Humanities desk
< August 29	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 31 >

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.

August 30

Volhynia as an Austro-Hungarian war aim during World War I?

Was an acquisition/conquest and annexation of Volhynia to Austria-Hungary ever an Austro-Hungarian war aim during World War I? I am asking because Volhynia had sizable German and Czech populations during this time. Futurist110 (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant mention of Volhynia during WWI that I could find relates to the mistreatment of the Jewish population by Russia (see pogroms) : "Volhynia". www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org. -- There used to be an article: Deportation of Germans from Volhynia during World War I, but it was deleted (log). 107.15.157.44 (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Austro-Hungarian leadership's territorial focus was on the Balkans. Remember, Ferdinand's assassination by Serb nationalists in recently-annexed Sarajevo was the spark that started the whole thing. They wanted to smash Serbia, which they saw as an existential threat as the empire was tottering from the "centrifugal force" of nationalism, and also thought they could help themselves to Ottoman territory as that empire continued to fall apart. Austria-Hungary was totally reliant on German help to hold out against the "Russian steamroller", and Germany's leadership had their own plans for eastern territorial expansion, so they had to go along with whatever Germany wanted, which was what actually happened, with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. English-language histories tend to pay little attention to the Eastern Front, which continues into the post-war period, paying little attention to how chaotic and violent the region was. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article, 31 August 1915 – Ukraine, deals with the Austro-Hungarian advance into the Ukraine. Our article that covers this phase of the war is the Gorlice–Tarnów Offensive of which the conquest of western Ukraine was at the tail end, but it lacks detail.

Empires at War: 1911-1923 (pp. 93-97) describes the chaos afflicting ethnic minorities in the non-Russian border areas of their empire in 1914-1915, a lot of whom were forcibly deported before the Axis advance. I can't find anything to suggest that the liberation of these minorities was a stated aim; after all, if your empire consists mostly of disgruntled minorities, then liberating somebody else's minorities might be a difficult sell. However, Ukraine was widely known as the "Breadbasket of the Empire", so cutting off Russia's wheat supply seems a more likely objective to me, although simple territorial acquisition might also have been a motive. Alansplodge (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Food and Nutrition (Austria-Hungary) supports the strategic importance of Ukraine's grain production: "Due to the Allied sea blockade, imports were insufficient to fill the [Austrian] empire’s food gap – even in 1916 and 1917 when substantial amounts of bread grain were brought from the Habsburg-occupied territories of Romania and Ukraine". Alansplodge (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of an aside, but the issues related to ethnic populations present within the territories of other sovereign nations were a perennial political issue, particularly during the interbellum period. There were numerous efforts before the Permanent Court of International Justice to deal with disputes arising from the treatment of various ethnic populations (for instance, persons of German descent living in East Upper Silesia). Many of these disputes went on to be exploited by the Nazi leadership to come to power. I have little doubt that the PCIJ's focus on ethnic population issues and the Nazi exploitation of those issues came from a vacuum, and so I would argue that virtually any instance in the early days of European nationalism where you can find ethnic populations living on the territory of other nations, you should be able to find some evidence of the alleged plight of those populations being used to rally national sentiment during the first World War. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but Google and modern English language histories of that part of the war are silent on the issue. It doesn't seem to have been top of their agenda, which by that stage was to defeat Russia anyway they could. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They must have had a really strong union: they only worked for a week.

Why in the world did the Union go to the trouble of raising the 103rd Indiana Infantry Regiment and then disbanding it a week later in the middle of the American Civil War? Was this a common practice? Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been an emergency scratch force: "This regiment was organized as minute men" [1]

Our Minutemen article says, after describing their role in the American Revolution, "The term has also been applied to various later United States civilian-based paramilitary forces to recall the success and patriotism of the originals". There isn't anything else on Google to provide any further details, but it seems that the unit was formed from armed volunteer civilians specifically to deal with a crisis, and when that had passed, they all went back to their day jobs. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The linked article above says of the 103rd: "This regiment was organized as minute men and was composed of seven companies from Hendricks, two from Marion and one from Wayne counties, all belonging to the Legion".

To Shake Their Guns in the Tyrant's Face (p. 122) says that the Indiana Legion was the name of the state militia.

