Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 December 8

= December 8 =

Canada's military after WWII
This conversation took place in my history class about half a year ago:

Teacher: At the end of World War II, Canada had the third largest navy and fourth largest air force in the world. Student 1 (surprised): Really? Student 2: Well yeah, because everyone else is dead. Teacher: There you go.

Is this accurate? --99.237.96.81 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Kinda, sorta, not really. The economies of the United States and Canada both benefited immensely from WWII. I'm sure someone here can explain exactly how and why; I'll just summarize and say that all-out war efforts can make your country incredibly productive when you're not getting bombs dropped on your head every five minutes. While Europe was in the process of getting demolished, North America was sitting pretty, with a massive workforce, endless resources, and governments which had been recently strengthened in response to the Great Depression. And both the US and Canada responded by kicking themselves into high gear. That meant producing both war supplies and basic necessities for their civilians, their armies, their allies' civilians, and their allies' armies. And they weren't giving that stuff away for free. By the time the war ended, the United States and Canada were the two wealthiest nations in the world (here's a source, if you're concerned). Sure, there was less competition for that title in 1945 than there was in 1938, but you can't minimize the unprecedented economic boom that took place during the war.


 * As for the third largest navy and fourth largest air force: I don't know about that statistic specifically, but, as stated above, production of planes, ships, etc, was happening in North America on a large scale. Canada, despite its land area, is a small country, so it is indeed fairly absurd to think of Canada having the third largest navy in the world. But Canada also joined the war right at the beginning, in 1939, years before the US, so that's six full years of war effort. Canada was putting its military to use, but was presumably able to replace lost equipment more easily than the beleaguered nations of Europe (or Asia). Much of the country's air force was also used for training rather than combat, since Canada was home base for the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan.


 * In summary, yes, the wholesale destruction of many powerful nations during World War II made other countries look good by comparison. But Canada wasn't just some disinterested, neutral nation sitting around eating poutine until, one day, a telegram arrived reading "Hey u has teh 3rd largest navy now! kthxbye." We (I'm assuming you're American) have a sacred tradition of turning everything pertaining to Canada into a one-liner, but, as usual, there's more to it than that. See also: Military history of Canada during the Second World War, Canada in the World Wars and Interwar Years, History of Canada (1945-1960)--Fullobeans (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about their air force, but if they had that large of a navy it was because they borrowed ships from the Royal Navy. :) If I remember right, I think that they borrowed one or two light carrier(s) off of them and a class of destroyers (the Tribal class maybe? I forget). —  Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  07:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the chart:


 * United States Air Force - largest air force in the world
 * Russian Air Force second largest air force in the world
 * People's Liberation Army Air Force - third largest air force in the world
 * Indian Air Force - fourth largest air force in the world . So it is Indian Air Force which is fourth largest, not Canadian Air Force.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Otolemur I believe you have overlooked the "At the end of World War II" part. Flamarande (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the WHOIS for the IP indicates that our questioner is Canadian...As far as this goes, I must say I'm surprised: the Royal Canadian Navy says that they were the fourth largest navy and third largest Allied navy during the war; I'm assuming that this includes the Imperial Japanese Navy in the top three, and it definitely wasn't very strong by the end of the war, so I guess this official site supports the IP's claim. As far as air force: I don't know where to find that, so I can't comment.  Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, per this, "Australia had the fourth-largest air force in the Western world at the end of WWII". Since Canada is also in the Western world, Canadian Air Force was certainly not larger than Royal Australian Air Force at the end of World War II.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note that "largest" could be interpreted many ways. It could mean total number, which would tend to favor many small planes and ships, or it could mean total tonnage, which would favor larger planes and ships, or it could mean the total price, which would favor expensive planes and ships.  It also may, or may not, include non-combat planes and ships (such as supply ships), leased ships, ships captured from the enemy, confiscated from civilian uses, etc. StuRat (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to give an overview, the number of aircrafts the four largest air forces in present day world have are shown below:
 * United States Air Force - 6,144 aircrafts (this figure includes both combat and non-combat aircraft)
 * Russian Air Force - 2,800 aircrafts (this figure includes both combat and non-combat aircrafts)
 * People's Liberation Army Air Force - 2,643 combat aircrafts (this figure excludes non-combat aircrafts)
 * Indian Air Force - 852 combat aircrafts (this figure excludes non-combat aircrafts)

So according to this list, in term of the number of aircrafts, People's Liberation Army Air Force will be the second largest air force and Russian Air Force will be the third largest air force (because the figure in Russian Air Force includes both combat and non-combat aircrafts).

