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

Making a differences: Canadian Multicultural Literatures in English commentary

Is there a website or other book that deals with the commentary of each work in the book called "Making a Difference: Canadian Multicultural Literatures in English", edited by Smaro Kamboureli? Please and thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.17.135 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How was Germany so strong

How was Germany so strong that it could fight the entire world in WW2 and almost win (and probably would have won if Hitler had let his generals do the work) even though 20 years before they were crushed by WW1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.83.85.141 (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason Britain and the USA did win despite having armies of 224,000 and 174,000 respectively at the outbreak of war. Germany had well-organised industrial production and the resources to run them at full capacity, and a well-run operation to recruit and train soldiers in the use of new equipment and techniques. Pre-1941, Germany's network of alliances and non-aggression pacts meant they were only fighting significant battles on one front at any given time, while geography meant that Germany could move forces to the front within days while Britain and France took weeks to ship in troops from the colonial empires. Plus, crucially, in the early stages of the war France was hoping for a negotiated settlement and didn't have the will to escalate, allowing Germany and Italy to take the initiative; if France and Britain had smashed into the Rhineland and Ruhr at full strength while the German military was tied up in Poland, the war could have ended within a couple of weeks. – iridescent 10:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me we have questions like this one (or questions which turn out similar like the question a few weeks ago regarding Hitler as a strategist which soon became, at least partly, a question about how Germany could have won the war) pretty often? It seems the Net is fascinated with Nazi Germany. But I've never quite grasped what kind of answer people who ask these questions expect. Is the OP assuming that Germany performed in WWII much better than would be expected from a country of that size/economic power/population/natural resources/industrial/technological/scientific basis, that their military achievement was such that it is in need of an explanation that goes beyond those factors? Are they wondering if Nazi Germany had a "secret" and what it was? (I don't know... "fanaticism"? "discipline"? what?) Their mind is already made up that Germany would "probably" have won the war if Hitler had not continually kibitzed his generals. So what exactly are they asking? What kind of answer would answer their question? Contact Basemetal here 13:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basemetal, it's because "we saved the world" is such an important part of US, British and Russian history, and "we fought and defeated a powerful enemy" sounds better than "we won a war we were inevitably going to win". In reality, even if the Nazi-Soviet pact had held, once Britain entered the war the only realistic way Germany could have won would either have been a massive amphibious assault to occupy London and force the UK to sue for peace (which would have meant destroying the Royal Air Force first, then fighting street-by-street against a highly motivated and well-armed defending force), to draw the UK into a stalemate where business interests would press the government to declare an armistice (which was never likely to happen, especially once Churchill succeeded Chamberlain), or for Germany to develop the atomic bomb and to have had the means to deliver it. To put things in perspective, had the British Empire mobilised its entire colonial strength its army would have been larger than the population of Germany, and it had the luxury of factories in Canada outside the range of any possible German bomber. (It is possible to envisage scenarios where Germany wins the war, but they all depend on improbable conditions such as a military alliance with Stalin, or Britain remaining neutral following the invasion of Poland.) – iridescent 16:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned the more improbable of those are called alien space bats. The OP (or someone) might be interested in AlternateHistory.com. Judging from the title and a quick glance, it seems like the place to find answers to questions that can't be answered. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent: I think that had the US not entered the war, and had Hitler not been so against minorities (and women) and 'asocials' (who could have fought or worked industrially to great benefit instead), and if the alliance with Russia had held, then there may have been a chance of victory. Even without a Russian alliance, there would have been two fronts against Russia, which would have put huge strain on the nation and which makes collapse seem more likely. Additionally, weapons such as the V-3 cannon, had they been developed, could feasibly have changed the course of the war. 86.147.145.172 (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So if literally everything about the 1930s and 1940s had been different, we might be all speaking German right now! --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the above editor Basemetal. Nazi Germany only had the initial advantage of being the aggressor and so had time to build defences. Together, with modern battle plans (blitzkrieg, better tanks, aircraft etc.,) they held that advantage for some two years. Then, reality bit. Even without the US entering the European theatre, German industrial might (which was not crushed by WW1 – it was the economy that suffered) was not sufficient to bring the war to a conclusion in Nazi Germany's favour. A reasonable regimen would have sued for peace. Even if the second front in Russia had not been opened. Stalin would just have let Europe exhaust itself in war, then walked in. There is no alternative history here where one can speculate what would have happened if Nazi Germany won the war. It was just not strong enough. It was ideology triumphing over the rational mind.