Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 11

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

October 11

Why the Japanese Navy didn't occupy Hawaii in World War 2?

Why didn't the Imperial Japanese navy move into Hawaii and turn it into a Japanese military base after their aircrafts bombed the U.S. navy force in Pearl Habor? The Americans were going to build up the fleets again, so why the Japanese just bombed and then left? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

See Attack on Pearl Harbor#Possible third wave for some discussion on the Japanese decision not to follow-through after the second wave. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that the attack was carried out by a naval task force. Invasion and occupation would have required a heavy troop presence. Emma Dashwood (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; the attack consisted of submarines (with torpedoes) and airplanes (with bombs). There was no land force. The idea was to keep the US from immediately using those ships to go after them, because ships take a while to be built (or at least moved from one base to another). They also were prioritizing secrecy, to do the most damage possible. An invasion force would have had to been on normal ships, which would have been noticed a lot faster. --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 17:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining and protecting a supply chain to feed and equip a large enough military force to occupy the islands and repel the inevitable U.S. attack would have strained the capabilities of the Japanese Navy. Edison (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The islands had vital dockyards, maintenance shops, and oil depots that the Japanese bombers didn't destroy. If the Japanese Navy had occupied Hawaii, they could steal some oil and equipments. There were many American casualities after the Attack of Pearl Habor and the American military on the islands were already weakened. So if the Japanese tried to land on Hawaii, they would have won a war. The army wouldn't go hungry because there were animals and foods on the islands. Isn't that right? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. I read a scholarly analysis of the question many years ago (don't remember the citation, sorry) which said it would have required vast numbers of tankers and cargo ships and a large military force to hold the islands. Capturing the the harbors and ports and major cities would have been easier than sustaining an occupation. There would have been partisans, supplied by U.S. subs, before the eventual U.S. landings. If the Japanese had conquered the Phillipines, they would have been even less able to defend the more strategically important islands closer to home, and their supply ships would have been hunted by U.S. subs. Edison (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese probably could have captured Hawaii if they'd really put their minds to it. But they didn't want to, and (despite attacking the US and declaring war against it) they weren't really looking for a general war against the US. They thought (very wrongly, to their cost) that the US was like China (which they'd be having their horrible fun with for a decade or so), fat and dumb and insular and consumed with its own internal problems, and that with its pacific fleet lost and the Philippines threatened the US would sue for peace and would withdraw. As the Isoroku Yamamoto article notes "Yamamoto hoped, but probably did not believe, if the Americans could be dealt such terrific blows early in the war, they might be willing to negotiate an end to the conflict". Yamamoto, who had been posted to Washington DC in the 1920s, had flown over the industrial vastness of the midwest and knew that the US, if woken to war, could outproduce and overwhelm Japan (cf his apocryphal "sleeping giant" quote" too). But seizing Hawaii wouldn't win Japan the war; a determined US could have waged it from Australia and New Guinea very well. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If the Japanese seized Hawaii, it would bring them more closer to the shores of United States. They would be at the doorstep of the U.S. Japan would have an advantage. The United States would have to go around the Pacific Ocean to wage wars against Japan from Australia or Alaska. It would be a very costly war for United States. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Military logistics. Occupying Hawaii would have lead to a vastly long and vulnerable supply line. The occupation of Hawaii is dealt with in Harry Turtledove's novels Days of Infamy and End of the Beginning. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese had occupied Indonesia so the supply line was vulnerable there. Indonesia and Hawaii are about the same distance away from Japan. I don't see any difference between occupying Hawaii and occupying Indonesia. In the novel, End of the Beginning, did the Japanese land on United States or were they defeated by the Americans at the end? Did the book mention about the atomic bomb? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean no disrespect but you seem completely blind to the basic point already made. Let me repeat it: the attack on Pearl Harbor was a naval operation. There were no forces present to invade and occupy the the Hawaii chain, which would have required a heavy troop concentration. It was certainly not beyond the capacity of the Japanese army to occupy the islands. However, look at their position in the middle of the Pacific. Supply and support would have entailed huge logistical problems, as has already been mentioned. Your point about Indonesia is without merit. This island group was invaded not from Japan but from preexisting bases established In French Indochina. With the occupation of the Philippines and the British base at Singapore the supply lines to Indonesia were secure. I hope this is clear. Emma Dashwood (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a quote allegedly by Bertrand Russell

One of my girlfriend's pupils recently brought a quote into her philosophy class she said was by Bertrand Russell. She didn't have a source for the quote, so I suspect it came from some (more or less reliable) collection of quotes on the web (and thus is not even necessarily by Russell). What's worse, the quote she brought was in German which makes it a bit difficult to find a source for it - I've looked on Wikiquote and googled around for the German version and for various differently phrased English translations, but came up empty. The German quote goes as follows:

Mit der Zeit berauben uns die Maschinen zweier Dinge, die sicherlich zum wesentlichen Bestandteil des Menschglücks gehören: der Spontaneität und der Abwechslung.

