Humanities desk
< August 18	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 20 >

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.

August 19

Total number of nuclear reactors ever constructed?

During an off-line argument about nuclear safety, the question of accident rates came up. Someone took the number of nuclear accidents and divided it by the number of currently operational reactors and came up with a (obviously flawed) rate.

There are many sites out there estimating the number of currently operational nuclear reactors[1], but I can't find any data on the total number of reactors past and present. A8875 (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, do you want the number of reactors, power plants, installations or what? The number of reactors is almost certainly impossible to determine, since there are plenty of small scale research reactors. Some very small experiments could correctly be called nuclear reactors. The first ever man made nuclear reactor was a pile of uranium and graphite on a tennis court. Many nuclear reactors are secrect for various reasons. Power plants often have multiple reactors, for example the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant had four of six planned reactors. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many operational civilian nuclear plants have their ever been? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the World Nuclear Association 85 commercial power reactors have been decommissioned[2]. According to Nuclear_power_by_country#List_of_nuclear_reactors_by_country there are 433 currently operating nuclear reactors registered with the IAEA. So assuming that the 433 reactors registered with the IAEA are all commercial power reactors, then 518 have been completed ever. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers are wrong, simply because the number decommissioned is not the entirety of the number shut down. More have been shut down than decommissioned. (Shutting down just means inserting the control rods; decommissioning means removing all nuclear fuel and etc. from the site.) See below for better numbers. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, any numbers you derive from this are still going to be flawed. Some of the decommissioned reactors only ran for very short periods (e.g. Greifswald Nuclear Power Plant). Any statitics you derive from a data set like this are going to be more a a rhetorical device than a real measure of relative merits of power generation methods. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even a teenage Boy Scout can build a breeder reactor. Dismas|^(talk) 02:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to derive any sort of statistics out of this at all. Even if I were, it would be accidents per reactor per operational year or accidents per MWhr. The argument is long over, I'm just looking for this number to pique my own curiosity.A8875 (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want the number of reactors. Whether it's connected to the grid or just a research reactor doesn't matter. Since none of us have access to classified information I suppose it's more accurate to say "the number of publicly-known nuclear reactors".

Chernobyl had 4 reactors. A Papa class submarine has 2 reactors. Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant had 6 reactors before the accident. I don't think the number reactors at any given site is ambiguous at all. The hard part is counting all the sites that ever existed.

Of course I don't expect anyone at the reference desk to do the counting. Just a pointer to a relevant website is more than enough. A8875 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proportion of reactors that have an accident isn't a very useful metric, anyway. A reactor that runs for 10 minutes and then explodes is very different to a reactor that runs for 30 years and then goes wrong. You could look at something like deaths per MW of power produced and compare that to other energy sources (how many deaths have their been from coal mining, for instance? Or from accidents on off-shore oil rigs?). --Tango (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The number of research reactors as defined by the IAEA (which also includes many critical assemblies) ever constructed is about 690 (the IAEA's Research Reactor Database is my basis of the numbers, but you have to factor out the number that are just planned or cancelled). For power reactors, mucking around with some IAEA reports we get (as of December 2011) 435 active reactors + 5 in long term shutdown + 138 permanently shut down = 579 power reactors total. So that's around 1269 worldwide reactors ever. Now, if you're planning to just do a "number who meltdown divided by number constructed" calculation, be aware that this is a conceptually sloppy way to gauge safety or risk. A classic book on gauging long-term accident rates with regards to nuclear power is Charles Perrow's Normal Accidents, which argues that you'll have about one major accident a decade or so, which is not so far off from observed reality. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that those numbers probably leave out the number of military nuclear reactors constructed, as well as vehicular reactors (e.g. nuclear submarines and icebreakers). So I'd add maybe 50 or so to that final value? Just a rough estimate. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did a rough count of all the subs mentioned in the Nuclear_submarine article. The total number of reactors on-board nuclear submarines is 510. All that's left are the nuclear surface vessels. Like I mentioned above, I'm getting this number purely to pique my own curiosity. Since the operational hours of the military reactors are classified, it's basically impossible for civilians to calculate an accidents per operational year rate.A8875 (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do plutonium-production reactors like the ones at Hanford appear in any of your counts? Are isotope-production reactors included under "research reactors"? --Carnildo (talk) 01:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, even nuclear weapons are a type of reactor. That's why I questioned the definitions above. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget all the little TRIGA reactors which were supposedly idiot proof, and which were installed on college campuses for students to experiment on. Edison (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are included in my research reactor count. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how many airplanes are up in the air right now