Now comes the question of technology. USAF has


 * AV-8B Harrier II (ground-attack aircraft)
 * A-10 Thunderbolt II (ground-attack aircraft)
 * Lockheed AC-130 (ground attack)
 * B-1 Lancer (strategic bomber)
 * B-2 Spirit (strategic bomber)
 * B-52 Stratofortress (strategic bomber)
 * F-15 Eagle (4th generation fighter)
 * F-15E Strike Eagle (4.5 generation fighter) - 224 in service
 * F-16 Fighting Falcon (4.5. generation fighter) - 1319 in service
 * F/A-18 Hornet and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet (4.5. generation fighter) - 877 in service
 * F-22 Raptor (5th generation fighter) - 122 in service

Russian Air Force has:
 * Sukhoi Su-27 (4th generation fighter)
 * Sukhoi Su-30 (4.5 generation aircraft) - 10 in service
 * Sukhoi Su-35 (4.5 generation aircraft) - 5 in service
 * Mikoyan MiG-29 (4th generation fighter)
 * Sukhoi Su-34 (4.5. generation fighter + bomber) - 10 in service
 * Mikoyan MiG-31 (4.5 generation interceptor aircraft) - 356 in service
 * Sukhoi Su-24 (ground attack aircraft) -
 * Sukhoi Su-25 (close air support aircraft)
 * Tupolev Tu-22M (strategic bomber)
 * Tupolev Tu-95 (strategic bomber)
 * Tupolev Tu-160 (strategic bomber)

People's Liberation Army Air Force has:
 * Shenyang J-8 (3rd generation fighter)
 * Chengdu J-7 (2nd generation fighter)
 * Sukhoi Su-27 (4 generation fighter)
 * Xian H-6 (bomber)
 * Nanchang Q-5 (ground attack aircraft)
 * Xian JH-7 (4 generation fighter + bomber)
 * Shenyang J-11 (4.5 generation fighter) - 130 in service
 * Chengdu J-10 (4.5 generation fighter) - 160 in service
 * Sukhoi Su-30 (4.5 generation fighter) - 160 in service

Indian Air Force has:
 * Sukhoi Su-30MKI (4.5 generation fighter) - 80 in service
 * Mikoyan MiG-29 (4.5 generation fighter) - 56 in service
 * Dassault Mirage 2000 (4th generation fighter)
 * SEPECAT Jaguar (ground attack aircraft)
 * Mikoyan MiG-27 (4th generation fighter)
 * Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23 (3rd generation fighter)
 * Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 (2nd generation aircraft)

Note: The above figures may not be completely accurate and may vary from sources.

A quick overview of the data shows China and India are the only two countries which still maintain second generation aircraft Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 or its clone. USAF has the largest number of 4.5 generation aircraft i.e. 2542 4.5 generation aircrafts, Russia has 381 4.5 generation aircrafts, China has 450 4.5 generation aircrafts and India has 136 4.5. generation aircrafts. This suggests China has more 4.5 generation aircrafts than Russia. Till date the United States is the only country to maintain 5th generation fighter, however Russia, China and India all are developing their own 5th generation fighters. In case of Russia it is Sukhoi PAK FA and Sukhoi/HAL FGFA (both are in collaboration with India), China is developing J-XX and India is developing Medium Combat Aircraft.