This leads me to Indiana in the American Civil War#Indiana regiments: "on July 8, 1863, and additional thirteen temporary regiments were established during Morgan's Raid into southern Indiana. The men in these temporary regiments enlisted for terms of three months, but the regiments disbanded once the threat posed by Morgan's troops was gone". It's referenced to Arville L. Funk (1983) A Sketchbook of Indiana History. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miracles in post-second-temple Judaism?

Having just seen various Christian Saints, Martyrs, and alleged miracles in the very impressive Fulda Cathedral, I wondered: There are certainly miracles in the shared history of the Abrahamic religions (i.e. Samson's tearing down of the temple, or Moses parting of the Red Sea). Also, Hanukkah dates back to the second temple, and the miracular aspect seems to be quite badly attested. But are there widely accepted Jewish miracles from the time after rabbinical Judaism and Christianity had definitely taken different paths? --Stephan Schulz (talk)

This article says that "By the Talmudic era (200 – 600 CE), the idea of miracles that contravened the laws of nature were harder to accept". But it does mention Honi HaMe'agel and Hanina ben Dosa as rabbis who are popularly credited with miracles, although opinion is divided. The former's miracles are rather modest by Christian standards, being limited to making rain during a drought and sleeping for 70 years. The latter's miracles include having a gang of disguised angels carry a boulder for him. Alansplodge (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Christianity shows vial of liquid saint blood to anyone once a year even now. I saw it flow on TV. Also speaking in tongues in charismatic Protestantism. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there were more recent "widely accepted Jewish miracles", I bet the answer given here to the question "Why Don't Miracles Happen Today?" would have been different. For differing views in Judaism on what constitutes a miracle, see this essay, also linked to above by ASP; the answer on your question may depend on the view. (The link in the essay to a further essay by Rabbi Nachum Danzig is broken, but you can find an archived version here.) --Lambiam 16:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As usual in Judaism, the answer seems to be "definitely no, except absolutely yes, so let's discuss definitions" ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be technical, Moses didn't part the Red Sea. First, it wasn't the Red Sea itself. Second, it was God that parted the waters temporarily. Cecil B. DeMille's depictions could be called artistic license. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is the sticks and snakes thing, the striking of water from the rock, the plagues, and so on. Wether God did it or Moses did it is a bit nitpicky - I think the (prevailing) theory is that God does all the miracles, but "on request" from the chosen prophet/saint/whatever... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, there is this viewpoint:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queen mother

Did queen elizabeth the queen mother presided over prince phillip because she was a crowned queen and he was just a duke? Did prince Philip have to bow his head to queen mother? -- 15:41, 30 August 2020 112.134.79.102

"The Queen Mother's precedence comes directly after that of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, and ahead of Prince Charles. (Generally royal precedence follows the order of succession to the throne, but the cases of Prince Philip and the Queen Mother's relative precedence are obvious exceptions.)" The Queen and Her Court: A Guide to the British Monarchy Today (1982) p. 125. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How did they decide Japan occupation of Korea, North Mariana etc bad, "Norther Marianas" and almost Taiwan good?

I don't want Japan to expand, just wondering why America denied self-determination to deoccupationtists of the "towards Marianas" and Okinawa island chains and Ainu people. We were mad at Japan even more than Reich cause Pearl Harbor right? Isolationist to world war and unconditional surrender almost immediately. The good guys (not sarcastic) had no problem creating Poland or further shrinking Germany against the wishes of the remnants of the thousand year German population in postwar Poland nor with expelling Japanese and German civilians so presumably they could do anything up to expelling non-Ainu, Ryuku etc good or bad all in the name of security of Ainu, Ryukans etc I guess. Additionally there should be less fear of causing another war as this is just peripheral territory, not crippling reparations. Of course all of Hokkaido was occupied Ainu land once, presumably even the Allies wouldn't have seriously considered making all of Hokkaido independent cause that's just ridiculous, Sapporo alone has 3 million mostly Japanese. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a rough rule of thumb, territory which Japan had already controlled in 1893 (before serious expansionism started) was not called into question after 1945. Sorry for the Ainu, but they were a small and heavily-intermarried minority in Hokkaido in 1945. The situation was less messy than in Germany and Poland because mainly islands with no land borders were involved (the one situation in which a land border was created as part of the dismemberment of the extended Japanese empire, the 38th parallel, turned out to be very messy...) -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1943 Cairo Declaration by the Allies stated: "Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914".

