Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 September 1

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.

September 1

What are the "elements of national power?"

While attending the Army's Command & General Staff College years ago, I learned that there are several defined "elements of national power." I cannot remember all of them.

I have checked through Google and all of the reference/archive portions of WIKI. No results, not even close. The elements of national power consist of at least the following: - Geographical size and location. - Natural resources. - Military capability. - Population: size, common ethnicity. - Economics. - Industrial vs. agrarian economy. There are more, I just cannot recall them. Greyhound67 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyhound67 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Though I do not profess to be an expert on the subject, from what you have given in the question, it seems "elements of national power" is a broad term and definitions may vary, based on what you examine or whom you ask. As I see it, the only way you can find the specific elements which you are seeking is to ask someone from the Army's Command & General Staff College. I apologize if the information I have provided is incorrect - again, I am not an expert on the subject. Intelligentsium 01:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This book, U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, 2nd Edition Edited by Colonel (Ret) J. Boone Bartholomees Jr., is available as a download on this site. The review claims that the third section of the book is about "the elements of national power". // BL \\ (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet Union - reality vs bias

I'm an American, this is extremely relevant. I just finished reading the article about KAL 007 and am left with the feeling that the S.U.'s actions were just unredeemingly evil. This seems to be just another bullet-point in a decades-long list of examples why the Soviet Union was a terrible, terrible thing.

(huge) BUT, I am also acutely aware of the inherent bias found in both culture and educational systems - which must be undeniably strong for an American looking towards the former Cold War adversary.

How do I separate the facts from the filter? Is it even possible for an American to objectively judge the Soviet Union's actions? I read articles like that and I feel my disgust is justified, but at the same time I wonder if I'm not just a well-socialized fool? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You could try imaging you're an Iranian confronted with Iran Air Flight 655. That might help you somewhat. I don't think either of us think there is good justification for either incident - and certainly not for medals to be handed out to the crew who shot down that unfortunate plane. But in both cases the two superpowers just did their thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd look at all the information I had on the incident, re-write it (either in my head or for real) with only objective statements that have been verified and then make judgements, trying to ignore anything controversial or subjective. Prokhorovka (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether you ascribe the action to some sort of inherent aspect of the government, or whether you see it as an exceptional situation. There are some times when a given action DOES reflect whether the government is poorly run, has malicious intentions, is just sadistic, etc. There are others that represent more local causes: bad judgment, poor systems of hierarchy, on-edge mentality, etc. The question is whether you see this as being that the USSR is evil (or that the USA is evil, in the case of IAR 655), or whether you see it as a mistake, or a sign of a faulty system, or an inevitable result of relying too much on computers to identify potential threats, or whatever. Chernobyl, for example, did not happen because the Soviet Union was "evil"—it happened because they had a very cavalier attitude towards their reactors, and importantly towards the training of reactor technicians, and very poor oversight of all of these things. The attempted cover up of Chernobyl tells you more about the style and organization of the Soviet government than does the actual accident. One can similarly look at Three Mile Island and do an analysis that tells you about "what really went wrong"—at technical, bureaucratic, and political levels. All of this can, I think, be done fairly objectively, if one is ready to focus on what the real questions are—"evil" not usually being one of them. Even when trying to talk about, say, Hitler, referring to "evil" as an explanatory device is rarely very fulfilling. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've picked an odd example here, both because it was quite possibly an accident and has a direct US example to compare it with. If I were to be asked to support the notion that the USSR was "evil", I'd probably point to the purges, the Secret Police, the labour camps and the brutal suppression of its neighbours. And that's setting aside for the moment the millions killed in famines due to the USSR's blind and tragic imposition of a command economy on agriculture, and the generally despicable nature of Stalin himself. TastyCakes (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just trying to present a general framework. Personally I still think "evil" is a poor explanatory device. Paranoid? Ruthless in its political activities? Belligerent? Sure. Evil? I don't know. Everybody has a different definition of "evil," and cherry-picking the worst examples doesn't leave many nations looking good. Are the French "evil" because of their actions in Algeria? How about the British in their imperial adventures? The Americans happily killed millions of civilians as "collateral damage" during its twentieth-century wars. Is "evil" a sensible way to make sense of the actions of states? Personally I doubt it. One can say that without condoning any of these sorts of actions. I think North Korea is a pretty lousy place, and run by a complete loon, but is the state itself "evil"? --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made it clear, I was referring to the original OP's observations, not your own ;). I agree it is problematic applying black and white, good and evil labels to countries, particularly one as large and complex as the USSR. TastyCakes (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Be careful with your indents! If replying directly to the original question, indent once. If replying to a previous reply, indent one more time than that reply was indented by. --Tango (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OP here. Thank you for the replies thus far. The wording of my original post focused the discussion more on KAL 007 than I had actually intended. What I wanted to convey was that reading that article caused me to reflect on my understanding of the history of the Soviet Union, and I found myself forced to admit that I couldn't come up with a single "good" thing they'd done. Such an unredeemingly negative (rather than "evil") legacy seems basically impossible, so I now question how much my nationality is influencing my perception of events. It reminds me of the classic Life of Brian scene when the Jewish guy is ranting about the evils of the Roman Empire, and his co-conspirator keeps interjecting with all the good things they've done (better roads, safe to walk about at night, organized judiciary, etc.) Is there a List of Ways the Soviet Union was a Good Thing out there somewhere?218.25.32.210 (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Healthcare, and industrialisation would be the first main things that spring to mind - getting a nearly mediaevil economy to modern standards in thirty years, with more doctors per head than America are fairly impressive accomplishments. Now, the cost of getting there, the plans in particular, is another matter --Saalstin (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you look into the Ostalgie phenomenon (nostalgia for East Germany, e.g. here), that might give you some clues. Some of it's about cultural identity, but there are also points about healthcare, education and guaranteed jobs (unemployment has risen sharply in the former GDR). AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They pretty much beat the Nazis? TastyCakes (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nu, pogodi! Can't think of anything else. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't come up with a single "good" thing they'd done.