How many airplanes are up in the air right now? Worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.155.161.109 (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Animated Atlas of Flight Traffic over North America says US and Canadian traffic peaks at midday at about 5300. Run the animation, stop it at the appropriate time, and you can count the dots representing flights. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting youtube video purporting to show all large aircraft flights across the world over a 24 hour span. Using my Mark I Eyeball, it looks like the rest of the world accounts for less than twice as much traffic, so I'm guessing somewhere between 5,000-10,000. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This site[3] has real-time global flight tracking. The problem is that it's missing data from the two of the most populous country on Earth; the two plus Indonesia equals 40% of the world population. Second problem is that it's categorically missing aircrafts due to technical limitations[4]. While other sites is claiming ~1500 flights in North America[5], flightradar24.com is claiming ~1500 for the whole world. A8875 (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another site called planefinder, which shows over 2400 in the air right now, but also excludes India and China (and probably other countries as well) it appears. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small diversion; "Shipfinder" is a great app for the iPad if you are interested in the location and movement of shipping.--85.211.154.5 (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758

Why did the USSR support the PRC in this vote?

The USSR and China had just fought a very intense war in 1969.

The USSR did not need another veto vote in the Security Council to stop anything from happening. -- Toytoy (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USSR likely recognized that the PRC was more likely to vote with them than the ROC on most issues. But I'm just speculating. It's also the case that both the PRC and USSR were trying to be slightly more flexible towards one another by 1971, even though they still were officially not friendly. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler and horses

