately and dramatically different in its bureaucracy than the other industrialized nations of the time. Perhaps it led the pack, but it wasn't a big lead...

In some ways the Third Reich was actually a model of highly organized (almost engineered) precision, at least on paper. In practice it fell far short of its high goals of efficiency. It is interesting to compare the organization of society under the Nazis and under the Soviets. There are similarities, but differences, too. I have in my personal collection a collection of some of the Nazi Party's highly acclaimed feature magazine called "Signal". The Nazis published Signal not only in German, but in English and I think a couple of other languages as well. The copies I have are in English. In one of these magazines is an article written in 1940 that describes the organization of society and the government under the National Socialist German Workers' Party (the Nazis, for short). This is of course propaganda, but it is interesting to see what the Nazis had to say for themselves. It represents, perhaps the ideal that they were striving for. Here are some excerpts from this article:

"A Survey of the Marvel of the Party Organization. The organization of the Party originated in the practical requirements of the period of struggle, but from the very commencement it as moulded in accordance with the Party's great state conception, the idea of embracing every individual in order to employ him in furthering the good of the community which naturally also means his own personal well-being...The smallest unit is the block, which is followed according to size by the cell, the local group, the district, and the province. The family forms the centre of the block, the cell embraces the life of one or more streets, the boundaries of the local group include whole communities, and in towns it comprises a number of areas. In a district, for example, there may be a middle-sized town of about 250,000 inhabitants, in country regions, there are a number of villages or small towns. The province, of course, is of some considerable size and there is more than one province in Germany which is more extensive or has a larger population than some of the smaller European states. The province is the largest administrative unit in the Party organization. The initiative is transmitted directly to the province from the Reich administration. It is here that the political power - as it were - is distributed from the high power electrical network to the districts under the control of the separate provinces. The districts in their turn transform the current according to local requirements and convey it to the local groups. Here the wires once again divide and a "cable" runs to each cell which supplies the street and house groups. In the block, however, the current flows into each seaparate house, so that in the end every individual in the nation which numbers 80 millions has his "connexion". The whole network is connected up in such a manner that - to continue the illustration - any short-circuit which may occur is almost automatically registered in the nearest central station, and can be reported to the Reich administration. This system of organization in the Party is sufficiently strong and adaptable to cover every conceivable, politially important reaction of a great nation, and at the same time, it can bring new impulses to bear in every sphere of life. The system brings all the tasks allotted to the Party to their conclusion. Any creative initiative to be introduced in health and hygiene, the training of youth, welfare work on behalf of the working man (as, for example, improvement in working conditions, embellishment of workshops, etc., convalescent homes, holiday and wage questions, etc.) whatever revolutionary idea is to be introduced into the crafts, industry, trade or among the peasantry, all flows through the channels of the Party organization."

"1. The Block (there are 539,774 blocks) consists of 30 to 40 households. It is the smallest unit coming under the care of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. The block supervisor, a member of the Party, helps the families in his block and aids thme in cases of illnes,death and economic distress, inspects the housing conditions, and forwards inquiries and compalints to the appropriate Party office. In wartime he sees to the distribution of the food cards."

"2. The Cell (there are 121,406 cells) consists of 4 to 6 blocks, i. e. approximately 200 households. The block supervisors are responsible to the cell leader. He sees to the Party notice boards, as well as to help given by one neighbour to another where people are aged or ill, welfare work for tiny tots and in wartime also to the cleanliness of the footpaths, the collection of waste paper and scrap material, the removal of garbage and unloading of lorries and the air raid precautions."

"3. The Local Group (there are 30,601 local groups) This consists in large towns of from 1500 to 3000 households, and in country districts, of several parishes. The local group leader organizes the work of the block supervisors and cell leaders. He is also responsible for the street collections in aid of the Winter Welfare Work, the collection on hot-pot day which occurs once a month, Party exhibitions and meetings on a small scale and the sports and school work in his area."

"4. The District (there are 890 districts) This consists of whole towns or in large towns of several areas, and in the country it consists of a number of villages. The district leader applies the orders coming from the provincial headquarters in the appropriate form to his own distrinct. His specialist advisers give there attention for example, to beautiful recreation rooms and bright clean workshops in industrial concerns, to the development of small holdings, to the theatre, art exhibitions and special film shows, to health and hygiene, the Press, education, physical exercise, etc."

"5. The Province (there are 43 provinces) This is the largest unit in Germany. The provincial leader receives his instructions directly from the Führer and in accordance with them carries the great social, cultural, economic and propagandistic projects into operation. The drawing (not included in this quote) showns: a Strength through Joy seaside resort, a parade at a national celebration, an employees' convalescent home, a convalescent home for mothers, a Hitler Youth political training college, a large-scale settlement belonging to an industrial works, a recently constucted waterway, etc."

