Humanities desk
< April 29	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	May 1 >

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

April 30

Couple Questions About NATO

Why did members of the alliance rarely ever invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the only time being the aftermath of 9/11 by the United States? Specifically, why was it not invoked in response to the Annexation of Goa or during the Falkland War?
If every member agrees to do it, is it technically and legally possible to kick Turkey out of the NATO? The relationship between Turkey and other NATO countries have gone really sour due to various events in recent years to the point where Turkey is more willing to cooperate with Russia, of all countries.

StellarHalo (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NATO treaty explicitly limits the sphere of the treaty to the area north of the Tropic of Cancer, mostly because none of the early partners wanted NATO to be involved in conflicts related to the decaying colonial empires in the second half of the 20th century. The Falkland Islands are very much south of the Tropic of Cancer (and south of the equator, and south of the Tropic of Capricorn ;-). Thus, the conflict was not covered by treaty. It was also very much orthogonal to the cold war (NATO's raison d'etre), being a conflict between a right-wing dictatorship and a ~~right-wing dictatorship~~ Britain ruled my Margret Thatcher. Neither side could be usefully labelled as communist or supported by the communist block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the second question according to The North Atlantic Treaty, the 13th Article states that "...any Party may cease to be a Party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States of America...", so if any party of the treaty wants the leave NATO that is possible but there are no expel protocol in the Treaty due to reason that the organization needs to be highly cohesion. So, the 12th Article gives the opportunity of amendment of the treaty but all of the decisions at NATO given by consensus that is the legal aspect. In the international relationship aspect, the relationship between NATO and Turkey in history always been liked this. Turkey has always been to have close relations with Russia. And Russia wants to be close with Turkey because of the Bosphorus. With this relation if there is a tension with Turkey to other nations, Turkey cooperates more with Russia But at the end of the day Turkey finds a way to soothe relations with NATO. If it is demanded, I can present references too. Nanimus (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I am not sure but I find it hard to look at the current level of tension between Turkey and other NATO members and see it as business as usual. First, Erdogan was displeased at the West's alleged lack of support during the 2016 Turkish coup d'teat attempt and the purge that followed. Second, the West's condemnation of Turkey's recent invasion of Syrian territory. Third, the Aegean dispute with Greece has reached new height after Turkey signed an agreement with one of Libya's governments to divide the Eastern Mediterranean. Seriously, at this point, any appeasement of Turkey by the European Union is only due to the former's leverage over the latter in keeping migrants/asylum seekers from entering Europe and recent event has shown Turkey is more than willing to exploit this situation. On the other hand, Turkey and Russia have vastly improved relationships such as arms deals compared to the tension years ago despite having different goals in the Syrian Civil War. StellarHalo (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help Finding a Vintage Periodical Cartoon/Illustration

I request assistance to identify a portrait illustration/cartoon of either a newspaper or a magazine from either 1918 or 1919. It has been a long time since I saw it on what probably was the National Geographic Visual History of the World, which I no longer have an easy immediate access to but I will do my best to give the exact details. It depicts either a desert or a sandy beach at sunset with crowns and scepters scattered in the sand and most definitely symbolizes the fall of monarchies in Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary in the aftermath of the First World War. It might or might not be from Punch. If it is available online, please provide me with the link. Your assistance would be appreciated. StellarHalo (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from Eurasian leadership advising threat of unhappy progressives vs. threat of unhappy conservatives

I read a quote somewhere, I think it was in a correspondence between leaders or a leader and his advisors.

I want to say it was czarist Russia, but it could have been Thai monarchs. It was definitely Eurasia, not the Americas. I have a sense it was from the first half of the 20th century, maybe the beginning, but I have a feeling it didn't pre-date the mid-19th century.

The quote said something to the effect of warning the incumbent or incoming leader that progressives have to be appeased now and then, because by nature, they're troublemakers (my paraphrase, can't remember original) while conservatives, on the other hand, can be screwed over as a price for abiding the progressives, since conservatives are by nature going to stay loyal to the state and leader anyway.

Google pulled me into Brainyquote and Goodreads, which have worn me down now.

Any help identifying or suggesting where to find the quote greatly appreciated. -- 04:32, 30 April 2020 Mmiklas

Anecdote about Hitler killing a child?

Our article on Magda Goebbels, wife of Joseph, includes a quote where she justifies killing her own children at the end of the war because she was fearful of what would happen to them in the world to come after the defeat of the Nazis. Interestingly, in the quote she gives the following anecdote to illustrate her point:

"It has all happened before. You know how I told you at the time quite frankly what the Führer said in the Café Anast in Munich when he saw the little Jewish boy, you remember? That he would like to squash him flat like a bug on the wall...I couldn't believe it and thought it was just provocative talk. But he really did it later. It was all so unspeakably gruesome."

