Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 June 6

Humanities desk
< June 5	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 7 >

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.

June 6

Yevgeny Zamyatin's We

Spoiler Warning

I just finished reading Yevgeny Zamyatin's We, and I'm somewhat confused by the last chapters. What exactly happened on the spaceship in Record 34? If the Guardians thwarted Mephi's attempt to take over the spaceship, how does I-330 survive for a few more chapters, and how does the narrator wind up waking up in his own room? Why does I-330 (I assume it's I-330) tell people in the subway in Record 35 to get the Operation? What exactly happens in the Guardians' office in Record 39? It seems like the narrator is ticked off that I-330 never really loved him and only used him for political purposes and that he comes to (finally) realize that "S-" was part of I-330's conspiracy, but I can't be sure. It's all very confusing. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

In Record 34, the Guardians thwarted the sabotage attempt by locking everything down, but they did not know precisely who was responsible so the narrator wasn't immediately arrested. The narrator was knocked out as the ship was landing, possibly by the Second Builder and perhaps by accident, waking up in his room the next day. In Record 35, open dissent is starting to happen and I-330 is being sarcastic about the benefits of the Operation. In Record 39, the narrator is taken to the Bureau of Guardians where he is interrogated by S, and eventually realizes that it was indeed S he saw behind the Green Wall in Record 27. And here's my personal interpretation of Record 39: the narrator has a minor breakdown as he feels like he's the center of a cosmic joke— there is no longer any difference between the Guardians and Mephi, and, by extension, the very foundation of his view of society is challenged. The same thing happens immediately thereafter when he talks to the mathematician who claims to have just disproven the concept of mathematical infinity. Then he's arrested again, and the end begins. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I thought, in reading Record 34, that after the discovery of the plot and the misunderstanding with I-330, the narrator tries to drive the plunge the spaceship into the ground, but the Second Builder punches him out and throws the ship into reverse. ("'Full speed-aft!' A brusque jolt upward...") If that's the case, it's weird that he winds up in his own room and is later summoned on the phone by the Well-Doer. Either way, you'd think a hyperorganized society would know to detain everyone coming off the spaceship to find out who didn't belong there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Private vs public

What are the advantages and disadvantages of a private company and publicly traded (but privately held, not state-owned) company? --Reference Desker (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The main advantage of "going public" is that you can raise a lot of money, and you can raise more money in the future with additional public offerings or private placements of shares. The bad thing is you give up control of your company (even if the original owners keep more than 50% of the voting power, they sometimes have to get approval of minority shareholders for big things). Also, you have to publicly disclose a lot of your financial information. All of the stuff you have to do as a publicly traded company can be expensive. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Another difference is that privately owned companies tend to have more of a long-term perspective than public stocks. Compare the decisions made by someone who owns the company and hopes to pass it on to his kids and grand kids with actions performed for stockholders who are looking to make a quick buck and then sell. StuRat (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Help indentifying a piece of music for string quartet

Here's a sample of everything that's available on it.

This is played on the 1985 film Brewster's Millions and I've been trying to track it down for the last couple of months. It's not listed in the movie's ending credits and there was never a soundtrack nor a score released, and I've got reliable information denying it was composed exclusively for the film.

I've already tried Borodin and Dvorak, and some stuff sounded vaguely similar, but it's not it. Musipedia gives me plenty of junk results that sound nothing like it.

Can anyone identify it, or at least point to the right direction? Perhaps there's a particular musical element in the composition that I could use to track it down? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks! — Kieff | Talk 06:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

wow, that's dedication. I'm curious why this is such a burning quest... what will you do once you have an answer? 86.8.139.65 (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely a Canon (music) and is in a Minor Key for a String quartet. I'm sorry I'm not sure of the piece's name or composer. You know there are a lot of composers around the world with enough talent to write that piece. I would venture to say that, since no credit is given in the credits, that it was a token "classical sounding" piece the producers bought for a couple hundred, or is from the large collection of "classical sounding" pieces the studio has in its vault. Schyler (one language) 13:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that's probably it. It has a Slavic mood, and it wouldn't be out of place in a Tchaikovsky quartet, but I don't think it's actually by Tchaikovsky. Is there an expert on Russian string quartets in the house, who could say for sure that it's not from any piece in the known repertoire? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There might be an expert on Russian string quartets at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music (shortcut: WP:CM).

—Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A graphical timeline of world history

Hi, I remenber seeing hanging on the wall in high school a particular "timeline" of world history. It was in the shape of a "tree" of empires branching out from left to right, with continuity from Biblical times (maybe starting from Noah's Ark) through antiquity and the medieval period. I think it went a good way into the nineteenth century, and it was my impression that it was meant as a work of art rather than made by someone believing literally in the Biblical account. It was illustrated with various drawings around the edges and listed kings and rulers of the various empires / countries on the tree branches (I think it was quite detailed on European countries, down to Scandinavian kings for example). I can't recall the language the text was written in. (An example of the type of chronology I think was incorporated is the royal Swedish line as laid out by Johannes Magnus.) The question: have anyone seen something like this, and are there any examples of such "timelines" online? Jørgen (talk) 11:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen something similar. In fact, I used to have (or perhaps still do tucked away someplace) three such wall hangings. One was social/political (wars, successions, discoveries, etc.), one was evolutionary, and I think the third was religious, though it's been so long since I saw them that I'm probably mis-remembering. I'll have a look around to see if I can find them when I get home. Handy, but wildly out of date at this point. Matt Deres (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New message: See Cool Tools: Histomap of World History.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Wallchart of World History seems to best fit the OP's description. — Kpalion^(talk) 19:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That appears to be it, though I can only find small samples of it online. It appears it was more Biblical-oriented than I remembered. The "histomap of world history" was also nice, though, with an equally relaxed attitude towards ancient history and a more "quantitative" outlook :-) Thank you for the quick and precise answers! Jørgen (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Winston Churchill

Why wasn't Winston Churchill tried as a war criminal for the firebombing of Dresden which killed mainly women and children? If this had happened today surely he would have been tried and most likely found guilty.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Because his side won. Googlemeister (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"History will be kind to me. For I intend to write it." - apocryphal, but oft attributed to Winnie i.m.canadian (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In The Fog of War, Robert McNamara quotes Curtis LeMay as saying "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals"; I've not found another source that confirms the quote. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So he was a war criminal then. Victors always take the moral high road. Weren't there any willing to charge him?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I can never ignore a man who wants a proper source for a quote. In 1978 General LeMay took part in a symposium at the United States Air Force Academy, in the course of which he said, "Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time...I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal. Fortunately, we were on the winning side." Source: Alfred F. Hurley and Robert C. Ehrhart (eds.) Air Power and Warfare (Washington, 1979) p. 200. Doubtless he said much the same thing to McNamara. Incidentally, Churchill's opinion of the Nuremberg trials can be gathered from a comment to his military adviser: "You and I must take care not to lose the next war." --Antiquary (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Allied war crimes during World War II says that the Nuremberg trials only covered crimes committed on the axis (losing) side. The Soviets committed many serious atrocities, some of which that article details, and would obviously not have been keen on being put on trial themselves. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If Churchill had been charged, it would have laid others open to charges too: the US leadership for Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and no doubt their contribution to the Allied bombing effort in Germany, and the firebombing of Japanese cities), the Soviets for endless atrocities, and so on. There are good grounds for holding Churchill morally responsible for the Dresden bombing (though it wasn't his decision alone, and that the USAAF didn't play a larger part is largely down to luck), but singling Dresden out would have been highly questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't deliberately targetting civilians grounds for being tried as a war criminal? Nowadays if a NATO bomb accidentally kills a goat the west has to explain itself.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If NATO accidentally killed one of my goats (sometimes they even accidentally kill people!)I would be sure to ask some questions. AndyTheGrump, why would singling out Dresden be highly questionable? I'm sure there was a lot of singling out done at the Nuremburg trials. I also don't remember them prosecuting the Nazi scientists who worked on the V-1 and V-2 rockets. Carson101 (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Why would singling out Dresden be questionable? Some figures for deaths due to bombings: Dresden 25,000, Nagasaki 60,000–80,000, Hiroshima 90,000–166,000, Tokyo 100,000 (arguably more) in the raid of 9-10 March 1945 alone.