So you can see form this the basic organization under the Nazis. It is interesting to compare it to the Soviet system, I believe, of which more has been written. As the war progressed, this system began to develop serious leakages and problems, as can be imagined. But for the most part it was a pretty efficient model. Saukkomies 18:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt's Origins of Totalitarianism has extended discussion of this... AnonMoos (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Longest postal strike in Canada?

Anyone know when it was and how long it was??

Barksducks (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Torpedos

Does anyone have any further information on supposed British 'torpedo' attacks on Boulogne during the Napoleonic Wars? Qurious Cat (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The torpedo was developed by Robert Fulton, the steamboat and submarine guy. As you can see from this picture here at the National Maritime Museum website it bore no resemblance to a modern torpedo. H. W. Dickinson's Robert Fulton, Engineer and Artist (1913) is available here at Rochester University and the torpedo episodes are in Chapter 8. Short version: the torpedo was not a great success and Fulton was not happy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were three attacks on Boulogne in all, one in October-resulting in the destruction of a pinnace-and a further two in November. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The CROWN of James VI and I

I am trying to find out which crown James I would have worn at his coronation in England; because as far as i can find out, all of the crown jewels of the day were destroyed by Oliver Cromwell, including all of those of the house of Stewart. I am assuming that in Scotland the crown jewels would have been the same as the those of his mother Mary Queen of Scots, but i am struggling to find any visual clues as to what his coronation set would have been like, or what jewels/motifs they included. I cannot find anything about his coronation in englands, and as he ascended the throne in scotland at only 1 year old, i cant imagine he wore very much! any advise or references on where to look would be greatly appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janinej (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James VI and I undoubtedly wore the more ancient of the English Crown Jewels, as he ascended to the English throne in 1603; prior to that, when crowned as king of Scotland in 1567, he probably donned the Honours of Scotland. Cromwell came into power in 1653, and did indeed melt down almost all of the crown jewels, which have since been replaced with new pieces (beginning in 1661). Pastordavid (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By what method was he able to melt jewels? Edison (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Crown Jewels" includes their settings; it's no challenge to melt a crown, sword, or orb. - Nunh-huh 23:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The collection was broken up, the jewels sold off and the metal melted down. The gold was sent to the mint for coining. As far as the Scottish regalia are concerned, Janine, these were hidden from Cromwell, first at Dunnottar Castle, and then in the parish church of Kinneff, where they remained until the Restoration in 1660. They were last used in full ceremony during the Scottish coronation of Charles II at Scone in January 1651. Today the Honours of Scotland, the oldest surviving crown jewels in the United Kingdom, are on display at Edinburgh Castle. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism and malaria

Mussolini and his government highlighted the draining of the Pontine marshes and the eradication of malaria as one of its successes. How successful were they, or is this all myth? Witch of the West (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with so many other aspects of the Fascist state there is a lot of bombast and little real substance. Some progress was made in the early days against malaria-though at no greater rate than that previously made by the Liberal regime-but this slowed considerably in the 1930s. By the Second World War malaria in southern Italy was as bad as ever. The first serious inroads against the disease came with the arrival of the Americans, armed with DDT. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English succession

Prior to the treaty of London in 1604 had the Spanish given up all hope of placing a catholic on the throne of England? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.83.237 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philip III had given some serious consideration of pushing the claim of his half-sister, the Infanta Isabella, who had a tenuous claim through descent from John of Gaunt, though neither she nor her husband, Albert, Archduke of Austria, had any desire to interfere in the English succession. Although by the time Elizabeth I died in March 1603 Philip had given up on Isabella he and his counsellors were still thinking of a suitable alternative candidate for the vacant throne, possibly from within the English Catholic community. Philip was hopeful that, once the exercise was succesful, the grateful Catholics would pay for the expense of an invasion and even cede the Isle of Wight to Spain, to allow him a suitable base to keep an eye on both England and France. This fantasy came to and end when Isabella and Albert sent an envoy to England to congratulate James on his peaceful succession. Philip felt obliged to follow their example. The Treaty of London was the political corollary of this, ending some twenty years of warfare. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich Fleischhauer

Please can anyone tell me any more about this individual? Chaz B. (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an interesting figure, it seems. A retired Lt. Colonel, Ulrich Fleischhauer was part of the Nazi propaganda machine and ran the Nazi World Service (Weltdienst). In 1935, while admiting that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a forgery, he published a 4 volume work based on the Protocals, the Dictionary of Jewish Atrocities (mentioned in Time [1]). Pastordavid (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pastordavid, I'm a little puzzled by what you have written here. Do you have a reference for Fleischhauer's 1935 admission that the Protocols were a forgery? He could have hardly have made such a claim and remained an official of the Nazi state. Do you have in mind the action of 1934-5 in Berne against the Swiss publishers of the Protocols? On this occasion Fleischauer appeared latterly as a witness for the defence, supporting the veracity of the forgery in written and oral evidence. The Swiss court was certainly not convinced, but I was not aware that Fleischauer had been forced to retract his defence? He certainly remained in charge of the Weltdienst until 1939, when it was taken over by Alfred Rosenberg. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, if you have access to sources about the Berne trial, could you help with the following question, which I have also posted at the article talk page?