...which roughly translates to:

As time goes on, machines are increasingly removing two things from our grasp which are certainly essential for human happiness: spontaneity and variety.

Does this sound familiar to anyone? It would be great if someone could identify the Russell text it comes from (or alternatively, tell me with some certainty that it is not a quote by Russell). Thanks a lot, Ferkelparade π 12:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I found it through google. This page: [1] has the quote in rotation in the little quote generator in the center of the page. I don't read german, but the google search had this text:

kalenderblatt24.de - Kalenderblatt - [ Translate this page ]Mit der Zeit berauben uns die Menschen zweier Dinge, die sicherlich zum Besten des Menschenglücks gehören: Der Spontaneität und der Abwechslung. ...

www.kalenderlexikon.de/Blatt24/index.php?Typ=Kalenderblatt&MJD=54238 - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

When I entered it. When I loaded the page, however, the quote changed, and after some experimentation, it looks like the quote changes everytime the page is loaded. Its the best I could find, and I couldn't find the quote anywhere else. Hope this helps some... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a trick: when you are trying to Google a quote that might be dubious, don't use the whole quote. Just use the most important words that probably won't change from translation to translation or copy to copy (I've used this to find plagiarism in student essays, for example). So in this case I tried "spontaneity and variety" and "machines". Came up with a Google Books hit on the first try: "Meanwhile, machines deprive us of two things which are certainly important ingredients of human happiness, namely, spontaneity and variety." — Betrand Russell, "Machines and Emotions", in Sceptical Essays. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, that was fast - looks like my Google fu was weak today. Thanks a lot! -- Ferkelparade π 20:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Google Brilliance!--Wetman (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

law

Dear friends,

Is there any substantial difference between `terms' and `conditions' of a contract? Is it just a matter of custom to put them together, as in `the terms and conditions of this agreement'? What count as terms and what count as conditions? Please give examples. Thank you very much.

-Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memorylink2008 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's just how lawyers say "I'm a lawyer and you're not". See legal doublet. --Sean 18:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't "terms" definitions, like "When I say Party of the First Part, I mean...", whereas "conditions" are "When I say will sell the property, this is what will happen..." Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 18:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We had a similar question recently on the Language desk. We discovered Legal doublet. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Oops, I see that info has already been supplied. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That's very polite, honourable and obedient of you, Jack  ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Julia. But did you really expect any less from one such as I?  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Never, on no occasion, at no time do I, that's certain, for sure and doubtless, :) Julia Rossi (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have been reading too many of Joh Bjelke-Petersen's speeches, but I'm sure you wouldn't worry about that.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 07:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the indelible one and only Jerryman..., er Joh. haha X)) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Causes of death in royal families in history

I'm currently working in my sandbox on a list of royal children who died as children, but some don't have causes of death, even when they died relatively late on, in their teens. Does anyone know where I could find out this sort of information?