In the somewhat controversial book "The memoirs of Doctor Felix Kersten" by Felix Kersten it is written that Hitler had an irrational fear of horses. http://books.google.it/books?ei=ZwMxUJrcIoLUtAaykoHYDg&hl=it&id=GRtoAAAAMAAJ&dq=felix+kersten+horses&q=+horses#search_anchor The passage reads: "Himmler also disclosed that Hitler had an unreasoning hatred of horses. He wanted to have every horse which came anywhere near him shot. A fantastic rumor which I had heard was confirmed by Himmler." Is there any proof/reference of this? Did at least any rumor about it circulate? It seems like a bold lie to invent. --151.41.160.11 (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources (I wouldn't say more reliable) suggest Hitler had a horse [6] [7] which is buried in the US. Nil Einne (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm. I believe that "Hitler's Horse" is actually a metaphore for "famous German horse during the Third Reich". In one of the link there is even a photomontage with Hitler on a horse with the caption: "If Hitler had ever ridden a horse, it might have looked like this." --151.41.160.11 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This postcard seems to suggest otherwise, although there seems to be only one depiction of him actually sitting on a horse. This forum has some more details. Alansplodge (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the sources is somewhat different to yours. They seem to suggest to me it's really claimed it was Hitler's horse, although there's no real evidence it actually was. See also [8] which basically says the same thing although perhaps with a bit less of the fluff then the other sources (I initially had another source in my first reply, The Examiner, but removed it because it was on the spam blocklist and didn't seem that important). This source makes even more claims about horses belong to Hitler [9], but again without any real evidence he did actually own or ride them (well beyond the saddle presuming we accept the veracity of the claim, but the saddle doesn't necessarily mean it belonged to Hitler). Nil Einne (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it was common, at the time, for male heads of state to ride horses on formal occasions, but Hitler didn't do so, you could speculate that he wasn't comfortable with horses. I don't think we have an article on his alleged racehorse, Nordlicht (that article is on something else). StuRat (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, the postcard's caption, translated into English, might be "How many horse's patooties are in this picture? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture appeared on the cover of Berliner Illustrirte Zeitung, Nr. 28, 11. Juli 1940, 49. Jahrgang. Text: Mitten in den Vogesen: Der Führer trifft auf einer Fahrt ein krankes französisches Armeepferd. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that, I'd guess that he wasn't terrified of horses, but may still have been uncomfortable riding them. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know Hitler didn't do so? Nil Einne (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis, being propaganda experts, would have made a movie out of such a scene, and we would all have seen it. StuRat (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're presuming they thought it useful propaganda. And how hard did you actually look for such a movie? I'm sure there are many, many propaganda movies of Hitler no one on the RD has ever seen. And the Nazi's were hardly the only people to use propaganda during WW2. Have you actually seen a video of any other significant leader at the time on a horse? Nil Einne (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How hard did you look ? Here's Churchhill on a horse: [10]. Here's Hirohito on a horse: [11]. Here's a statue of Stalin on a horse: [12]. FDR, being crippled by polio, probably couldn't ride well. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I looked. You were the one alleging that there was something unique about Hitler here, so it was entirely resonable for me to ask you to provide evidence for what you're saying; and it's unresonable for me to have to provide evidence that something you're saying without sources is correct. And you still haven't found any videos (you claimed there would be propaganda videos of Hitler on a horse which we would have all seen, not pictures). In any case, as it stands, we now have a picture of Hitler, Churchill and Hirohito on a horse. The picture of Churchill doesn't even really seem to count as a propaganda picture I would suggest. AndI somehow don't think a picture of a statue with Stalin on a horse really counts but anyway.... I don't quite get what you're trying to prove here with these pictures but whatever it is, you don't seem to have proven it. You definitely haven't shown there's any unusual about how common it was for Hitler to be depicted on a horse vis a vis the other people, particularly given the many differences between them. (Stalin, Hirohito and Churchill had much longer political lives then Hitler. Hirohito and Churchill were also aristocrats.) Of course the more important point, which you seem to have missed is that so far we don't actually have any real evidence it is unusual for Hitler to be depicted on a horse. Yes no one has found one besides the one linked earlier, but there's so much fluff surrounding Hitler this isn't exactly surprising. A search of actual Nazi propaganda archives etc is likely to be needed before we can draw any real conclusion that Hitler was hardly ever depicted on a horse. Or at least evidence someone already tried and came to that conclusion. In the absence of such evidence, we have no real reason to think Hitler was hardly ever depicted on a horse or as you original said 'male heads of state to ride horses on formal occasions, but Hitler didn't do so' so any conclusion you try to draw from this fairly unsupported claim is suspect. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"...we now have a picture of Hitler ... on a horse" ? No we don't, that's the whole point. I suppose I could find videos if I wanted to spend hours looking through movies to defend myself from your baseless accusations, but I don't care to waste any more of my time. Next time, if you disagree with me, offer some actual proof that I'm wrong, instead of wasting my time. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I thought the discussion above concerned a picture of Hitler on a horse. I now see it was him near a horse. However it doesn't significantly change my statement. We have a single picture of those two leaders, with vastly longer political lives, and one of them an aristocrat, one of them being an emperor, on a horse. And two of them without the level of fluff there is surrounding Hitler. We also have a picture of a statue. Neither of these 3 singular pictures go anywhere near establishing the statements you keep claiming as fact, without any evidence, on the reference desk. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And just how many pics and videos would I have to supply for you to believe that they rode horses ? Are you incapable of using Google ? I see at least 3 of Churchill: [13] and many of Hirohito: [14]. As for Stalin, I don't see much beyond the statue, but that does show he wanted to be portrayed on horseback, even if he didn't personally ride (unless you think the statue was done without his permission). I've also seen video of Hirohito riding (rather stiffly). StuRat (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, there's no reason I should have to Google for evidence you've failed to provide for claims you keep making. However I did search earlier, which proved to me what I said hence why I said it. There is way to much fluff surrounding Hitler (and irrelevent stuff when it comes to Stalin) for the difficulty finding such depictions from a simple Google search to tell us anything meaningful about the existence of such depictions. In any case, you still seem to be completely ignoring the artistocrat/emperor angle for the other 2. As for the statue of Stalin, from what I can tell Hitler large scale public statues of Hitler were rare. I can't find any good sources discussiing this but this [15] perhaps some questionable source suggests there were only busts and the like, not many, if any, outdoor statues. Various sources discussing the cult of personality surrounding Hitler [16] [17] [18] [19] don't mention such statues either. Notably they do show plenty depictions which seem to fit an image of Hitler of which Hitler on as horse just doesn't seem to fit to me, although that's obviously just supposition on my part (which I only mention because it's what this whole subthread you started was based on). Notably the last one mentions Hitler was very careful about his image with his permission needed for using it confirming my earlier claim below. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the fact that he didn't ride horses on formal occasions says much one way or the other. He may have chosen not to ride horses to underline his position as the people's leader, not an old-fashioned aristocrat who rode a horse in the age of the automobile. --NellieBly (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting the appeal to history aspect of Nazi Germany. Since they considered themselves to be the successors of the Roman Empire and Holy Roman Empire, pics of their "heroic leader" on a horse would support the image they wanted to project. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to who? StuRat? Nil Einne (talk) 01:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like that aren't helpful. Would you like it if I challenged everything you say, for no apparent reason ? If you're going to disagree, please say what you disagree with and why. "Third Reich" means third empire:[20] (bottom), although according to that site, the earlier 2 were the Holy Roman Empire and the German Empire under Bismark. StuRat (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that statement wasn't helpful, I'll be more blunt. My point is you've provided zero evidence that 'pics of their "heroic leader" on a horse would support the image they wanted to project'. There are clearly many things that those involved would likely have considered in promoting such pics, some of them contradictory, and you only appear to have taken one of them on board, and are ignoring others even when they've been pointed out. (Another key consideration you seem to have ignored is Hitler's own personal POV. There could be any variety of reasons he wouldn't have wanted such pics to be widespread, not liking or being afraid of horses only one of them. Hitler wasn't always extremely consistent or rational in his thought process anyway so there's no real reason to think he would have decided it was okay for him to be seen doing as something associated with the aristocrat classes, which perhaps even he associated with it, just because it was also associated with the Roman Empire etc. If he really didn't want such depictions, there's a fair chance they would never have happened whatever his propaganda experts thought of the value of such pics, which as I've said we've far from established would actually have been as positive as you keep alleging without any real evidence.) In other words, your complete speculation based on things you know little about with scant regard for actual sourcing, or at least a properly considered argument isn't particularly helpful to the discussion, as is normally the case; and the frequency with which you do it on the reference desk is the reason why plenty of other people challenge a lot of what you say. Nil Einne (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I demonstrated above, it was normal for leaders at the time to be photographed on horses, so Hitler choosing not to do so is significant, and shouldn't just be dismissed. Rather than saying "There could be any variety of reasons...", how about listing some ? StuRat (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me and NellieBly already listed one, which you dismissed out of hand, so why would I bother to list more? Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riding in a car to portray himself as a "man of the people" doesn't really fly, since he was often in an over-the-top luxury car: [21]. A common person would be far more able to afford a horse than such a car. At the start of Hitler's reign, I bet more people still owned horses than cars, let alone cars like that. StuRat (talk) 05:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed NellieBly's point about it being the modern age of the automobile. With horses still useful for some purposes, but automobiles more practical for others particularly when you are a leader. Notably, riding horses for formal occassions being unnecessary and something associated with showing off and the aristocratic classes. (Perhaps I'm mistaken but I believe by that stage automobiles were associated with the well off, but not necessarily aritocrats. And again while I could be mistaken, I don't believe there was necessarily the connotation of a 'luxury' automobile being an unnecessary thing for leaders that there may be nowadays.) Raw ownership numbers are fairly meaningless since we're talking about connotations. While I hesitate to link to Stormfront on the RD, they do discuss the 'Hitler's horse' a bit [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t601165/] notably mentioning 'that he did not own any horses, and he despised horse races as "plutocratic-jewish snobism."'. I mention this primary because it's easy to see it beign an accurate reflection of Hitler thought process on horse races and him also having similar views on riding a horse for unnecessary purposes like at formal occasions as me and NellieBly have suggested. More so since Hitler appeared to be a supporter of animal welfare as we've discussed somewhat on the RD before and I presume you're aware if you are trying to discuss Hitler's thought process. So it's easy to imagine his being opposed to using horses when it wasn't necessary on those grounds. (Or heck, perhaps he thought using horses was a necessary evil, but wasn't something he wanted to be personally associated with.) There is this interesting depiction of Churchill [22], although whether the horse money bag and the quote from Richard III (play) was intended to convey the association of Churchill being an aristocrat I can't say (nor find any analysis). See also above. There are of course plenty of other reasons Hitler may not want to be depicted on a horse, e.g. he never learnt to ride (not because he was afraid or didn't like horses but simply because he didn't) and so if he ever actually tried (which is far from a given if he never learnt to ride), he thought it unseemly or undignified. Heck, this could apply even if he was a good rider. Or may be he never found a horse which he felt was suitable for his position (and if it wasn't important, there's no reason to think he tried hard). I'm not of course suggesting any of this is definitely what Hitler or the Nazi propaganda officials thought, simply that there's little reason to think the lack of depictions of Hitler on a horse (if true, which I still feel has far from been established) suggests he was afraid or didn't like them. (I'm sure this [23] Soviet propaganda of Hitler is definitely not something he liked.) Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Hitler really was scared of horses, then it's somewhat ironic given that Nazi Germany relied on horses for logistics more than any other belligerent save for the USSR. I've read that the Nazi's aversion to the use of chemical weapons was at least partly motivated by the fact that they were more vulnerable to gas attacks due to their extensive use of horses compared to the allies. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: I'd never heard this about Hitler, but one of my history teachers anecdotally related it about Mussolini. Apparently he was extremely frightened of horses, but understood the value of the image of a man on a white horse come to save the nation from its dire straits. This seems to bear that out, at least in one aspect - an experienced rider presumably wouldn't need a trainer standing right there to hold the mount for such a pedestrian pose... ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 15:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath of the US Civil War for Confederate leaders

