Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 15

= March 15 =

How religious was Benjamin Franklin?
What were his views, beliefs, etc? Did he attend church, mosque? 66.239.186.98 (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read our article on Benjamin Franklin. As a Deist, he wouldn't have been attending either a church or a mosque. He lived with Deborah Read, mother of some of his children, without benefit of clergy. - Nunh-huh 08:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Obligatory rights
Is there a name for rights that are obligatory? Like a minimal wage, life or other rights that may not be waived, not even if the person who holds these rights wants to. Mr.K. (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "waived"? How do you "waive" your life?  The closest thing you are referring to is entering into a contract, where a party to the contract attempts to "waive" something that is non-waivable.  Or, in other words, the party is attempting to agree to something that is illegal to agree to, to begin with.  That is, I cannot enter into a contract for less than minimum wage.  Because that would be an illegal agreement.  I cannot enter into a contract where I agree to give up my life in exchange for $1 million.  Because that would be an illegal agreement.  Such contracts are called invalid or void.  They are illegal contracts and, thus, not "contracts" at all.  The public policy is to not get in a sticky predicament where the government is enforcing illegal bargains and essentially condoning / supporting / assisting illegal activity.  Also, there are issues of fraud / duress / unequal bargaining power / coercion to deal with --- which these restrictions help to eliminate or avoid.  Does this help?    (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I meant 'waive your right to life'. And yes, your answer do help.Mr.K. (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Inalienable. See Inalienable rights. 4.234.99.243 (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That is. Mr.K. (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A right is merely something that is not denied you by the society in which you live. E.g. in Myanmar you have no right to vote. - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe not a legal right, or perhaps a legal incapacity, but many would argue that the moral right to vote is the hallmark of a free society and is inalienable, regardless of what actual restrictions may apply in particular cases. --  JackofOz (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would call it rather the right not to be governed without the opportunity to vote. —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think inalienable rights means that other people can't take them from you. AllenHansen (talk) 09:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, inalienable essentially means 'non-transferable'; it's from aliẽnum which means 'belonging to another'. You can buy my chattels, and thereafter enjoy property rights in them exactly as I had; but it is impossible, not merely illegal, to add my life or liberty to your own.  —Tamfang (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