• Dalai Lamas:
  • Lungtok Gyatso, 9th Dalai Lama (died 1815 aged 9)
  • Khedrup Gyatso, 11th Dalai Lama (died 1838 aged 17)
  • Trinley Gyatso, 12th Dalai Lama (died 1875 aged 18) - "died of a mysterious illness"
• Georgian Britain:
  • Prince Alfred of Great Britain (died 1783 aged 2)
  • Prince Octavius of Great Britain (died 1783 aged 4)
  • Princess Elizabeth Caroline of Wales (died 1759 aged 18)
  • Prince Frederick William of Wales (died 1765 aged 15)
• All these seem to be covered by this source, which still doesn't go into much more detail, so I suppose that's a dead end and maybe not much more needs to be said anyway.
• Others:
  • Madeleine of Valois (died 1537 aged 16) - "Very frail since birth, she was raised in the warm and temperate Loire Valley region of France, rather than at Paris, as her father feared that the cold would destroy her delicate health. By her sixteenth birthday, she had contracted tuberculosis. [...] Madeleine's health had deteriorated even further and she was very sick when the royal pair landed in Scotland. On July 7, 1537, a few short weeks later (and a month before her 17th birthday), Madeleine died in her husband's arms at Edinburgh, Scotland." - other sources seem to agree that it was the tuberculosis that she died from, but possibly this is still unclear.
  • Balthasar Charles, Prince of Asturias (died 1646 aged 16) - from the Spanish Wikipedia article: "Los médicos que le trataron le diagnosticaron viruela , en aquella época también se especuló con una enfermedad venérea como otra posible causa de su muerte aunque actualmente se piensa en una apendicitis como la enfermedad más probable que aquejó al príncipe. Doctors who treated him was diagnosed with smallpox, at that time also speculated with a venereal disease as another possible cause of his death but now we think of an appendicitis as the most likely disease afflicting the prince." (Google translation)
  • Princess Louisa Anne of Wales (died 1768 aged 19) - "Her health was delicate throughout her life. Princess Louisa died, at Carlton House, London, on 13 May 1768, unmarried, and without issue, at the age of 19."
  • Prince Oddone Eugenio Maria of Savoy (died 1866 aged 19) - From birth, Prince Oddone was marginalized due to the precarious state of his health. [...] The prince chose Genoa for his residence for its mild climate that benefited his ailing physical condition. [...] Oddone died at the age of 19 at the Royal Palace of Genoa shortly before dawn on 22 January 1866." - found some pictures of Oddone in this thread.
  • Princess Maria Luisa Immaculata of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (died 1874 aged 19)

I realise some of the causes of death may be vague (and I've added what I can find in the articles), but if anyone can help find sources for what is there and for the articles where the cause of death is not given, that would be great. Carcharoth (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Tuberculosis, q.v., had a high mortality rate prior to the application of antibiotics in the last century. It is still, in third world countries, Russia and China, one of the most deadly transmitted diseases. As it has rather diffuse symptoms, sufferers, even in developed countries, frequently die without it having been diagnosed prior to death. WP has a List of tuberculosis victims, but, of course, this proves nothing. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I can well see you might have problems with some diseases. One of my uncles did such a history for my family and my grandmother burnt it because of the number for which he had attributed gout as a cause of death. There's far worse things for relatives to burn or rewrite the records for. Dmcq (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I managed to expand Princess Elizabeth Caroline of Wales a bit.--Pharos (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In defense of poor women

In the countries Food for the Poor serve, why can't the women use their defenses on telling the men 'no' to their making moves on them?72.229.129.53 (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, could you rephrase it? What women are you talking about? What defences are you talking about? --Tango (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Guessing here, that men are taking food off women. Difference is women and men in not so poor countries have enforceable rights to make up for their lack of bulk when standover types make moves on them or their property. You can't so easily call the police in countries without those rights. And someone I forget where said that saying "No" to an enemy doesn't work because the enemy doesn't listen. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

In the countries Food for the Poor serve, the women should stand up for their rights to tell the men 'no'. But what part of 'no' do the men or the "enemy" not understand?72.229.129.53 (talk) 22:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

What rights are you talking about? And I doubt, whatever it is, that it's a matter of people not understanding, it will be about them not caring. --Tango (talk) 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The rights I'm refering to is women's rights to practice sexual abstinence. That way they won't have to go through a harder struggle while they don't have any types of resources on raising one child or more children in poverty. I guess neither the men nor the "enemy" care or understand that type of thing.72.229.129.53 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are talking about rape, not stealing food? Well then of course, the main reason is that a man who rapes a woman doesn't care what she thinks or wants to do. A rapist is a criminal that does not care about anyone but his own pleasure and certainly does not care about the law, or the rights of anybody else. It is not different in these countries from other countries, except maybe that the rape will result in pregnancy more often. To start, you could read our articles rape and motivation for rape. --Lgriot (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, I don't know. In the countries Food for the Poor serve, affordable birth control isn't accessible to anyone, especially the women. Could that be an advantage to the more powerful in those countries?72.229.129.53 (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a disadvantage to the victim, I don't see how it makes any difference to the rapist. --Tango (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The countries served by Food for the Poor, from our article about the organisation, are in the Caribbean and Latin America. These are not war zones but they are mostly poor countries. Most have high birth rates. You seem to be asking why women in these countries have many children. The WP articles on birth control and population will give you leads to the debates about these topics. In Latin America many women are Catholics so they are strongly dissuaded from using birth control but it is important to remember that many women positively wish to have large families because their adult children will provide for them in old age. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, high infant mortality rates in poor countries means you need to have more children in order to increase the chance of some of them reaching adulthood. --Tango (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a comment. In the books on rape I have read, particularly the landmark book by Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will, rape is not caused by sexual desire. Most rapists don't climax. It is a crime of violence. Therefore, women in suggestive clothing (so-called) cannot incite a rape. Also, the overwhelming majority of rapes are male on male rapes in prison. The inmate rapist is usually a straight male. It is violence. An excess of testerone may create sexual tension. There is a correlation between excess amounts and violence, I believe. 75Janice (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)75Janice