The 1945 Potsdam Declaration stated that "Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and such minor islands as we determine" and "we do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation".

I suppose that if you are trying to get somebody to surrender without actually invading them, a guarantee of the integrity of their homeland is something of an inducement. The later agreement to retain the emperor probably falls into the same category. Alansplodge (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So it wasn't really unconditional, just mild, reasonable conditions. Given that they were propagandized to believe the Allies were coming to kill them all and rape the women so stab them with sticks unconditional was a very bad idea. I do note that Taiwan and Korea were occupied around 1910 and 1893, respectively, don't know why they said 1914 as Korean was a completely different nationality that has 50 million people now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps somebody realised the mistake over Korea between 1943 and 1945. There was no Google in those days :-) Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cairo Declaration also states "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China" and "in due course Korea shall become free and independent." So this is not a change from 1943 to 1945. --Amble (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan, Japan's first colony, was ceded by the Qing Dynasty in 1895 following the Sino-Japanese War. It was treated as a model by Japan, in an effort to show European colonial powers that Japan, too, could be a colonial power. The island had, by the 1930s, extensive electrification, education, and voting rights, and was later made one of the Japanese Home Islands. Korea, which became a colony in 1910 after the Russo-Japanese War (albeit without much say on the part of Russia), was never treated nearly as well. More to the original point, the Nationalist (KMT) Government of Chiang Kai-shek demanded return of Taiwan in 1945, and no one else outside of Taiwan had much interest in it's future. Mao Zedong, for example, said in the mid-1930s that he hoped Taiwan could gain its independence from Japan. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Edict of Expulsion still extant

Our article Edict of Expulsion states that the edict was overturned by Oliver Cromwell, however I have read in multiple sources, including a fairly reliable written source, that the Edict is still on the books, but is simply not being enforced. Which one is it? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English law is messy. A lot of it is based on tradition and precedent. Under Cromwell, Jews were allowed to return to England in an "informal arrangement". See Resettlement of the Jews in England. If you are a stickler for continental formality, the UK now has signed a number of treaties making various kinds of discrimination illegal (e.g. the European Convention on Human Rights), so now the original edict is not in force any longer even formally. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's Emancipation of the Jews in England. The thing is, the Edict was simply a royal decree telling the sheriffs to kick out all the Jews, from the good old days when the monarch pretty much did rule directly and Parliament was only needed for things like raising certain taxes. Subsequent centuries of British history saw the struggle between the monarchy and Parliament for power, which involved a little bit of warring occasionally. Parliamentary supremacy was firmly established by things like the English Bill of Rights which led to the modern British constitution where the monarch "reigns but does not rule". As the articles say, some Jews came back to England even before Cromwell's edict. Parliament never passed any law barring Jews from entry in the first place, and the old royal edicts have no present force of law unless they were subsequently ratified by Parliament, so it's really an academic question. Note that were were various legal disabilities not just for Jews but anyone not in communion with the Church of England until the 1800s: see Catholic emancipation. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That last barrier still applies to people in line to the throne. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be very precise I should have said "observing Jews". Benjamin Disraeli was ethnically Jewish but converted to the Church of England before he entered politics. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 09:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there's any mess in this case; the Jews Relief Act 1858 ("An Act to provide for the Relief of Her Majesty’s Subjects professing the Jewish Religion" [3]) surely overrode any previous laws. "Amendments in 1871, 1922, 1973, 1980 and 1986 removed all restrictions on Jews holding office except that they may not advise certain government officials on matters related to appointments in the Church of England or the Church of Scotland". Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That last amendment to the 1858 act is the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986, which removes the prohibition of a Jewish person from the having the right (or advowson) to present a candidate to a Church of England benefice - in some Anglican (usually rural) parishes, the local lord of the manor still gets to choose the next parish priest - now it doesn't matter if that person is Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Jedi, they still get a say on who should be the vicar. Alansplodge (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one of those old fashioned things that only continue cause if he picks someone he shouldn't like the highest bidder who probably doesn't know Anglicanism well the right gets stripped immediately? Like if the monarch picks opposition leader for PM. They won't but if they did.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose something like that. The bishop of the diocese has the final say anyway, and these days when there aren't enough clergy to go around, finding somebody willing to job is the main issue. Alansplodge (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are they forbidden to marry? If so there's your problem. Even New York City has a priest shortage, they have lots of deacons though who are allowed to do more and more of what only priests did in the past, I don't know if Anglicans have deacons but in Catholicism they can marry and have sex with their wives. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican priest are allowed (and historically expected) to marry, and the "vicar's wife" is a stock character in many English novels. And in practice, civil unions of homosexual priests are widely recognised at least in England and Wales, and gay priests in a "celibate" civil union can be ordained as bishops, with the additional useful bit that the "celibate" part is not to be questioned (I assume they are celibate most of the time, and in the hours they are not, well, no human is safe from temporary lapse into sin ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