Having recently seen Gettysburg (1993), I got interested in the fate of Confederate leaders after they lost the war, as they were not only considered rebels, but even traitors to their country. Not only is there frustratingly little on this topic in the articles American Civil War, Reconstruction Era of the United States, Confederate States Army, and List of Confederate Regular Army officers. Moreso, after an hour or two of digging, all I found hidden in remote articles and/or talkpages was a short sentence that came down to that everybody associated with the Confederacy was granted a sweeping general pardon by President Johnson in 1869, and only sentenced to the loss of voting and office-holding rights for five years.

Confronted with the crime of high treason and the most atrocious acts of war crimes that North America has ever seen (though notably on both sides), this comes as quite a surprise for a dumb, uninvolved European as me. Now, you may say that I'm talking from a post-1945 perspective with the UN statutes on war crimes in force (and indeed, this post is made by a person from the nation whose leaders were indicted at Nuremberg, which may add to my confusion here), but high treason against the monarch or nation at least has a very long tradition as being punishable by death. (There's suspiciously little information to be found on the matter regarding historical US jurisdiction (I'm getting lots of "This information is not (yet) available" in public and gov't legal online databases), but some hearsay I've dug up seems to suggest that Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution as well as 18 USC put capital punishment upon treason and/or sedition on the federal level, and conspiracy for such as far back as the early 19th century already. It is certainly clear that treason on the federal level in the US is punishable by death since at least WWII.)

Moreover, the concepts of Westphalian sovereignty on territorial integrity and laws of war were long established, and the North promulgated the Lieber Code. The latter though obviously to little consequence after the war; I've looked long and hard to find anything such as contemporary congressional or other public or legal committees investigating into how the war had been lead or deciding what exact legal compensations were to be forced upon the losers (and of course even less could be found of such being enforced upon the winners) other than military control of their territory (though reading some (neo-)confederate apologists, it appears to me that many Southerners felt most punished, offended, and humiliated by Emancipation and rights for blacks now even in the South), and indeed the only United States Congress Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War I could find was a Northern institution that was handling issues regarding how to most effectively crush the other side while the war was still on-going.

So, this rather lentient attitude towards the leading conspirators and war criminals seems rather surprising, moreso since the mutual animosities and hatred didn't seem to have been much pacified by the subsequent Reconstruction Era. From a European perspective, it would appear as if both Northern and Southern observers would probably agree that the animosities were even greater after the war than they had been before. The North even went so far as to enforce permanent military control equal to martial law over the South for close to a decade (for what actual reasons or hidden agendas whatsoever, which probably depends upon which side you ask). Even when leaving out the high treason argument and considering the fact that both sides were equally guilty of war crimes, one could contrast the rather mild peace conditions with the Treaty of Versailles for instance, where both sides in the war had been equally guilty of war crimes at an ever larger scale, and still the victors intended to put to trial war crimes perpetrated by the losers, out of a similar animosity as persisted after the Civil War.