--Aspro (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Germany was by far the leading industrial power in Europe (a larger population and greater industrial production than either Britain or France), especially by the 1930s, and in Word War II they had a promising strategy of neutralizing their strongest opponents to the west before turning on the Soviet Union to the east. Also, Germany had been arming and training their military heavily during the 1930s, while its opponents devoted limited resources to their militaries until they rushed to mobilize beginning in 1939. Of course, Germany did not count on the strength of the US-British alliance, the resilience of the Soviets, or the consequences of bringing the United States fully into the war. The difference with World War I was that in the earlier war, Germany had to fight on two fronts from the beginning and was never able to win control of France. By the time Russia dropped out of the conflict, Germany was seriously weakened and the United States had already come to the aid of the western allies. Also, prior to World War I, Germany had no great advantage over its western opponents in military preparation for the conflict. Marco polo (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to our Economy of Nazi Germany article, the Nazis had financed rearmament during the 1930s by "...creating a huge deficit and national debt reaching 38 billion mark in 1939". Once Hitler had started to occupy other people's countries in 1938, they were shamelessly plundered for the benefit of the Reich; besides what they could actually steal, the Nazis also manipulated the currencies of occupied territories for their own benefit, forced their companies to trade with Germany on very unfavourable terms and conscripted forced labour from them. "By 1944, slave labour made up one quarter of Germany's entire work force". Then there was The Holocaust which was immensely profitable; everything from the contents of Jewish people's bank accounts to the gold fillings in their teeth. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that last comment is nonsense. The Holocaust may have been profitable for individuals, but on a state level it was a massive negative - it took a significant part of the population out of productive use, and wasted another part and additional infrastructure on the execution. It's like chewing your own hand off - sure, it gives temporary nourishment, but it's not an overall good thing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One interesting thing I learned from reading William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was that workers, many of whom did not own cars, were made to invest a significant portion of their wages into a plan to finance the eventual purchase of a Volkswagen. That capital was also diverted for industrialization and rearmament, with the cars not being delivered before the advent of war, at which time the promise could be broken as an emergency measure. Under single party rule a pragmatic military state not interested in property rights and consensus can build military roads and seize private businesses that don't comply with the government's edicts or help achieve its goals. μηδείς (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar weasels still say you can't own a Volkswagen without investing a significant portion of your wages into car insurance. But instead of losing your return in case of emergency, you lose it if you avoid emergency (or can't convince them you're innocent of it). It's like The Trial, except complicated. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another important factor here is that the British army was quite weak at the time. Take e.g. the way Japan was able to capture Singapore: "The commander of the Australian forces in Singapore later said: "The whole operation seems incredible: 550 miles in 55 days – forced back by a small Japanese army of only two divisions, riding stolen bicycles and without artillery support."". Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for these articulate answers. I hope they do satisfy the OP. They certainly satisfy me. One part of the OP's post was not addressed and it is puzzling me: many people who like to speculate on those things affirm (like the OP did) that "Germany would probably have won the war" if such and such a thing had happened. But they do not define a "German victory". What do they mean? That Germany would have managed to physically occupy the whole of the U.S., the U.S.S.R. and the British Empire? (This is what an allied victory meant for Germany, didn't it?) Probably not. So how do they usually define a German victory? Contact Basemetal here 13:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They (Germany and whichever imaginary friends help) win when their enemies surrender or die, I figure, like how we generally figure the Allies won. What they take for prizes after that is secondary. Even had they not taken anything, they'd still have won, simply for being the last men standing. The freedom to do what you want is more valuable than doing what you want. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hitler was fairly clear as to what his ambitions were, so it would be reasonable to treat "German victory" as something that satisfied those; the complete German control of the lands defined in Deutschland Uber Alles ("From the Meuse to the Memel, From the Adige to the Belt"), plus a German sphere of influence/occupation in European Russia, and US and UK recognition of these boundaries. Had the Allies not entered the war and Germany somehow defeated Russia, it's certainly possible to imagine the US, UK and France eventually grudgingly recognising a Fascist occupation of Eastern Europe as a fait accompli, in the same way they eventually recognised Mao's takeover of China once it became obvious he wasn't going to go away. – iridescent 16:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InedibleHulk: Hitler wanted a 1000 year Reich, an empire which would be the greatest the world had ever seen. I am not sure if Hitler expected US intervention (and there is the whole structuralist v intentionalist argument), as without it, and a holding alliance with Russia, Britain was the only major European power fighting the Nazis. After the bombing of Guernica displayed the military prowess of the nation, aerial domination was a feasible objective. In response to the original question, disarmament was a big theme in the 1920s, as in the 'Roaring Twenties' people did not see the need for armies, which were inexperienced partly due to the fact that they ignored any crises which did occur brought to the League of Nations. 86.147.145.172 (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Hitler wanted in the actual timeline is not necessarily what alternate Hitler would want. The sort of plot twists necessary to change a world war's ending (whether they happen before or during the war) would also change a few military minds along the way, butterfly effect-style. No idea what those new ideas would be, so I decided to keep it simple, and just have him win when his opponents lose. The simple truth is often the boring truth. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Fight the entire world" isn't accurate. Note that Germany had lots of allies, too. Early on the Soviet Union helped them when they both attacked Poland. Then there was Austria, Italy, Japan, and many other smaller allies. And many others remaining neutral, like Switzerland, Spain, and many smaller nations.