As for why the 'Nazi scientists' weren't prosecuted, it is obvious - they were far too useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you take a look at what the Nuremburg trials did, they were mostly not for anything close to a viable or believable act of mere war. A lot of Axis "war criminals" got off pretty lightly - the Allies chose to set the bar quite high. Speer, for example, our article says was "ultimately responsible for the use of slave laborers from the occupied territories in armaments production" and yet received only 20 years (and was found innocent on two counts). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why people find this surprising, but war crime trials, use of former Nazi scientists, and so on, are not determined by an abstract Truth and Justice in the sky, but by real political constraints. If you are looking for nations that act as unambiguous heros, or always do the Right Thing, or always 'fess up to their crimes, I am not sure you will actually find any, ever. Why weren't the Allies tried for war crimes? Because they won the war and had no interest in putting themselves and their allies against the wall. Who was going to try them — the brand new and weak UN, which was run by... the Allies? Please now. Why were the Nazi scientists used by the West? Because they thought it would be expedient. Why did the Allies throw out the apparent laws of war at numerous junctures? Because they thought it would be expedient. There has certainly been some truth to the "everybody does it, everybody has blood on their hands" defense regarding human rights and war crime violations. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately, "laws of war" are reciprocal. That is, either both sides follow them or neither side will. One side is not likely to follow those laws while their own citizens are being massacred. In the case of WW2, after the blitz of London, there was very little sympathy for Germans. Then there's also the "end justifies the means" argument, that killing some civilians may save far more if it ends the war earlier. However, and this is key, it only applies if you actually win the war. If you massacre civilians to prolong the war, and then lose, then their deaths did not save others, and are likely to be considered war crimes. StuRat (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's actually not true that there was very little sympathy for the German people in the UK. In fact — I seem to recall reading — those people who had actually lived through the Blitz were the ones who were the least supportive of the firebombing; the biggest supporters amongst the UK public were people who were the furthest away from the war itself. "Ends justifies the means" is generally not accepted in discussions of war crimes — the entire point of talking about "war crimes" means you think that the means are worth talking about. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that his side won. I didn't have this preconception (so you would probably disagree with me if you haven't lived in Germany), but if you took the time to live in Germany for a year as I have, you would realize that the Germans are evil. Also, they were evil going back to World War I. It's a concept that they are especially taught about in school "facing the past". I'm not saying America, England, France, or other countries are "good", just my impression of Germany after living there (and not before living there).--86.8.139.65 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL. "The Germans are evil" and "they were evil going back to World War I". You stated that you have lived in Germany for a year and somehow you're qualified to judge the overwhelming majority of the citizens of an entire country? Pleeeease. Flamarande (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Once, all the Germans were warlike and mean / But that couldn't happen again / We taught them a lesson in 1918 / And they've hardly bothered us since then." --Tom Lehrer in 1965. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(Not a reply to the IP). One other thing that might be considered: the willingness of the German people and society to have the Nazis brought to justice. I've talked with some Germans recently, and it seems that the German government is fairly excessive when coming to distancing themselves with the regime (lots of lessons about Nazi Germany ("Lest we forget"-style, from what I picked up)). I don't know when this started, but as I recall the Allies got on pretty quickly with documenting and publicising the horrors of the regime (we have some pictures of villagers being shown the death camps, I think). So maybe Germans were happy to have their top people brought to justice, as if to say to themselves that it's done, they needn't feel so much like they'd personally done something wrong. Maybe our German contributors can confirm (or not). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The simple answer to this question is that the bombing of Dresden, like the atomic bombings in Japan, were not that controversial in the Allied countries. The general sentiment at the time was that whatever was necessary to win the war should be done. There was very little sympathy for the other guys' civilians after all that "the Germans" or "the Japs" did to "us" and their other victims. It's very easy for us 60-some years later to think of it in a different way, but you have to understand the mindset at the time. I did a search of the British Parliamentary debates ([1]) from the period, and I only found one objection in the House of Commons to the Dresden bombings, from Richard Stokes, and his argument was that the bombings were counterproductive. When Stokes talked about how many people the bombing had killed, Wavell Wakefield said, "has he (Stokes) not just shown the value of this strategic bombing?" Regarding Grandiose's last comment, West Germany remained "unreconstructed" for many years after the war, with some of the same attitudes behind the Nazi rise to power remaining prevalent in German society. Only a small percentage of the people responsible for Nazi crimes were punished severely in the West. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The operative term for this kind of thing would seem to be Total war. It was the absence of the "total war" approach that was one of the factors that did us in, in Vietnam. You're either in it to win, or not. And the traditional view would be that whatever disasters occurred to Germany and Japan, were of their own making. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Any 'total war' in Vietnam would inevitably have spread outside (not that the 'Vietnam' war was restricted to Vietnamese territory in any case). Who would have 'won' a total war between nuclear-armed superpowers? (And BTW, it was German and Japanese 'traditional views' that led them into conflict in the first place). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why they were reluctant to do it, and it cost us dearly, although some argue that even though we lost Vietnam itself, we succeeded in "containing" Communism. It might be Japanese traditional views that led them to make war on us, but the fact is that they chose to do so, and they paid the price for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