Vodka. 'nuff said. * — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

Is there any way to get access to the day to day histories of prominent Nazis and Allies throughout World War Two ? For example, if I wanted to write a historical novel, I need to know if say Hitler was in a certain place at a certain time, and maybe where was Churchill or Roosevelt or Keitel, for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.36.179.66 (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The best person to answer this would be your nearest Librarian, and it would really make their day! I am doubtful that the sort of detail you're after would be floating around online for free, as considerable effort would be needed to digitize the old records. I would expect to use lots of microfilm--inks^T 04:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Dear Diary: Invaded Poland today. Next week I'll invade the Netherlands, which should be easier, as it's downhill from here. Blitzkrieg is, like, the coolest game ever!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone already tried to help you, but it wasn't much use. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The main source for Konrad Kujau was the multi-volume "Reden und Proklamationen 1932 1945" (Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations) by Max Domarus which would appear to be what you're after for Hitler. For Churchill you could try the published diaries of John Colville who was Churchill's Private Secretary during the war and travelled with him most of the time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

<joke> The Hitler Diaries might also be of use to you... </joke> ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 10:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ja! Richard also mentioned it above. A couple of guys went to jail for that forgery, and several others got Stern warnings. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hans Frank kept a detailed diary which was later used as evidence in the Nurember Trial. An English translation has been published. — Kpalion^(talk) 10:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Not quite the best-seller as the diary of Anne Frank. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hanged" Frank's little-known real last words were "And now I'm swingin', and here I go-o-o-o-o..." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The Goebbels Diaries are another source. --Nigelpackham (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I can highly recommend Colville's diaries for Churchill's day to day whereabouts and activities; also useful are Lord Moran's autobiography/diary, along with Sir John Martin and Alan Brooke's diaries. For FDR, I'm less sure - I'd look up the names of his cabinet and see if they published diaries. I believe his wife published a diary of some kind. Hope this helps. Skinny87 (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo identification question

The article about Montana and Montana State Capitol both have a lithograph image that is definitely not an image of the Capitol building of Montana. This is the capital of Montana. It doesn't even look similar.

The lithograph is clearly of the Minnesota State Capitol. But the weird thing is, this lithograph is labeled "Montana State Capitol" and even has a Montana-looking background that doesn't look like St. Paul to me.