…said the bishop to the vicar. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Church of England priests can have husbands too; see Ordination of women in the Anglican Communion, However, same-sex marriages for clergy are currently frowned upon but same-sex civil partnerships are permitted; see Homosexuality and the Anglican Communion. Alansplodge (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reichsflagge

Can someone explain what a "Reichsflagge" is, particularly the top pic on this page? I found Reichskriegflagge but it doesn't seem to be any of the ones shown there. Thanks. (And I wonder if there is a German version of Godwin's law, where you lose an argument once you compare your opponent to President Trump). 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that these protesting Corona sceptics put the Donald on their flags because they admire him. And Godwin's law as originally intended by its eponym^[4] has nothing to say about losing the argument. --Lambiam 13:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it refers to the flag used by the Second Reich (i.e. the German Empire founded in 1871). See Flag of Germany#North_German_Confederation_and_the_German_Empire_(1867–1918). It is a black, white and red tricolore. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Also can you tell me the difference between a Flagge and a Fahne? Wiktionary doesn't have a German translation of Flagge. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpickers will pick nits. But to a first, second, and third approximations, the words are synonyms. In Switzerland, they are even perfect synonyms, as they are in common parlance. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephan Schulz: If you hadn't included the "in Switzerland" sentence, this would have sounded a lot more definite. Since you did, I have to ask, what is the fourth-order difference outside of Switzerland? --Trovatore (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: In common usage, there is none I'm aware of. In very specialised circumstances, a "Fahne" (cognate to "Vane" in English) is a particular flag - an irreplaceable unique item. It's "die Deutsch Flagge" (currently the black, red, gold tricolore), but what sank with the Bismarck was a particular "Fahne", not the "Reichskriegsflagge" in general. But again - I would estimate that if you ask 100 German speakers, the odds of getting one who knows the difference are less than even. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; that makes sense. --Trovatore (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may help: s:An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Flagge and s:An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Fahne. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditionally... a Fahne is fixed to a staff, whereas a Flagge is hoisted and is therefore mobile; a Fahne is a single, precious item, that is revered individually, whereas the Flagge is replaceable and the hoisted specimen is not revered as an individual flag. This is similar (but not totally equal) to the distinction between '(Regimental) Colour' and 'flag' in English.

"For about the last 50 years one can say, that neither official authorities nor flagmakers have used the two terms in a consistent and straightforward way. For instance, the flags of counties and municipalities in Bavaria are officially called Gemeindefahne or Kreisfahne, although they are obviously Flaggen as defined above. Today there are mainly three different factors determining the use of either Fahne or Flagge:

1. the traditional definition;

2. the more unofficial a flag is, the more likely it will be called a Fahne;

3. the more inland one goes in Germany, the more likely a flag will be called Fahne".

Flags of the World - 'Fahne' and 'Flagge' (Germany). Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary entry for Flagge states: "Flagge is restricted chiefly to flags of nations or ships. For these two contexts it is more common than Fahne (the more general term)." --Lambiam 13:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That individually designed flag combines, as far as I can make out, the flag of the German Empire, a Q-anon-symbol, a mug of Donald Trump, a mug of Ernst Jünger, two times "Deutschland" written in Fraktur, and the Prussian eagle. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]