The article makes reference to a "Cantonal Court of Bern" and to a "Swiss Court of Appeal". As a Swiss jurist, I'm puzzled, because to my knowledge no such courts exist or have existed. I guess that the trial court was either a District Court (Kreisgericht) or a single judge (Gerichtspräsident), although they may have been called differently in 1934; or (for some reason) the Supreme Court of the Canton of Berne (Obergericht des Kantons Bern). The "Swiss Court of Appeal" is almost certainly the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgericht). Can anyone verify this from the original sources? Sandstein (talk) 11:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Sandstein; the only source I have on the Berne trial is in a biography of the French anti-semite, Louis Darquier de Pellepoix, which says nothing about the type of court in question. The action, however, was brought by the Berne Jewish community against Swiss and German Nazis 'for publishing and distributing improper literature.' Would there not, perhaps, be a standard judicial proceedure for dealing with slanderous or inflamatory material? Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, this project's abstract (can't log in, sorry) mentions trials at the "Amtsgericht Bern (1933-35)" and the "Obergericht Bern" (1937). According to this site, the main hearings began in November 1933 in the "Richteramt V". Then there is also Traugott Zimmerli's paranoid critique of reports on the trials' history which were broadcast by radio DRS II, and printed in the weeklies WoZ and Der Beobachter in 1997/98. This angry and rambling rebuttal goes into some detail, specifically on Loosli and Fleischhauer's respective bias, allegedly quotes trial minutes, though out of context, but it might help you find the right primary or secondary sources. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Clio and Sluzzelin. It's as I supposed: the Richteramt was the general criminal court of first instance, equivalent to today's Gerichtspräsident, and would have dealt with libel and slander cases. The case would then have been appealed to the Obergericht, and from there possibly to the Bundesgericht. Since I am in Berne, I'll check whether there are more detailed dead-tree sources, such as court records, in the local university library that could be used to correct the article. Sandstein (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio, I inferred it (perhaps incorrectly) from the 1935 time article linked to above: Not disconcerted by the fact that the Protocols are forgeries, Colonel Fleischhauer thundered, "They are in the Jewish spirit! Who can deny Jews aspire to that world domination set forth in the Protocols? Jews take world domination by Jews for granted!" I took that to mean that Colonel Fleischauer accepted the fact in question, but did not let it alter his views. Pastordavid (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Pastordavid. I think I would take this statement as a celebration of the document, rather than an admission that it was of dubious provenance. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE...I have added objective data about Ulrich Fleischhauer in a new individual wikipedia entry, posted on 6 August 2009. If others have information about Fleishhauer, Weltdienst/World Service, etc. I would appreciate hearing from you. I am especially interested in finding a picture, biographical details on his family history, and insights into World Service operations in the United States. Thank you. Richard Alan Nelson, Ph.D., Professor, Manship School of Mass Communication, Louisiana State University, Rnelson@LSU.edu

Social reform in Prussia

To what extent did the social reforms of Otto von Manteuffel anticipate the later policy of Bismarck? Bel Carres (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, Bel, quite an important figure in Prussian history, though not much known now in the Anglo-Saxon world beyond academic circles. As Minister of the Interior, and then Minister President during the reign of Frederick William IV, it was his intention to detach the working people of Prussia, both peasant and proletariat, from the liberal bourgeoisie. It was under his guidance that that the small tenant farmers to the west of the Elbe were freed of their remaining feudal obligations. In industry, uniform wage rates were introduced and inspectors appointed to monitor factory conditions. Arbitration courts were created to oversee industrial disputes, holidays enforced, and legislation enacted to prevent the employment of children under the age of twelve. It was in these areas of social legislation that Prussia under Manteuffel took in lead in Europe at the time. The aim was to ensure that Prussia would be a well-governed state in the interests of all of its people, who would, in consequence, be bound in loyalty to the crown, and less attracted to the ideologies of the liberals and the socialists, with their sectional, class-based, politics. Manteuffel thus set the parameters of future Prussian and German social policy, later developed still further by Albrecht von Roon and then Bismarck. It explains why universal manhood suffrage was first adopted by the conservative elites, though paradoxically still held in much suspicion by the supposedly more progressive liberal movement. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

south africa

In 1939, was the Union of South Africa a constitutional monarchie? I know that they were a dominion governed by by britain, and had their own prime minister and everything, but i just want to make sure. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.215.174 (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. It remained, as the Union of South Africa, a dominion under the crown until May, 1961, when the Republic of South Africa was created. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]