Does anyone know how this lithograph could have gotten produced? Anybody know more about the history of the state capitols or the history of that image? (It's a featured image! Someone must have noticed this before. I must be missing something.) -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Something's fishy here, as there are no mountains in the background in St. Paul, as noted before. However, it doesn't quite match the St. Paul building either, unless they removed the angled facades at some point. Other details don't quite match either, although overall it's fairly close. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I took it out and replaced it with this: File:Helena capitol.jpg, which appears to be the real deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice it was from 1896. My guess is that it was an artist's conception. The building finally opened in 1902, significantly altered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Good detective work. The colored lithograph is signed "Copyrighted 1896 by George R. Mann, architect". From the Encyclopedia of Arkansas website I'm reading "Mann was living in St. Louis when he read that Daniel W. Jones, the governor of Arkansas, was considering a new capitol for the state. Mann visited Little Rock in 1899, and after an encouraging meeting with the governor, he sent drawings of his design for the Montana State Capitol, which had not been built. They were hung on the walls of the 1830s Capitol to generate interest in a new building. The strategy worked. The drawings’ attractiveness not only eased the passage of the bills calling for the new building but also drew attention to the architect." Mann had briefly been in practice in Minneapolis. Like Cass Gilbert's Minnesota State Capitol (1896-1905) its dome is an homage to Michelangelo's. Wikipedia needs an article on George Richard Mann (1856–1939), designer of the Arkansas State Capitol, where no architect is mentioned. --Wetman (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bingo! There's your design. He took the walls of the Arkansas capitol and the dome of the Minnesota capitol and voila! A nice illustration that only in a very high-level way resembles the finished Montana product - i.e. it's clad in stone and has a dome. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that the Arkansas capitol wasn't started until 1899. But the walls are rather closer to the 1896 lithograph than are the walls of the Minnesota capitol - which, by the way, began in 1896. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

One should say rather that he took the elevation of his unbuilt Montana capitol and adapted it for the Arkansas capitol. The "finished Montana project" was only a highly finished presentation drawing. --Wetman (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

See the new article George R. Mann. Edison (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I found out via e-mail from the Library of Congress that this was an entry in a design competition, and obviously it was not accepted as the final design. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources say he shopped designs around with a few changes to one competition after another, as did his competitors. Edison (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That was probably a small industry, given that so many states were building new capitols in the late 1800s. The new article about him could make that point, and show the proposed (and rejected) Montana capitol, and the accepted Arkansas capitol, for comparison. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm so glad this question generated some discussion and actually got an excellent answer! Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Have I the right to write to each director of some company?

Lawyer types needed here. (Especially ones who know Australian law). I remember reading that it is a statutory obligation on any public company that it must publicly list all of its directors. Companies don’t advertise that provision, but nevertheless people can write to directors and inform them of things their company is doing, and about which they may know nothing. I would like to avail myself of this right, if so it be, but I have forgotten where they are supposed to publish such information. Myles325a (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Corporations Act 1989 No. 109 of 1989 - Sect 242 states:

• A company shall keep a register of its directors, its principal executive officer and its secretaries.
• The register shall be open for inspection:

• (a) by any member of the company-without charge; and
• (b) by any other person-on payment for each inspection of such amount, not exceeding the prescribed amount, as the company requires or, where the company does not require the payment of an amount, without charge.

• A person may request a company to give to the person a copy of the register or any part of the register and, where such a request is made, the company shall send the copy to the person:

• (a) if the company requires payment of an amount not exceeding the prescribed amount-within 21 days after payment of the amount is received by the company or within such longer period as the Commission approves; or
• (b) otherwise-within 21 days after the request is made or within such longer period as the Commission approves.

In other words, under this legislation every Australian company is obliged to provide you with access to, or a copy of, their directors register, for a fee. In practice, most large companies will list their directors on their website somewhere (though it often takes a bit of searching). I don't think the 2001 Corporations Act altered this particular bit of legislation, but I'm not a corporate lawyer. You should consult one before taking legal action. You might also contact your local Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading officer or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Rockpocket 07:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are trying to find the details online it might be worth looking for an "investor relations" section. There often is one and it will have all the public accounts filings and things - the directors details may well be there. --Tango (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If by "public company" you mean one listed on a stock exchange, the company's annual report will have the names of all directors. You can write to them c/o the company itself. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Australian public company annual reports are available on the ASX website for personal use: http://www.asx.com.au/ --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ecumenical/secular monasteries