white, black and hispanics community
Is there a place in U.S. that where white people, black people and Hispanic people live together? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don Mustafa (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, almost all of them.  Corvus cornix  talk  01:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, that's what makes us the United States. -- MusicalConnoisseur  Got Classical? 06:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Think OP was after a specific example of a harmonious community, and not the ghettos and almost-all-black/white/hispanic cities that we see on TV so often.
 * Which reminds me of an imported American TV series -- ten years ago?? -- that had all black characters. At the time I had no idea if that was reflecting reality, or if it was deliberate. And I still don't. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Birds of a feather, sure, but Corvus was right. Go to any, and I mean any, Little League game in the United States and see interracial harmony in the wild. The fistfights are over the plate umpire's calls, not race. Foreigners have a mistaken idea about this place, which isn't surprising since we Americans also do. There are ghettos and gangs, and Klan rallies, but outside of the hot spots we couldn't care less what color you are. Foreigners see Obama's candidacy as a sign of change being wrought, but it's actually not a sign of anything. The change has already happened. Not every American ideal is a forlorn dream; some of it works. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes and no. Little league games are one thing, but most races live near other members of their own race. Much of this is socioeconomic as well. It's not just hot spots where clashes happen—there are more subtle ways in which disharmony is all over the place, internalized, unchallenged by any. Blacks aren't forced to ride at the back of the bus, to use a very literal example, but in my city, they always do. It's self segregation; not as vile or crude as enforced segregation, but it's still there. The "hot spots" are just the places where people end up challenging the passive order, for better or worse. The lines drawn, though, are rarely among purely racial grounds—economics seems even more important, but disentangling that from race can be pretty tough. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but little league games where I came from were a largely middle class phenomena—if you take them as an example of how races interact in the United States, you're leaving out a lot. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are three metro areas that appear on the list of 10 least-segregated cities for blacks and Hispanics from the 2000 census: Tampa Bay; Oakland/East Bay, Calif.; and Seattle. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Having grown up in the East Bay, I can see unequivocally that the East Bay is as integrated as any community in the country.  Corvus cornix  talk  04:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's where I live. I'm blond; my immediate neighbors speak Spanish; I look outside and see the Black kids giving the Irani(??) kids a ride in their toy car.  Ethnic friction? We've got better things to worry about, like traffic and earthquakes.  —Tamfang (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did the Government do this? (Australian Government vetoing Oliphant's US Medal)
Reading the article on Australian physicist Mark Oliphant who worked on the atomic bomb, there's this: "His wartime work would have earned him a Congressional Medal of Freedom with Gold Palm, but the Australian government vetoed the honour." I was wondering why the Government took this step. Julia Rossi (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * His obituary in The Independent (found here) suggests that the Australian government declined the award on his behalf on the grouns that Australian citizens should not accept foreign honors. Carom (talk) 04:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link Carom – I wasn't aware the Australian government had such a policy and I can't find on what grounds they held it. Will pop the cite into the article though. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see he was awarded the Hughes Medal by the Brits, without a hitch. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * He was awarded the Hughes Medal by the Royal Society, not the British government, and since the society's patron is the Queen of Australia that is not a "foreign honour". Malcolm XIV (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is not now, nor to my knowledge has there ever been, any Australian government policy that Australians "should not accept" foreign honours. Many foreign awards and honours have been bestowed on Australians over a long time, including the past few prime ministers.  But the government can, effectively, veto the awarding of a foreign honour; in other words, acceptance of such an honour is subject to the government's agreement.  Why they disagreed in Oliphant's case is anyone's guess, particularly given Australia's emerging strong bonds with the US during WW2.  Maybe they didn't want to be seen to be condoning the nuclear attacks on Japan.   --  JackofOz (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Biographical Memoirs piece about Oliphant's death, it says that it was the "Australian government then in power" that said citizens couldn't accept foreign metals. Maybe that has some clue to it to people who know more about Australian politics than I.
 * The author that first discovered this was Oliphant's biographer Stewart Cockburn, in 1980. One could, I imagine, take a look at his biography; it might have more. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just on the Hughes Medal. Elizabeth II wears 16 different crowns.  She's the patron of the Royal Society solely in her capacity as Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not in any of the other 15 capacities.  When she visits Australia; appoints the Australian Governor-General; performs acts overseas on behalf of the Australian government etc, she does so solely in her capacity as Queen of Australia, not in any of the other 15 capacities.  And so on.  So I would argue the Hughes Medal is a foreign honour, but one that the Australian government would have less of a problem with (well, no problem at all, actually) than, say, the North Korean Star of Perpetual Freedom and Democracy (I just made that up for the sake of argument, btw, so don't bother googling it).  But the even more germane point is that, despite having royal patronage and the word "Royal" in its title, the Royal Society is still a private organisation, not an agency of the British government.  Whatever policies past Australian governments may have had about the acceptance of foreign awards, they related to awards made by foreign governments, not by foreign private organisations.  The Australian government would have no more power to prevent an Australian citizen being given an award from the Royal Society than it would to prevent them being awarded a Nobel prize, an Olympic medal or an Oscar.  Governments can physically prevent their people from participating in the Olympics, in which case the question of a medal never arises.  They can also physically prevent them from going to Sweden or Norway to personally receive their Nobel prize, but the award is still made in their name.  For example, Boris Pasternak was effectively prevented by the USSR; he chose to decline it before it ever got to that point, but only because of the probable consequences on his return if he had gone.  As far as the Nobel committee were concerned, though, the award was made to him by them, and it remained in his name despite his refusal of it, and it was ultimately presented to his family after his death.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I take it Oliphant was ambivalent about the success of the bomb and distanced himself from military projects subsequently, but the "veto" suggested the government stepped in rather than acted on his behalf exactly, so it looks like I'll be thumbing through that biography – thanks for the reference. Thanks to everyone for building the picture, Julia Rossi (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Milošević plan to attack Montenegro?
As you know the 9/11 Commission held hearings about that attack in 2004. During the hearings process, loads of Clinton administration officials were called. One of the officials called to testify was William Cohen, Clinton's Defense Secretary from 1997-2001. During his testimony he talked about the other challenges facing him, such as the Balkans. He made an interesting statement about a planned attack by Slobodan Milošević on Montenegro after the 1999 NATO air strikes. If the attack had succeeded, according to Secy. Cohen, he would used this attack to restart the war in Bosnia. This is what he said:

"Following the war against Serbia over Kosovo, Milosevic prepared for a possible blitzgrieg military action against Montenegro, which while federated with Serbia in a rump Yugoslavia was exercising increasing independence from Belgrade. The US European Command developed plans to defeat a Serb military move against Montenegro, which Milosevic would have used to reignite conflict in Bosnia. Concurrent with this, Milosevic sought to stage manage an election process to bolster his political position after his failure in Kosovo.  But the process became a real contest, and effective support to the democratic opposition led to Milosevic’s ouster and then to his imprisonment in The Hague.  This action prevented the fifth Balkan war of the decade, bringing to an end a series of wars that had killed hundreds of thousands, flooded Europe with millions of refugees, and threatened European stability and security at the very time that the collapse of the Soviet Union had created the opportunity to build (to quote President Bush Sr.) “a Europe whole and free” – an opportunity that we seized by supporting the enlargement of NATO and the European Union. Principals and Deputies actively guided this closing phase of the Balkan wars."

To read this in context, go 9-11commission.gov. The section on the Balkans starts on p. 17 of the PDF.

I have wanted to use this as a source in articles on the topics mentioned, but my searches have turned up two articles about fears of a coup, not an attack. this BBC article from April 1999 was written during the air strikes, and falls out of the date range above. This CNN article from August 2000 also has fears of a coup. The third article from July I have found warns Montenegro could become the next Balkan hotspot. Because of the lack of info to back up what the Secy said and with how the Balkans are a hotspot here as well, are there any sources native to the region that could back up this quote? Or did I encounter a bunch of BS? - Thanks, Hoshie 06:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The latter, I strongly suspect, Hoshie! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I'm begining to agree with ya. If what Secy. Cohen did happen, I'm pretty sure we would have known it by now as this would have been great propaganda material for both Serbia and Montenegro in the years since. Also found it hard to believe that something that happened more than 10 years ago could be buried in a PDF file! - Thanks, Hoshie 23:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Conscripted African soldiers
In discussing Nigeria and the First World war Professor Jide Osuntokun said that the more Africans were forcibly conscripted by the European powers than had beren pressed into slavery. I should like to know if this is true and what impact in general the world wars had on Africa? Thank you. Topseyturvey (talk) 06:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The total number of Africans, including the Maghreb, who served in the military forces of the colonial powers is said to be around two million. Many, perhaps most, of these were porters and labourers rather than soldiers as such. The widespread use of forced labour must make this no more than a very rough estimate. But there was no single pan-African experience of the First World War, not even if we limit ourselves to the area south of the Sahara.
 * However, Nigerian experience in the Second World War shows how problematic these numbers can be. In theory only a few hundred Nigerians were conscripted into the military. The thousands of workers on bases on the Takoradi air route were, so I read, recruited voluntarily. But the hundred thousand or so Nigerians sent to work in the tin mining industry on the Jos Plateau from 1942 onwards were surely conscripts by any reasonable definition of the word, see Bevin Boys for example. As far as conscript workers in the First World War are concerned, the two million figure does include people from French Africa sent to work in France, but I suspect that it will not include any equivalents of the tin miners, people moved around within the colonial empires. On the whole, I feel that the professor is likely overstating the case, even if he means only the Atlantic slave trade, but numbers will probably never be knowable with any precision. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Topseyturvey, if I can just offer a slight correction to the terms of your question. What Professor Osuntokun actually said was the slave trade at its height never involved on an annual basis one-tenth of the men forcibly enlisted in the First World War, an altogether more accurate observation. There were some volunteers but most recruits were effectively obtained on much the same basis as the old slave trade: it was a task delegated to the tribal chiefs. In French West Africa the chiefs were asked to obtain a given quota of 'volunteers', with no questions asked about the manner in which these men were harvested. When conscription was introduced by the colonial authorities it resulted in what the Governor called a chasse â l'homme-a manhunt. Many mutilated themselves rather than go. In the British colony of Northern Rhodesia, where up to a third of the male population was recruited for military labour, the co-operation of the chiefs was to ensure their lasting unpopularity.