With so much dispute then and now over the legal aspects of secession (whether it was legal or not), wasn't there even some general or at least minor public debate or controversy over the general amnesty for Confederate political and military leaders after the war, or regarding their treatment prior to the amnesty? It seems like after the war, everybody just went home, although hating the other side even more than before. What about the views of historians today regarding proper treament and/or status of Confederate leaders after the war? That's the stuff I miss in coverage of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era here on Wikipedia. There's a lot of racial and regional tensions covered, but not much regarding public debates on the treatment of the "rebel" leaders over treason, war crimes, and crimes against the civilian populace. Being an ignorant European, I'm not quite sure whether I should inquire at one of the talkpages, as that may constitute disruption being closer to political or philosophical debate rather than constructive debate over article improvents, so I'm rather asking my questions here. --79.193.44.13 (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as war crimes go, Henry got the Wirz of it, along with Champ Ferguson; according to the first article, they were the only two executed. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the legal status, I believe most in the North viewed the succession as legitimate, and thus the leaders of the Confederacy were not traitors, but leaders of an enemy state. Also, treating the South too harshly, say be executing it's leaders, could have resulted in continued guerrilla warfare. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual to be pretty lenient with a defeated enemy. You've already won. As long as you can ensure they are not a continued threat, then what do you have to gain by punishing them further? --Tango (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the idea of ensuring that they, or somebody like them, will never try that again. However, I agree with the enemy must either be wiped out or allowed to live in dignity. Leaving them alive, yet humiliated, is a recipe for disaster, as Germany post WW1 proved. StuRat (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno...the French have lived humiliated without any serious consequences for 70 odd years... 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable sourcing would be helpful for me to accept the OP's hyperbole of " the most atrocious acts of war crimes that North America has ever seen." Has he never heard of what the Spanish invaders did to the native inhabitants of North America(Mexico is definitely "North America"), or what the British did to rebels in the American Revolution (for example forces under the command of [[Banastre Tarleton]) , or what the rebels did in that war to Tories, or what the Native Americans did to the German farmers in the Dakota War in Minnesota starting 150 years ago today, or what the Mormon militia did to the Fancher party of wagon train immigrants in the Mountain Meadows massacre, or what the Native Americans did to women and children in the Fort Dearborn massacre (I do not consider the slaughter a "battle,") or what the US Army did to Native Americans at Wounded Knee? The US , North and South, suffered a horrible loss , and was ready for the conflict to be OVER, not to execute the defeated officers and politicians in a "victor's justice" such as the Allies imposed after WW2, so as to prolong the war into generation after generation, as in the Middle east or Eastern Europe. Edison (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, many people wonder why Nathan Bedford Forrest is celebrated as an alleged "hero"[sic]... AnonMoos (talk) 06:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very few people were executed after WW2, and those were for genocide. I don't call that "victor's justice", I call that "justice". StuRat (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were no trials for the victors who commited war crimes. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that in no way exonerates the Nazis and Japanese of their war crimes. StuRat (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's exhonourating them, but putting the enemies on trial and letting your own crimes slide is the very definition of victor's justice. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you seriously see Harry Truman surrendering himself to his own authorities and demanding they charge him with war crimes for his part in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Or the entire UK Cabinet led by Winston Churchill marching down to the local cop shop and confessing to the bombing of Dresden and insisting they be locked up and dealt with appropriately? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Is there a point to those questions? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When they do it to us, it's an outrageous crime against humanity and they must be punished. When we do it to them, it's a regrettable but unavoidable necessity in our campaign to defeat the enemy. War has always been thus. I don't defend it, but expecting the winning side to fully investigate its own actions is a little unrealistic. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, fully expect that as long as human beings resort to arms en masse to resolve disputes, the victors will use a pretense of serving justice to take revenge on the vanquished. I'm just calling it for what it is. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The part of that which is objectionable is that it equates the intentional genocide of millions with the reciprocal bombing of cities. The later can be justified as the quickest way to end the war and prevent more deaths, while the former has no justification whatsoever. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not equating the two. I didn't mention genocide or bombings. There were plenty of unambiguious atrocities on the allied side in World War 2. See Allied war crimes during World War II and World_War_II_atrocities#Allied_powers_.28listed_by_country.29.