Throughout history, monasteries have generally been projects undertaken by particular sects, so they've generally been collections of people who believe the same things. But given that monks are by their very nature peaceable and quiet, wouldn't it make a certain amount of sense for them to band together in pluralistic communities, adhering to a minimalistic charter of 'monk and let monk'? If the whole point of being a monk is to shut out the distractions of the world, why does it matter what the person in the next cell thinks or believes, so long as he's quiet? Have there ever been organized communities united only by the desire to contemplate something (no matter what) in austerity and silence? LANTZY^TALK 21:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not to such an extent, but the universities of Europe through maybe the 17th century were rather like monasteries - male only, staff and students living, working, and dining together on site, with its own laws that go far beyond merely the educational sphere, devoted to study and rather abstracted from the real world. But their similarity to religious institutions is no accident, for many (most?) were built around schools of religion. And none meets your last criterion, that of being particularly laissez-faire (but then how many monasteries really were either?). One might say that some universities, and related bodies like astronomical observatories, are still rather reminiscent of monasteries. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to answer this past the "peaceable and quiet" part. Maybe that's true on TV or something, but not in reality, especially not in any era where monks had any power. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like the way I use the word 'monk', simply ignore everything but the last sentence: Have there ever been organized communities united only by the desire to contemplate something (no matter what) in austerity and silence? That's what I'm interested in. LANTZY^TALK 09:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, many religious monasteries in the U.S. have to be self-supporting, which means somebody's going to have to combine his contemplation with tilling the garden, cleaning the cow barn, making the cheese or jam or fruitcake or whatnot. Hence St. Benedict's ora et labora. --- OtherDave (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously that would be part of the charter. Why should collaboration require ideological uniformity? LANTZY^TALK 09:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's much easier to keep things "peaceable and quiet" when everyone pretty much believes the same way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If you google "retreat centers" you'll find a lot of places (e.g.[1]), many of which are ecumenical. The Iona Community[2] is one example, which attempts to adapt the traditional monastic life of Iona to a modern ecumenical world (including denominations who don't believe in monasticism). Most retreats are more geared towards short stays than long stays, because few people can afford to pay to stay indefinitely.--Nigelpackham (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Try commune.--Wetman (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The most important part of religious communities is prayer followed by obedience to the rule as laid down by the founders.Thus,unity between different orders as you imagine it is not possible.Really,it seems you have a very imperfect idea of what a monastery is all about.They are not projects,they are powerhouses of prayer.I googled "communes" and found lots of hits,some of these may be what you are looking for...hotclaws 17:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the OP is describing the idea behind the Institute for Advanced Study which the IHÉS and maybe other places were set up to emulate. Of course not just anybody could get placement there. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 04:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What are the "ramps" in the Vltava at the base of the Charles Bridge

In photographs (both historical and contemporary) of the Charles Bridge, structures that look like ramps made of logs propped up out of the water can be seen in the Vltava at the base of the bridge (one near each of the pillars). I'm guessing these are to protect the bridge from floating debris. Is that correct? What are these called? Donald Hosek (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

These sound like cutwaters - a topic on which we don't yet have an article. Warofdreams talk 11:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Charles Bridge article says: "The bridge is 516 meters long and nearly 10 meters wide, resting on 16 arches shielded by ice guards." I believe the "ramps of logs" a few metres upstream of the starlings (and which can easily be seen in Google Earth) are these ice guards. Astronaut (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Caesar's mother

In Conn Iggulden's novel The Gates of Rome, he claims that Julius Caesar's mother, Aurelia Cotta, had epilepsy, but our article on her doesn't mention this. Is there any evidence for this assertion? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Plutarch says Caesar suffered from something that could be interpreted as epilepsy. See this and the souces in the footnote. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the Roman times epilepsy was usually seen as something positive, and it was a disease that was often associated with great men. So it was probably that Iggulden was implying by having Caesars mother suffer from it. The wikipedia article does not quite get around to that, but it has some aspects of it:"In ancient times, epilepsy was known as the "Sacred Disease" because people thought that epileptic seizures were a form of attack by demons, or that the visions experienced by persons with epilepsy were sent by the gods.". --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)