As far as the more general part of your question is concerned, the First World War might be said to mark the final stages in the Scramble for Africa, with major territorial changes arising from the peace, new forms of colonialism disguised in the fiction of the League of Nations mandate. The Second World War weakened and finally ended the whole imperial project, giving birth to new forms of African nationalism. Clio the Muse (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your answers. Thank you also, Clio, for setting me straight on the professor's precise words. Topseyturvey (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Champange with raw egg
I saw a film where a guy had a glass of champagne and he cracked an egg and added maybe the whole thing or just the yoke. The yoke was whole and the drink went unmixed before consumption. What is that about? --Seans Potato Business 07:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it may be a hangover cure? FiggyBee (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A champagne flip. Gdr 11:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Eggs don't have yoke, but yolk.Mr.K. (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a scene from The Quiet Earth(1985)

Cawnpore Massacre
How true is it that the Cawnpore massacre contributed to the speedy defeat of the Indian Mutiny of 1857? 81.152.107.181 (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Only in that it whipped up British public opinion against the rebels and inspired the brutal retaliatory campagin known as the Whirlwind. AllenHansen (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly made the troops fight with a more ferocious determination when the news got out. All across Bengal, British soldiers went into battle shouting, "Remember Cawnpore!"  On at least two occasions the Sutherland Highlanders  are known to have charged at the enemy with cries of primitive rage, not cheering, the usual practice among British soldiers hitherto.  It was the memory, above all, of the bloody little handprints, those of the children, on the walls of Cawnpore.  One officer said afterwards, "I have spared many a man in a fight, but I will never spare another."  When one company at Cawnpore was asked for a volunteer hangman, never a popular duty, to execute the captured rebels, every man stepped forward.  Some of the captured Hindus were made to lick an area of floor clean of blood before being hanged, to destroy their cast before their lives were ended.  The Muslims were sewn into pigskins.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bahai
Can Bahai Faith be considered as a right and heavenly religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyabi (talk • contribs) 10:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bahá'í Faith.
 * Could you define "right and heavenly religion" - it seems a matter of opinion87.102.21.171 (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The people who follow it certainly think so :) As the user above mentions, you need to define your criteria a little more explicitly.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  14:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always considered the inclusivity of the Baha'i rather arrogant. By saying that your religion is the logical synthesis of all other previous religious implies that all other religions are just fractions of their own one true religion. Ninebucks (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Should you expect any less? Wouldn't it be ridiculous if they went, "well, our religion isn't quite as good as Islam and Christians do have more fun and the Buddhists leave us in the dust..." Even if you are a Deist, you assert that your religion is best, otherwise, why stick with it? AllenHansen (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Chester U.K. Laws in Tudor(?) times
I understand that there was a law which made the killing of a welshman lawful if he was inside the walls of Chester town after nightfall. I think this was during the times of the Tudors rule in England/Wales. Can this be confirmed and when, if ever, it was repealed? 213.7.108.48 (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)Brian B