...And the US chose to get involved in Vietnam, and also paid a price, as did the Vietnamese people - a higher price still... Returning to the original question, I think it is based on a fundamentally flawed premise - that people should be held responsible for the consequences of their actions, rather than their intent. The bombing of Dresden led to a firestorm, greatly magnifying casualties, but this was a 'bonus' from the Allied perspective. Their tactics were no different from those used elsewhere, and if Churchill could be tried for Dresden, logic implies he should be tried for other raids - along with the other Allied leaders who also supported the bombing campaign. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep, we did, and we did, and they did. And I totally see your point on the flawed premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Churchill could have chosen a purely industrial target, instead he deliberately targeted a city populated by civilians (in wartime this means women and children, and the elderly), and caused firestorms leading to the agonising deaths of thousands. How is that any less cruel than the atrocities perpetrated by the Germans and Japanese? The fact remains that the Allies were flaming hypocrits. IMO, Churchill's savagery was to atone for Chamberlain's earlier appeasement to Hitler.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing opinion from this as this is a Reference Desk, the bombing of Dresden in WW2 was in direct retaliation for the Coventry Blitz in 1940, in which the city of Coventry was flattened. This was an event so atrocious, and one of which Hitler was so proud, that he coined the word "to coventrate" meaning to bomb into annihilation. It was only circumstances which prevented casualties on the scale of Dresden - or you could say it was Dresden's bad luck to have been built and have infrastructure which produced firestorms on being bombed. Coventry, too, was a city populated by civilians. I'm not proud of what my father's comrades did to Dresden and the other German cities, but let's remember who started the bombing of civilian targets, eh? --TammyMoet (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in the least condoning the horrific air strikes against London, Coventry, Liverpool, Belfast, Plymouth, Glasgow, Cardiff, etc. by Goering's Luftwaffe which caused death, destruction, and grief to thousands of civilians. My question was that the decision to firestorm Dresden surely constitutes a war crime on the part of Churchill. The same Churchill who allegedly had proposed to attack Venice to flush out the Germans. I'm not attempting to besmirch the RAF, British forces, people, etc. I am an editor who edits controversial articles (the Northern Ireland Troubles) with a neutral POV, maintaining a cool, non-judgemental stance. I never venture into the "They started it" camp as it leads to verbal minefields. I am not normally one to introduce morality into issues, preferring to stick with the hard, cold, insentiate facts. In this instance, however, I am breaking from my self-imposed tradition by posing a moral question. That's all.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It is weird that the allies thought it would help on the war effort to destroy a civilian target like Dresden. They were quite parctical, and could have used those bombs against more important military targets. Maybe they hoped that it would destroy German population morale, and that it would force the Nazis into a peace earlier than if civilians continued to feel safe? --Lgriot (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes they did, as this this post from the National Archives shows. You can't remove revenge from the rationale for attacks. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase a Michael Douglas character, "Revenge works"... or it least it can serve a purpose. While it may be morally reprehensible, it can energize people. And if the leaders of the Allies determined that only "total war" would defeat the Axis, then that's what they had to do. In 1814, the British could have been charged with "war crimes", if such a thing had existed then, for burning Washington, DC. But then the Americans would also have to have been charged with "war crimes" for burning Toronto, which was what triggered the burning of DC, as revenge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Noting what Andy said above Dresden wasn't the worst (in terms of civilian deaths) but Hamburg was. Also the fire bombing of German cities were always joint operations after 1941 with the USAAF bombing by day and the RAF by night. In the case of Dresden 5 times as many US bombers as UK bombers took part in the Dresden raids. Adding that to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would that be Harry Truman taking the stand? ;-)--Bill Reid | (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Harry would have said he wanted to end the war immediately instead of seeing thousands and thousands more Americans killed from a D-Day style invasion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the estimated casualties from an American landing in Japan would have been around one million for the US troops.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A million Allied troops killed and perhaps comparable numbers of the enemy, and no assurance of victory. Weigh that against a quarter-million of the enemy killed and no Allied killed, as per Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; and almost certain victory. The right military decision there is as obvious as the nose on my face. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent.) I fear Bugs is missing the point with regards to this particular question. There is quite rightly an argument over whether the use of atomic weapons was necessary, and I, as with Bugs would say "yes". Even accepting that, though, one must recall that there were people that believed that various things we now consider war crimes (such as the use of slave labour) were justifiable. I'm sure they used similar justification to Bugs: it's these people, to shorten a war that could mean the deaths of civilians etc. This similarity is demonstrated by Bugs' use of "the enemy" to describe civilians. Ultimately, they were tried, and we weren't, because we didn't agree with their hypothesis (mostly) that it was justified; if they disagreed with our hypothesis our actions were justified, that didn't matter. As I say, there were only a small number of war crimes trials, really. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The flaw in the 'A-Bombs saved lives' argument is that it assumes that the only alternative to the bombs was a D-Day type landing. This is highly questionable, as the Japanese economy had already effectively collapsed, largely due to the naval blockade. A continued blockade, combined with the threat of Soviet intervention (as agreed to by the Allies, which the Japanese were well aware off) would have made surrender in a matter of months more or less inevitable. There would still have been deaths of course in the meantime, but nothing like on the scale of an invasion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Even as the Emperor's recorded surrender message was being prepared for play over the radio, there were elements trying to sabotage that effort. The notion that the Japanese "would have" surrendered in a few months is strictly hypothesis. The bomb ended the war immediately. How many more American deaths would have been "acceptable" under your scenario? Including, perhaps, your own father or grandfather before he reproduced? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The A bombs prevented the murder of all the prisoners of war, which the Japanese authorities planned to do before an invasion, in order to prevent escape or rescue, free the guards for fighting, and to conserve food. "They were just about to surrender" is a revisionist history view not widely held by wartime leaders. Edison (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Liddell Hart (was he a revisionist?) quoted the views of several wartime leaders to almost exactly that effect. He also emphasised the significance of the crushing Japanese defeat in Manchuria, by the USSR, as one of the reasons the Japanese surrendered. Although Hirohito did indeed refer to the nukes in his radio message, the loss of Manchuria was given more emphasis than the atomic bombings in the Japanese discussions leading up to their decision to surrender. The Japanese had very largely got into the war in order to protect and expand their empire in Manchuria and other parts of China, and its importance to them should not be underestimated. The defeat there would be psychologically equivalent to something like, say, a foreign power conquering California. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To go back to the original question, it is my recollection (from reading not from being there) that the Nazi leaders were never charged with war crimes for e.g. the Blitz, because that would have opened up the doors to charges of hypocrisy, or even legal charges, against the Allied leadership. The Nuremberg charges were relating to (I think) aggression, i.e. starting the war, and the Holocaust (crimes against humanity rather than war crimes) for which there was no Allied equivalent. 90.214.166.169 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, had he won the war, Hitler would have tried Churchill as a war criminal.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Or he may have just had him shot, which is I suppose one difference between Hitler and Churchill (and between the Nazis and the Allies, too). WikiDao ☯ 17:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Frozen economy