It is ambiguous to me whether the quote refers to Hitler personally harming that specific boy, or to Nazi persecution of the Jews in general terms, sweeping in even children as victims. If the former, is there some independent evidence for this 'Cafe Anast incident'? Magda Goebbels appears to have known Hitler since about 1930/31 if that helps. If the latter, it's potentially a little suspect as it could be read to mean that Magda was privately opposed to the 'excesses' of the Holocaust, which is the sort of thing someone who had been close to her might attribute to her after the war. The sourcing of that quote in our article is not great. From some Googling I can find other people online who are dubious about its veracity. I am sure there are people here who know their history of Nazi Germany quite well. Do you know what is being referred to with this story? Does the quote from MG have the ring of truth to it? Beorhtwulf (talk) 11:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case people want to use the name of the café for researching this question, the café's name should be "Annast" (not "Anast"). Today, it's officially called Tambosi (or Luigi Tambosi am Hofgarten). The typo may have already been in the referenced text, which is why I haven't corrected it in the article on Magda Goebbels. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I only found Conversations with Hitler or – Quid Est Veritas?: Apostles & Victims (p. 62) which takes the quote to show Hitler's "obscene hatefulness"; there's no suggestion that he actually did the deed. Alansplodge (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too hard to consider Magda may have been bothered by the Holocaust. Her step-father (who was allegedly her natural father) was Jewish, as was a good friend and a lover when she was young. All of that is in our article. We even have a story of someone Jewish who is convinced Magda saved them before Kristallnacht. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The countless thousands of Jews under age 18 whom Hitler killed via the Holocaust certainly qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Hitler personally killed any of them with his own hands. He only ordered them to be killed. JIP | Talk 11:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler never personally killed anybody (instead inspired, ordered, promoted and led others to do the dirty work for him), you’re reading the above out of context. Kierzek (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congressperson that had a break in their tenure

I'm trying to see if a page can be laid out better, and need to find a like page. Specifically, I need to find a congressperson that served, left office, and then went back to congress. I know that there was a congresswoman that did this because I remember a bunch of news that she was being denied seniority because the current political party had the option to count or not count her prior years in office and they didn't count it costing her a better office and committee positions.

I've done a bunch of searches trying to find them (and i'm pretty certain it was a woman but i might even be wrong about that) with no luck.

Hoping someone else might have better luck. ToeFungii (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a time period? Are they currently serving? About when was the event?--Jayron 32 23:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanette Rankin is a famous case... AnonMoos (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A famous example of someone who served two non contiguous terms or someone who encounter the problems the OP referred to? I don't see any mention seniority controversy in her article nor in a quick search. (There is some mention how her efforts were thwarted in part by her lack of seniority but I take this to mean in general, given she only served 2 terms even if her first term was counted.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Seniority in the United States House of Representatives mentions previous terms. The only women currently serving to who this applies seems to be Dina Titus and Ann Kirkpatrick. Neither of their articles currently mention any controversy over their seniority and a search found [1] which suggest Kirkpatrick probably retained hers and for Titus who only served one term anyway most news reports are simply about how she is fairly senior now.

Our article seems to have mentioned previous terms for a long time e.g. this from 2009 [2] mentions them so assuming this happened recently you could try just looking through our article history [3]. The current version of our article does mention this uncited titbit:

Representatives who return to the House after having previously served in the House may be credited with service equal to one less than the number of terms they served. For example, Rep. Steve Chabot had previously served seven terms, from 1995 to 2009, when he was once again elected in 2010. Instead of holding seniority with others whose terms began January 3, 2011, he was credited with six terms, and holds seniority above all representatives whose terms began on or after January 3, 1999. When a representative has served a prior term of fewer than two terms (i.e., prior term minus one equals less than one), they are ranked above all others whose service begins on the same day.

BTW that 2009 version has Jane Harman but there is no mention of any seniority controversy in her article. And a quick search finds these sources suggest she retained her seniority as she was promised [4] [5] [6], albeit not later getting the committee leadership she was also promised.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General I S Drammers, Hanoverian

According to Cassar, George H. (6 January 2011). "Hamilton, Sir Ian Standish Monteith". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/33668. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) Ian Hamilton "elected to go to Germany, where he was tutored by I. S. Drammers, a retired general living in Dresden. During his six-month stay (1870–71) in Dresden, he studied the language and military tactics, and gained valuable insight into the German character and German training methods". Other references say Drammers was a Hanoverian who had fought against Prussia. I would be interested to know more about General Drammers. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that Ian Hamilton left Wellington College no later than at the age of 18, which then must have been in 1872 or before, he must have gone to Dresden in or before 1873. Our article on his younger brother Vereker Monteith Hamilton states that he too, after having followed in his brother's footsteps by studying at Wellington College from 1871–73, went to Dresden, in 1873, to "spend time with Colonel Drammers". Setting aside the unlikely theories that these were two different Drammerses in Dresden or that Drammers was demoted, one of the two stated ranks is in error. Searches for a Colonel (or Oberst) Drammers did not yield anything. Perhaps Vereker Monteith Hamilton's autobiography Things that Happened (1925) will shed light, but I do not see an online copy. --Lambiam 19:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]