Regarding the question at the end of WWII, Royal Australian Air Force had 5,500 aircrafts at the end of the war. I do not know the number of aircrafts Royal Canadian Air Force had at the end of WWII.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To get back to the RCAF in the World War II timeframe, let's consider the state of militaries as of Sept 1945:
 * Germany and Japan have, effectively, no air forces (as having just surrendered)
 * Italy is less clear but likely has nothing
 * France is just re-establishing as a functional entity
 * China hasn't had a significant air presence of its own
 * The US, UK, and USSR are the big winners. These are undoubtedly the big three air forces
 * Canada and Australia are the next likely possessors of modern air forces. Canada's Air Force site supports the 4th largest claim with 80 squadrons operational, and it's an entirely reasonable claim.  While the RAAF doesn't have a total squadron count that I can find, it does note about 2/3 the personnel of the Canadians and 20 squadrons in its major operational formation.
 * So yeah, 4th largest is entirely reasonable, but only because we've scratched Germany and Japan from the list. &mdash; Lomn 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very sad once world's "fourth largest" air force now maintains only 138 combat jet fighters. You could not find the total number of aircrafts of the Royal Canadian Air Force had at the end of WWII. This reference clearly states Royal Australian Air Force had 5,500 aircrafts at the end of the war. RCAF had 80 squadrons, so if we take there were 24 aircrafts in each squadron, then the total number of aircrafts RCAF had should be 1,920. This is far less than 5,500 aircrafts of the RAAF. So RCAF was certainly not fourth largest, it was RAAF (probably after US, USSR and UK).  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, the website of the RAAF clearly states it was the fourth largest air force at the end of WWII . Problem resolved.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, quite possibly the USSR and RCAF were close with the RCAF in front by a bit - the USSR's air force was hit hard by the German invasion. All pure speculation though. — Ed   17  (Talk /  Contribs)  03:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting that after a bunch of apples-to-oranges comparisons, one standalone reference clearly trumps another, resolving the problem. Er, that only works if you're attempting to satisfy an answer you want to find.  In particular, your declaration of "number of aircrafts RCAF had should be 1,920" -- the "80 squadrons" notes that it considers only front-line service, a distinction not made by your RAAF totals.  Elsewhere numbers support some 5000 aircraft produced domestically for the RCAF (16000 produced, approx ~30% for domestic contract).  That number further ignores imported aircraft such as the P-40 and P-51 which heavily equipped Canadian squadrons.  Additionally, the RCAF's commonwealth-wide BCATP training program supports the notion of a larger-than-expected support aircraft count (addendum: the BCATP required over 10000 aircraft).  Barring a good referenced number, then, it seems fair to say that the relative size of the RAAF and RCAF, in terms of aircraft count, is far from clear.  If relative size is considered by personnel, the RCAF held a decisive edge. &mdash; Lomn 14:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What are some examples of Marxist/Radical factions within mass Social Democratic Parties?
What are some examples of Marxist/Radical factions within mass Social Democratic Parties? For example the Leninist and Trotksyist factions within the Workers Party of Brazil or the various Marxist tendencies within the UK Labour Party.--Gary123 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The links on the List of social democratic parties should give you plenty of reading matter. To speed your searching, try  on each page for the terms you're seeking (e.g. radical). -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Entryism should also prove useful. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Militant Tendency in the British Labour Party. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Electoral stain / ink
Does anybody know where I could obtain this? In the UK, preferably. Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 08:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Per this, I.D. Technologies manufactures election ink and ships their products anywhere in the world. I also found this, Lantrade Global Supplies Ltd (LGS) "provides professional solutions for all aspects of the electoral process" and LGS is based in Buckinghamshire.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Antiretrovirals - Cost structure and demand
What is the typical cost structure of antiretroviral (triple therapy ARV) drugs (generic, free of royalties in a TRIPS non ratified country)? What EBITDA margin is typical for producers? Also, what is the market demand estimate for these in Sub Saharan Africa and South Asia? At what profitability does the current marginal producer operate? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.14.101 (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounds suspiciously like homework...Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Trust me its not - Its an investment case I was looking at. 199.43.13.100 (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So - Any one who can shed some light on this? Thanks 90.192.160.235 (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Lord Ahmed