What would happen according to economic theory if all wage increases were frozen at zero percent, but there was still inflation in the prices of goods imported? Thanks. 2.97.212.124 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, zero growth combined with inflation is stagflation. Wages lagging inflation is just inflation. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 13:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If wages didn't increase, and there was inflation in the price of imported goods, that would be a decrease in real wages. As to "what would happen according to economic theory" if real wages went down in a country, that question is too vague to be given a satisfactory answer. Which country? A decrease by how much? And which "economic theory" are we talking about? Austrian, Marxian, Keynesian, or something else? Gabbe (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we to assume that domestic goods are not experiencing inflation? Googlemeister (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's basically what has happened to gasoline and French cheese over the last few years in the USA. The result is that people use somewhat less gasoline and eat substantially less French cheese. In short, consumption goes down, to a degree that depends on the elasticity of demand. Looie496 (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Inflation in the prices of imported goods (such as food and other basics not just luxuries) and no wage increases is what is currently happening in the UK. I'm just wondering what economic theory predicts will happen if this situation continues for a number of years. The standard of living of employees will drop, business profits may initially increase although eventually lower demand will affect those. 92.24.137.163 (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If wages are not allowed to rise at all, and other prices (imported goods in this case) are, then consumers’ purchasing power would fall vis-à-vis those goods. If the imported goods became uncompetitive, consumers would shift to buying domestic products. Those domestic products would, as a result of higher demand, rise in price to the point where consumers would not be able to afford them, either. Prices would then adjust downward (deflation), producers would produce less and the economy would go into a downward spiral. Oh, and the workers would go on strike and vote out the idiotic politicians who froze their wages in the first place. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe people just stop buying things. I see the sales of Argos (UK) have dropped substantially. 2.97.219.191 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Who, if anyone, would benefit from such a situation? 92.28.242.181 (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In the short term, people who produce goods domestically, using other domestic goods as their inputs who have a labor force who always want a raise. Googlemeister (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What's that called?