 * True. See Chester last paragraph. or search for "chester law welshman" for more details87.102.21.171 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See http://www.chester.gov.uk/tourism_and_leisure/culture_and_leisure/chester_history_and_heritage/history_facts.aspx for the actual conditions.87.102.21.171 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Supposedly, there's a similar law regarding York and Scotsmen. It all sounds a lot like urban legends to me. For example, this article used to mention the York version but it was removed as unverified (which makes me wonder if news.bbc is operating under Wikipedia rules).AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * New laws superscede old laws, which is why some funny old laws don't get repealed.87.102.21.171 (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As to the BBC operating under Wikipedia rules, becoming familiar with Wikipedia has opened my eyes to how unreliable and open to errors every source is. Several times I have encountered errors on the BBC news site, and when it's mattered I've emailed them and they've updated it (like when they had David Cameron down as an MP in Oxford :0). It's like a really slow, inefficient version of editing Wikipedia... Once you start poking around, you realise you can find most of the sources most media outlets use for most of their stories, and that news is written by fallible writers who misinterpret, make typos and fail to dig far enough or corroborate facts more often than you'd expect. And trust what self-proclaimed 'experts' tell them too often. So yes, BBC news is operating under Wikipedia rules, it's just that becoming an editor is a bit more tricky. Skittle (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Facts on the History of the community of Pudur Dravidians
Would anyone be able to help me to know everything about the these "Pudur Dravidians" who are believed to be be belong to the Pudur village in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh State in India? I am keen to know their background from the begining to the present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chandrasekhar73 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "from the beginning"? Where do you stand on the Darwin heresy? :)  —Tamfang (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Opium and Kubla Kahn
Is there any evidence on the extent to which Samuel Taylor Coleridge's opium addiction influenced the composition of Kubla Kahn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Old Miff (talk • contribs) 12:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kubla_Khan "Coleridge claimed that the poem was inspired by an opium-induced dream (implicit in the poem's subtitle A Vision in a Dream) but that the composition was interrupted by a person from Porlock"
 * http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/stc/Coleridge/poems/notes.html#KublaKhan "..In consequence of a slight indisposition, an anodyne had been prescribed.." from notes by the author "This fragment with a good deal more, not recoverable, composed, in a sort of Reverie brought on by two grains of Opium taken to check a dysentery"
 * It's in the article.87.102.21.171 (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While Coleridge was a heavy opium user I think we must treat his claim that Kubla Khan was inspired by an opium-induced dream with a pinch of salt. While the idea may have come to him in a dream it was probably inspired by the books he had read on the mongol empire. Also his story that he was interrupted (hence the poem is called 'a fragment') seems unlikely when you realise how technically complex the poem is. It is a very musical poem using inclosed assonance, rhyming of inclosed syllables and oscillation to create minor echoes and pattern. It is intricately built and not a fragment at all but 'a vision of creation and destruction, each complete' (Harold Bloom, The Visionary Company p.212) - I would be quite skeptical of Coleridge's claims... Lord Foppington (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that unlikely - though the idea of coleridge 'spicing up' the tale of the creation of the poem is quite attractive, having no insight into his personality.
 * However the opiates (morphine at least) do cause vivid dreams of a fantastical nature - so the idea that use of opiates may have at least inspired him is not without merit. Maybve we have someone here with experience of opium who could comment on whether his tale of creation is at least plausible in terms of its drug use???87.102.2.103 (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Opium? Good heavens, no; of course not-honestly!  Oh, the memories of that Chinaman!  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As others have said, it will never be settled and we have nothing to go on but his word. I don't find it too unlikely however, particularly because of the musicality of the poem. In my experience, music and dreams go together. I would find it harder to believe if the poem was complex in terms of ideas, but clunky in terms of the sound. Skittle (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's really a matter that will never be resolved. The idea, perhaps; the composition, almost certainly not. It's as well always to distrust statements by drug addicts, and Coleridge is no exception here. And as for the Person from Porlock, well, it took another poet to nail that particular fancy to the floor, in words of sympathy from one artist to another;