Does this mean he will be excluded from the House of Lords? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  18:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you suggesting by "excluded"? Does this mean expulsion? There is incident where a person convicted of a serious crime was expelled from the House of Lords. I have very little knowledge on UK constitution, so I cannot say the same will be applied here or not. I do not know if there is any law by which anyone convicted of criminal offense will be expelled from the House of Lords.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that plan never actually materialised. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  19:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Parliament could pretty much do whatever they want. They could kick him out, or they could let him stay.  It is entirely up to them.  Britain has no written constitution which outlines how Parliament is to act in these situations.  Any action they take will be based solely on tradition and political expediency.  See also elective dictatorship for more on parliament's absolute power.  The question WRT Parliament is always "will they..." not "could they".  Given the way the British system works, they ALWAYS "could"... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. From the Qualifications section in our House of Lords article: "an individual serving a prison sentence for an offence other than high treason is not automatically disqualified". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Financial crisis in Britain
Were there any big financial crisis in Britain in the 18th/19th Centuries? Was the upper-middle class (eg: Darcy-Pride and Prejudice or Knightley-Emma types) very affected by them? Thanks for any info. - --AlexSuricata (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Darcy was a great landowner so would not have been greatly effected by a purely financial crisis. There was an agricultural depression in Britain in the late 1870s. British landed estates could not compete with the giant prairie farms of North America (who exported vast quantities of cheap corn), but the re-introduction of the Corn Laws was rejected by Beaconsfield's Conservative government and British agriculture declined significantly.--Johnbull (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Be careful how you present that arguement, regarding connection between the Corn Laws and the state of agriculture, see post hoc ergo propter hoc. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  22:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was the Panic of 1890. DuncanHill (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * South Sea Bubble, List of stock market crashes, Railway Mania-Arch dude (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Panic of 1873 initiated the Long Depression, which coincided in the UK with an agricultural depression. Marco polo (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there also a crisis associated with canal building, once railroads took over? I can't find an article about it if there was one. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there was a gradual decline in the use of canals rather than a crisis - major canal engineering projects were still being undertaken between 1850 and 1900, including the Manchester Ship Canal, Foxton inclined plane and the Anderton boat lift. See History of the British canal system. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a series of banking collapses, one of them fictionalized in Ken Follett's novel A Dangerous Fortune (not one of his best but still pretty readable). 67.122.210.149 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The book Mary Poppins, while set in the early 20th century, had a scene where a boy causes a run on the bank by demanding his two pence back. The only way this could happen is if the public was nervous about bank failures, after having suffered through many of them.  This gives some insight into the zeitgeist of England at the time. StuRat (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We have articles on Overend, Gurney and Company, known as “the bankers’ bank” and its 1866 collapse (₤11 million loss in currency of the day), which led to 200 companies or banks failing; and the Panic of 1825, a UK stock market crash arising out of speculation in Latin America (score: 66 banks to nil). DOR (HK) (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I read somewhere that there was a very serious financial disaster during the time of the wars against Napoleon, at the very begining of the 19th century. I'll see if I can find where I got that from to check the details. 148.197.114.165 (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lebanese Civil War
When Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter were presidents of U.S., what were their roles in the Lebanese Civil War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.128.246 (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well they were too busy being president to participate I guess. This sounds like a homework question. Exxolon (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't sound like a homework question to me, unless the teacher is quite uninformed. The Lebanese Civil War did not begin until 1975.  Richard Nixon had already resigned as president almost a year earlier.  So the conflict began during the presidency of Gerald Ford, who seems to have had little role in the conflict, although his administration voiced opposition to outside intervention by Syria or Israel, according to this document.  Jimmy Carter likewise opposed the intervention of both Syria (according to this document) and Israel in the Lebanese conflict.  When Carter was president, the United States voted in favor of United Nations Security Council Resolution 425, calling for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.  Carter supported a negotiated solution to the Lebanese conflict and was sympathetic to the desire of Lebanon's indigenous Christians and Muslims to end the aggression of Palestinian forces operating out of refugee camps in Lebanon.  Marco polo (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The Camp David Accords might provide additional context to President Carter's efforts in the Middle East. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)