I'm looking for the name of a phenomenon whereby one is confronted by a concept one has just learned. That is, how it seems that upon learning about something, it seems to come up in casual conversation the next day even though it seems obscure and like something that has never come up before. I have been finding this a very hard to to do a google search on. Thanks y'all. Tuckerekcut (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The general term might be salience bias. I see now that is a redlink, but recency effect is somewhat relevant. At least some have referred to it by the silly name "The Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon", e.g. here: [2]. WP used to have an article with that title, but it has been deleted. Also the list of cognitive biases might be worth perusing. SemanticMantis SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New message: See Apophenia and Medical students' disease.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

We have Law of the instrument. And at Wictionary I find: "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". Also, Bob Dylan said, "A lot of people don't have much food on their table / But they got a lot of forks and knives / And they gotta cut something" Maybe that's some food for thought. Déformation professionnelle would be applicable too. Confirmation bias would seem to work on a similar principle. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Synchronicity might be applicable too. -- 174.31.219.218 (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes! I was looking for Baader-Meinhof phenomenon and synchronicity. Thank you all!Tuckerekcut (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a name

I seem to recall an Allied (American?) POW who actually escaped into a concentration camp to see with his own eyes what was happening. Anybody recall his name? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Denis Avey did it (but was British). AlexiusHoratius 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see that his story has been questioned. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The statement, "Avey has since suggested that those who consider his story too fantastic to be true may have ein böses Herz - "a bad (or evil) heart", is a classic non-denial denial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course you would not say that if he was American. Only one historian has raised a doubt. I assume that the Jewish organisations which have honoured him do not do so lightly and would I assume have done their best to verify what happened. I think I read a mention of this in a survivors account - I cannot remember which one, it may have been Man's Search for Meaning. 92.24.137.163 (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh? The World Jewish Congress and Yad Vashem haven't been able to verify his claims, according to the Daily Mail. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Witold Pilecki, who was voluntarily admitted to Auschwitz in order to gather intelligence on the camp from the inside and organize inmate resistance. However, he was neither a POW or American. Gabbe (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Armband vs armlet

Is there actually a clear distinction between the two? these are described by the British museum as both armbands and armlets]]. More confusing still wikipedia seems to treat arm rings and interchangeable with armbands when the british museum treats them as separate things.©Geni 22:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Responding purely as a native English speaker, I would understand an arm ring to have a roughly circular cross-section (as with a metal rod bent into ring form), an arm band to have a flat cross-section (as when made of cloth) and an armlet to have no preferred cross-section but to have a (quasi-)military or antique/archaic association. The Museum pieces you link to are an interesting case in that their spiral design combines a circular cross-section with an overall extended band shape. I doubt (but will stand correction) that there is any generally observed, strongly defined distinctions between the terms, though an individual writer (perhaps of an archaelogical paper) might choose to make some in a particular instance, and an individual uniformed organisation might prefer a particular term. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.197 (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Police differences