Is Food for the Poor part of that campaign which said 'food not condoms' which was rubbishing people trying to distribute condoms? Is this trying to extend that stupid 'just say no' business? Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What types of questions are those, Dmcq? ItsmeJudith provided an accurate answer. But she forgot to include the women in the Caribbean. Are they Christians, therefore being strongly dissuaded from using birth control?72.229.129.53 (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

In the Caribbean most people are Christians - of a variety of denominations. Some are Catholics, others Protestants. You may find more information by looking at our articles on the various Caribbean countries. We have all been working to understand your original question. I think you may also have been asking whether women are able to say "no" to sex in these countries. My answer to that is that it depends whether they are married or not. Sex before marriage is frowned on both in the Caribbean and Latin America, but marriage may be early. As in most cultures, it can be difficult for married women to refuse sex. In the Catholic countries young women have the option of becoming nuns, thus opting out of the whole breeding process. For economic reasons there are high levels of prostitution in many developing countries. Do you want to ask a more specific question? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that I had asked two very specific questions. They were not answered. Lots of catholics use birth control whatever the Pope says. Food for the Poor supports health services. Do they actively stop birth control being available? Dmcq (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was addressing my reply to the original IP poster Dmcq. The poster did not state what her views are about Food for the Poor; let's not assume anything. She might not know the answers to your specific questions. I don't either but someone might. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

To those who've been working to understand my original question, Food for the Poor receives many requests from desperate families in Latin America and the Caribbean. Those families include mothers with multiple children. Many children are orphans, some who live with extended families (some who are also poor). Food for the Poor has been hounding me for money to help out. I don't know if they think I'm a celebrity, but I know I'm not. So I hope I've provided an accurate answer.72.229.129.53 (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that explains a bit. I certainly would like if there was some organization to help out with charity giving so one wasn't hounded after giving something. That way the charity wouldn't be given one's name. I'm sure a web based version could make end meet just on the ads though I haven't the foggiest how one could check up that they weren't cheating. Dmcq (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that in the US there is an organization called JustGive [2] which can ensure your donation is anonymous and you get a tax receipt at a cost of 3% from what I read. In the UK there is a similarly named organization but it doesn't provide this particular service - possibly because there is a law against charities giving money to charities. Dmcq (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Nazi Germany map, confused

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Nazi_Germany.png

I am having trouble knowing what the bottom orange portion is, under Austria. What was that land before the Germans took it? How did they?

96.226.229.124 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Dave

I believe that's the Prealpine Operations Zone. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Although why that map doesn't also reflect Operational Zone Adriatic Coast as well, a comparable region of the same period, I don't know. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It can´t be the Prealpine Operations Zone, as this was located in South Tyrol / Northern Italy. These are areas of Carinthia and Styria which (both prior and after the 3rd Reich) were / are within the borders of todays Slovenia. These areas had been part of the Austro-Hungarian empire until 1918, when the Empire was disolved. Slovenia itself was partitioned between the Axis powers, the various parts being ascribed to Italy, Germany and Hungary. The Operational Zone Adriatic Coast, mentioned above, was a puppet construct to the West of these areas around Trieste and, de jure, not part of the Third Reich. The Prealpine Operations Zone would have been, again, to the West of that, around Bolzano. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed those parts of Slovenia occupied and later annexed by Germany after the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1941. Do be careful with that map, though. It gives the impression that both the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the General Government were incorporated into Grossdeutschland. They were not. The Wikipedia pages are quite confused on this issue. Emma Dashwood (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Can the Wikipedia pages concerned be edited to show the facts correctly?--Wetman (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What else are you here for, my friend, but to edit Wikipedia pages? If you have a concern with a page, feel quite free to edit it! --Alinnisawest,^{Dalek Empress} (extermination requests here) 21:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)