The most clear cut example I can think of off the top my head of how the same act was a crime if the axis did it, but laudable if the allied did, how was Otto Skorzeny, who was tried for ordering his troops to wear captured enemy uniforms, and F. F. E. Yeo-Thomas who admitted at Skorzeny's trial that he'd done it himself and was hailed a hero and given the George Cross medal. If the Allies wanted to claim that they were putting Axis officers on trial in the interests of justice, then they should have applied it equally. Instead, they just made hypocrites of themselves and lost the moral highground. As Jack said, it's no more than what you'd expect really, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't recognise it for what it was. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 06:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd consider all, or most, atrocities between colonials and natives not "war crimes" (with probably the exception of the Dakota War and Wounded Knee for AFAIK, the whites didn't begin to actually be impressed by the morals and fighting spirit of their enemies prior to the Dakota War) triable under definitions of contemporary law, especially what the Spaniards did early on, on the grounds that most whites certainly didn't see their enemies as civilized "equals" on any account that proper laws of war could be applied to, or occuring as an official act of war, notwithstanding that not making these acts any less heinous and despicable. And I must admit to my shame that I had no prior knowledge of the Mormon militia, or that the American Revolution was as bloody as the Civil War.

Yes, I can see that the US just wanted peace, but it seems that such an enormous strife and hatred persisted on both sides after the war, just look at how to this day, the overall public in the US can't seem to agree between the North and the South on how to call many things related to the war, or even just the causes of the war itself (part of why people stage annual giant live-action re-enactments of the war, I understand, as some kind of public open-air family therapy where neither side has so far overcome the traumatic conflict that originally gave rise to the mutual hatred exploding in war?) that it seems so odd that Confederate leaders weren't even sentenced to short-term prison sentences, or not even any reparational or compensational claims beyond Emancipation itself were made. I mean after WWI, the French made the Germans pay dearly and heavily in good money for the reconstruction of Leuven, Verdun, and Yperns, but apparently, the North didn't make the South pay a direct war reparations-like tribute to be paid to the victors in Washington for reconstruction of any buildings and infrastructure. --79.193.44.13 (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of the fighting was on Southern or border-state territory (excluding William Quantrill's activities, the relatively brief Gettysburg excursion, etc.), and large parts of the south were pretty much economically ruined when the fighting ended. AnonMoos (talk) 06:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Jefferson Davis's Imprisonment, suggests that the question of what to do with Confederate leaders focused on what do to with Jefferson Davis, who was charged with treason. For reasons I don't quite understand the article says that President Johnson gave amnesty to all who had rebelled because he thought the court might rule in favor of Jefferson Davis: "Fearing the court would rule in favor of Davis, Johnson released an amnesty proclamation on December 25, 1868, issuing a pardon to all persons who had participated in the rebellion." I don't quite understand what Johnson was afraid of and why it led to his proclaiming amnesty, but this seems to be the crux of the issue. There are odd complications...like that Horace Greeley, a Radical Republican, helped pay for Jefferson Davis's release on bail. Apparently a lot of folk wanted to see Davis hanged and got angry at Greeley for this. I don't understand why Greeley helped Davis when he usually advocated harsh treatment of the defeated South. Pfly (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another bit—amnesty did not necessary mean citizenship. Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, at least, were never again US citizens. Apparently both were given posthumous citizenship in the 1970s by presidents Ford and Carter. Pfly (talk) 08:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Civil War is often called the last gentleman's, war and executing war leaders and politicians of the defeated was against the attitude toward the treatment of the defeated at the time, which still had traces of chilvalric tendencies extending back to the Middle Ages. Like in the Napoleonic War, Napoleon was exiled for life instead of hanged which probably a lot of the leaders of Europe would have wished for. The attitude was still the same in the 1860s. Uniting the country back together and mending old grudges was a more important issue than punishing the defeated South and their leaders. Even up to WWII, this attitude hadn't changed. The Nazi leaders thought they were going to walk off scotch free with some concessions here and there; there is quote by a Nazi leader, in a documentary of the Nuremburg Trials, that says it perfectly (can't remember it).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Radical Republicans had rather harsh proposals, including "driving the nobility" of the South ("several thousand proud, bloated, and defiant rebels") into exile; [24]. Pfly (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key to understanding this is Andrew Johnson. The U.S. started its experiment in democracy without many accessible examples, and established a highly unstable system of succession under the assumption that political candidates were simple "the best people", rather than representatives of bitter factions. As a result, as is not uncommon in history, a single assassin was able to undo much of the hard-won effort of millions. Wnt (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't seem right. Andrew Johnson and Abraham Lincoln were both for reconciling with the South. If Lincoln had lived, he would still have pardoned all the Southern leaders to win the allegiance of the South back. You statement seems more fit for Rutherford B. Hayes who ended the Reconstruction Era so the southern states would give him their vote.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]