What are any major differences between American police forces and those of other countries, like say Japan, Germany and United Kingdom? 72.235.230.227 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the biggest difference is that there are a lot more guns in America, so the police are more concerned about being shot, which makes them either more cautious, more aggressive, or more paranoid, depending on the exact situation. Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Police in the UK are organised into relatively large constabularies (bar some special-purpose ones) which are commanded by a Chief Constable who is responsible to the Police authority. The Home Secretary has overall control over policing policy but is mostly not "in charge" of individual police forces. They are funded by taxation from their area and by grants from central government. Some members of PAs, and the Home Secretary, are elected, but none stood for election specifically to that role. So there isn't a police force for every town or for every county, there isn't a sheriff or a police commissioner (Scotland has "sheriffs", but these are judges not policemen). There is no general purpose national police force (so nothing like the FBI), although there are special-purpose law-enforcement units like the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The anti-terrorist and internal security functions which in the US are the FBI's job are in the UK distributed between the various police Special Branch offices and MI-5 (the latter is a civilian organisation, whose officers aren't policemen). While local forces investigate their own officers on less serious matters, allegations of significant misconduct are handled by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in England and Wales, and by similar bodies in Northern Ireland and Scotland; I don't believe there's any comparable independent police investigation equivalent in the US, where issues are either handled internally or (in some special cases) by the FBI or sometimes state officials. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Every country is different, and, in fact, each U.S. state is different. Just as one example, in the Czech Republic, there are two types of police: the national police, who handle all serious crimes, and the city police, who deal with only minor stuff like traffic enforcement. In New York City, the city police handle both major and minor offenses. There is no national general-purpose police in the U.S. The FBI has a somewhat limited mandate focused on stuff that crosses state boundaries or deals with federal law specifically (such as securities fraud or terrorism). They also assist state and local law enforcement. Another thing that's unique to the U.S. is that some police officials (such as some county sheriffs) are elected rather than appointed. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The US is unique because of the "state sovereignty" concept that's built into the Constitution. A truly national police force would probably be seen as a violation of that sovereignty. Within the states, you have county government and city government, which are different governing entities and which each have their own jurisdictions. Likewise for the state police. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Australian state police forces have a similar autonomy to those in the USA, and do all the day to day policing that the general public sees. Australia does have Federal Police, but their authority is only over matters covered by federal law. HiLo48 (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a few "national" level law-enforcement agencies besides the FBI in the U.S., but they all have limited jursidiction over certain types of crimes or activities, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the ATF), the United States Marshals Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), you can find a list at Category:Federal law enforcement agencies of the United States. Bugs is essentially correct, however, in the way the U.S. is organized; the U.S. has a type of divided sovereignty; in that there are many sovereign functions which the Federal government is constitutionally enjoined from doing, and which are specifically reserved for the various states. Indeed, there are only certain functions which the U.S. congress is supposed to deal with itself, known as the Enumerated powers, insofar as the federal government needs police forces to deal with these various powers, they exist. But since the Congress doesn't, for example, deal with enforcing the parking ordinances or property laws or sexual assault laws of the various states, the federal police forces don't deal with those issues either. --Jayron32 06:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Those agencies get involved when a federal crime has been committed, which may or may not go across state lines. A stark example is when JFK was killed, obviously the federal government was a major player in the investigation. But the trial of Oswald, if he had lived, would have been held in a Texas court, because at that time there was no specific federal law covering the killing of the President (there is one now). Going down the items you listed, the state police patrol the highways, while the city police patrol the city streets, and the sheriff's police patrol the county roads. The fed are not interested in those activities, except for the enforcement of the speed laws on Interstate Highways (and I assume US Highways as well), where enforcement is connected with federal funding of highways, which is how Nixon was able to impose the 55 MPH speed limit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The Interstate Highways are managed and controlled and under the jurisdiction of the states, just as the "Federal" highway system (U.S. routes) and state highways are. The Interstates are partially funded by the feds, but their design and maintenance is managed on an interstate manner, and not on a federal level. That is, the coordination of the various states manages the American Highway System, but the federal government is uninvolved. See American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials which is the body that coordinates national highway standards, you'll note that the Federal DOT has a non-voting position on that board. The federal funding specifically for the Interstates also only covers their initial construction, their ongoing maintenance is covered by funding from other sources, some of it federal and most from the states. The way that Congress (not Nixon, though he did sign the law into effect) in the 1970's got the states to lower their speed limits was to tie this ongoing funding (which is unrelated to the monies authorized for construction under the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956) to state speed limits; i.e. states which did not lower their speed limits didn't get the cash. This is often cited as a classic example of the power of the purse. --Jayron32 01:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned that UK police are not routinely armed, which is a major difference between the UK and US police forces. (There are armed police but they are only brought out in special cases.) --TammyMoet (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's presumably based on the assumption that the public does not have guns. But don't the British city police carry "batons" routinely? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

To me, a "baton" is what we used to call a "truncheon", i.e. a stick. I understand the phrase "baton round" refers to a firing of rubber bullets, and UK police don't routinely have access to those. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about Baton (law enforcement). Don't the UK police routinely have those? Because while the average UK citizen probably doesn't have a gun, they could certainly have a club of some kind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Because while the average UK citizen probably doesn't have a gun, they could certainly have a club of some kind." What???? We are not cavemen, I've never heard of anyone carrying a club or bat. What a peculiar view of society that implies. 92.24.137.163 (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes they do. Traditionally, they carried a truncheon (a hardwood baton about 18" long) in their trouser pocket, but these were phased-out in the 1980s. The replacement varies from force to force, but London's Metropolitan Police currently use a US designed telescopic baton called a "Stinger"[3]. A small can of Pepper spray is also routinely carried[4]. The rules for using these are very strict. Alansplodge (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