Also, as far as winning, the US still would have the atomic bomb, and the Nazi's were far from it, so they would have gotten the same treatment as Japan. StuRat (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adjacent countries with no diplomatic relations

The foreign relations section of Bhutan says that the country has no diplomatic relations with China (maybe the Chinese dislike Bhutanese passports?); they only negotiate via ad hoc diplomatic visits. Is this a common situation? How many pairs of countries exist in this situation? I'm excluding countries that have severed relations over disputes; I'm only interested in stuff where the relations simply don't exist, as opposed to where a dispute is a major reason for the countries actively not maintaining relations. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Syria relations do not exist, apparently. (Not sure if that fits your criteria or not.) Other might be found in the Category Foreign relations by country but I haven't found a handy list. 184.147.134.128 (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that's quite an active conflict zone, where "a dispute is a major reason for the countries actively not maintaining relations". Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP Bhutan has diplomatic relations with 52 countries, so there must be many other countries, besides China, it has no diplomatic relations with. Similarly you would probably find (I haven't checked that) Papua-New Guinea or the smaller island nations of the Pacific maintain diplomatic relations with a small subset of the total number of countries. Embassies are expensive. Contact Basemetal here 13:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should make it clear you are asking about adjacent countries. The section title does but not your actual question. Contact Basemetal here 13:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bhutan–China relations have been historically tense. It's not like they just never met. Not sure if that counts as a "dispute", but "historically tense" is how I'd describe the Koreas, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Bhotanese wouldn't have too much to talk about. They don't a too many folks and they're a very small country, too. They are one of the few countries without any diplomats in the USA, and yet they get along with the US. 92.28.229.197 (talk) 14:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's difficult to talk about no relations whatsoever, because normally some sort of dispute is in progress. See the case of North/South Korea; who claim to rule each other. China/Taiwan has the same problem. 92.28.229.197 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Understood, but there's a big difference between "no relations with your neighbor" and "no relations with the big country on the other side of the world". (2) One speaks of "severing diplomatic relations" as a precursor to war, e.g. countries preparing to go into World War II, but they would still conduct informal or formal talks in neutral countries (e.g. Switzerland) without having restored relations. I'm talking about formal, official relations, whether an embassy in the other country's capital, or a legation in another major city, or whatever: a formal, permanent presence of some sort. I understand that disputes exist, but as far as I can tell, the lack of diplomatic relations between Peiping and Thimbu is unrelated to their disputes, and it's possible to have border disputes between countries that otherwise get along wonderfully. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine had a new neighbour move in 16 years ago, and he still hasn't bothered learning her name, let alone open an embassy. Keeps calling her "Georgia". Maybe he truly doesn't recognize her anymore. Maybe more to do with spiting the old landlord. Those two talk more than friends do.

Same sorts of passive-aggressive relationship drama and non-drama with semi-fictional places, if you don't dispute those as countries. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are soviet puppet states that no one recognizes. Why should Ukraine have recognized those areas? In hindsight it must seem obvious, no? μηδείς (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert's Rules of Order and Demeter's Manual: differences

What are the differences in procedure between these books? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.102.205 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Robert's Rules of Order and Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have, they don't say what is the difference. see The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure for ane xample of what a comparison looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.199.102.205 (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House of Lords carvings

Here's an obscure one. I was looking at the carvings on the royal canopy in the House of Lords chamber, and I noticed what seemed to be letters in the panels to the upper right and upper left of the royal coat of arms. My first thought is that they're "ER", but I don't see any crossbars for the E's. Is it maybe GR for William (Gulielmus) IV who was king when the previous chamber burned down in 1834? That seems like a bit of a stretch. So my questions are: what are those letters, and do they change them for every monarch? --Lazar Taxon (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VR, for "Victoria Regina". – iridescent 19:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, that makes sense. I was misinterpreting that little circly thing for a gap in the letter, so it didn't look like a V. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're in a style called uncial; also "U" and "V" are the same letter in Latin, but I agree that they're too fussy to be easily legible. The reredos in the House of Lords was designed by Augustus Pugin, so we know who to blame. Alansplodge (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge, thanks for introducing me, at least, to the word reredos. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had to introduce it to my spell checker too! Alansplodge (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]