A big difference between the US/UK and continental Europe is that they sometimes have a "third force" of paramilitary police - the French Gendarmerie Nationale and the Spanish Guardia Civil are examples. The French Gendarmes are members of the armed forces and live in barracks; they have armoured cars with 90mm cannons. Don't mess with this lot. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The closest equivalent to that in the US would probably be the National Guard, though even at that the NG's are adminstered primarily by the individual states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And they are not really used for law enforcment because of the Posse Comitatus Act. Googlemeister (talk) 13:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Seldom, yes - but not never. Read Stand in the Schoolhouse Door. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Or Kent State shootings. Deor (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Also the National Guard don't investigate murders or hand out speeding tickets! Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The National Guard is more of a militia (in fact technically and under the Constitution, that's exactly what it is, a collection of state and territorial militias) in that all but a small core of permanent officers and staff are part-time volunteers. A very rough French equivalent might be the part-time members of the Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (CRS), but they're trained for police and riot-control work, whereas most of the National Guard's training is military (especially after the 2003 invasion of Iraq). ¶ A closer American analogy to the gendarmerie would be most state police forces or highway patrols, as opposed to the municipal police and county sheriffs' departments. Here the distinction is between state and local, although the two usually work very closely together, especially on the roads, with the state police often providing specialized technical assistance to the smaller local departments (e.g. communications, forensic science, financial investigations, air patrols and water rescue). State police are often housed in barracks (although I don't think they live in them) and often wear uniforms that are closer to military ones, with riding breeches, Sam Browne belts and unpeaked, round, broad-brimmed "Smokey the Bear hats" (like those worn by national park rangers) — or in the case of Texas Rangers, white Stetsons. They usually undergo several months of training in isolated residential academies under a quasi-military discipline. —— Shakescene (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

US Debt Limit & Quantitative easing

The Federal Reserve did 2 rounds of Quantitative Easing, after the 2007 financial crisis.

Both the rounds of Quantitative Easing are now over.

Recently in the news, it stated that the congress refused increasing the US debt limit ceiling, and the Treasury stated that it would default on or around August 2nd.

Why can't they just do another round of Quantitative Easing so US doesn't default?

Or why can't they simply just print money, to service the debt?

--Obsolete.fax (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's political posturing. They'll come up with something. They always do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative Easing doesn't affect the debt ceiling. The money the government gets from the Fed, it owes to the Fed. In principle the Fed could simply print money and give it to the government as opposed to lending it -- it isn't clear to me whether the law prohibits that or whether it is just seen as politically undesirable. Looie496 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Quantitative easing does not eliminate the budget deficit. The money "created" by the Federal Reserve does not go to paying off the government's expenses. It goes toward buying Treasuries. I do not believe the Fed is authorized to print money to pay the government's bills. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there a Law preventing the Federal Reserve from printing money and giving it to the government? --Obsolete.fax (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that's legal, but maybe the Federal Reserve System article will explain just what the Fed's role is. And it seems to be that the Fed regulates the money supply through interest rates, rather than through printing more money, as such. Among the various responsibilities of the Fed, printing money and giving it to the government does not seem to be on the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Fed doesn't print currency, the Bureau of Printing and Engraving prints bills and the United States Mint makes coins. Currency (coins and bills) is an insignificant portion of the money supply, which the Fed controls by loaning money to commercial banks. --Jayron32 06:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The question those articles don't answer, or I'm not seeing it, is just how those items get into circulation. Do the banks "buy" bills and coins? I know that a large percentage of the bills that Engraving and Printing produces are replacements for worn-out bills, so that's a wash. But what about "new" money? How does that get into the hands of the public? What's the mechanism? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In essence, banks anticipating a need for more physical currency request delivery of a portion of their reserves in currency. However, today most "new money" comes in the form of loans that show up as numbers in bank accounts rather than physical cash. For example, when somebody buys a house, the bank may create new money in the form of a mortgage check that transfers the new money to the bank account of the seller, though much of it may end up in the account of the seller's mortgagee, which can then use this new money as backing for the issuance of still more new money in the form of loans. See Fractional-reserve banking. Marco polo (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)