As the truth is I think he was already stuck

With Kubla Khan...

I am hungry to be interrupted

For ever and ever amen

O Person from Porlock come quickly

And bring my thoughts to an end.

I know how she feels! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

abuse of women, forced fat
I read in a book called, "wake up, I'm fat", a small amount of information about people who prey on women who are slightly overweight and have a low self-esteem. They take them home and fatten them up using things like baby formula and other high calorie foods, then once they are too big to be independent, they dump them and move on starting the whole process again with someone else. I haven't been able to find any other info on it. Can you help? Bonny75.80.86.181 (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a documentary on British TV a few years ago called Fat girls and their feeders. You could try googling that. 86.133.55.238 (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * See also Force-feeding, also known as gavage, which is used on girls in Mauritania before marriage - if they won't co-operate, they are locked up as prisoners and fed until they are plump enough to be wed. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Stalingrad
How come the Germans were caught so completely at the Battle of Stalingrad? Edward Conan (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Partly because of Hitler's "never retreat" fetish. AnonMoos (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fremde Heer Ost Fremde Heere Ost, the branch of German intelligence that dealt with Soviet capabilities and plans, was not always very good at its job. Its biggest failing was that it repeatedly underestimated the size of the Red Army. On 6 November 1942, not long before the beginning of Operation Uranus, FHO confidently announced that the Soviets had the capability to launch just one major operation in the coming winter of 1942–1943, and that the main target would be the 2nd Panzer Army 3rd Panzer Army of Army Group Centre in the region of Rzhev. Now in part this was accurate. The Soviets did plan a major operation, Operation Mars, against Army Group Centre. This opened in early 1943 and was a total failure as the Germans had accurately predicted what was planned.
 * The problem, however, was that in concentrating on the Rzhev sector, the Germans ignored the warning signs in the south. Although the build-up for Operation Uranus was carried out in secrecy, it involved moving very large numbers of men, and tanks, and aeroplanes, and huge mountains of supplies. Although the Germans had no clear idea of the scale, they did know something was happening around Stalingrad. But because all eyes were on the city of Stalingrad, where the 6th Army was inching its way towards final victory, and on Rzhev, nothing much happened.
 * And it's not as if the Germans had many reserves anyway. Even if they had thought something like Operation Uranus was planned, what could they do? Army Group A was bogged down in the North Caucasus, and a retreat to a defensible position would be difficult. Withdrawing Army Group B from Stalingrad and the River Volga to the River Don couldn't happen until Army Group A had moved a long way north of its positions in early November and would have been very difficult to do without heavy loss. As AnonMoos said, Hitler was not likely to agree to a rapid withdrawal - it could easily have become a humiliating rout - to the Don, and certainly not when FHO has said that there is no real danger in the south. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can't see something coming if you refuse to open up your eyes. Actually the article explains the issue quite nicely; the decisive factor was Hitler, and to a lesser degree Goering. The danger of the German Sixth army being trapped and isolated at Stalingrad had been seen by many German generals who advised not to send too many troops into Stalingrad in the 1st place, to reinforce the southern and northern flanks with plenty of troops and equipment, and to make a strategic retreat if necessary. The positions were being guarded by 2nd-rate Romanian, Italian, and Hungarian troops which were low on morale, badly equipped, and ill-trained. However Hitler (aka Marshal Shickelgrueber) refused to listen to their warnings and to make any kind of preparations. As the Soviet troops managed to to overrun the Southern and Northern shores there was still a reasonable chance of pulling off an orderly retreat. However fat drug-addict Goering loudly promised that the Luftwaffe was capable of supplying the encircled troops with everything necessary. Many officers of the Luftwaffe protested and pointed out that this was an impossible task but the Groesster Feldherr Aller Zeiten Adolf Hitler choose rather to listen to his fat friend. The result was that the encircled German troops were slowly starving, running low in ammunition, and freezing to death. Hitler didn't even give Paulus the order to retreat during Operation Wintergewitter. Flamarande (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the answer is simple enough, Edward: the bridgeheads on the western bank of the Don had not been fully cleared, and the flanks of the Sixth Army were held by the weaker Romanian Third Army and Romanian Fourth Army. The Soviets pushed through these hinges with easy, cutting the Germans off in a huge pocket around Stalingrad in a matter of days. A break-out and strategic withdrawal might have been possible at an early stage, when the trap was still soft, so to speak, though it would have been an immensely difficult operation, requiring also the withdrawl of Army Group A from the southern front. It is almost certain that the Germans would have suffered a serious defeat, though not as serious as they suffered by remaining in place.

I note with interest that the old canard that Hitler was known as Schickelgruber has made a fresh appearance. He never was! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When Herr Hitler escaped the bomb on July 21 he described his survival as providential. I think from a purely military point of view we can all agree with him. Certainly it would be most unfortunate if the allies were to be deprived in the closing phases of the struggle of that form of warlike genius by which Corporal Schickelgruber has so notably contributed to our victory. Winston Churchil, Speech in the House, Setember 1944 (inside of Maxims and Reflections of the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill) Flamarande (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC) PS: I fully agree that several of Hitler's decisions helped the Allies immensely.


 * Propaganda is a little like Plutonium: it seems to have a virtually endless Half-life; in some minds at least! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Using the surname "Shickelgruber" when speaking about Hitler is a joke, and was meant as such (and as a little hassling insult) by Churchill. One can always use it in the same fashion as I did. I never seriously said that Hitler was known as Schickelgruber. Flamarande (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sure it was, Flamarande. My comment was aimed at minds perhaps a little less subtle than yours!  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Term for stuff characters do that we don't see, during other parts of their lives
I placed this here because I was uncertain if it belonged in literature or entertainment (TV, movies, etc.) - but it got no real help in the Entertainment section.

Is there a term for the span of time and/or activities that it is normally presumed (by rational readers/viewers, anyway) a character does which are not seen by the reader, or observed by the viewer? It's not out of character - on the contrary, the person is assumed to still behave in character. I don't *think* it's off screen, though it could be; it just sounds weird because this applies to books as well as television - it's just more pronounced on TV becasue we see so little of people's lives. A sitcom, for instance, shows us only 30 minutes out of 168 hours each week that the people lived. A book shows us more, but still not all their waking moments. (Though tightly woven fiction can cover much of a person's day.)

For instance, in "A Christmas Carol," even as meticulous a writer as Charles Dickens doesn't mention a character going to the bathroom, but it's much more obvious that there are no bathrooms visible on board the USS Enterprise in the original Star Trek.

Suspention of disbelief is what you need to presume that people use the facilities in both universes, but that's what readers/viewers use, and I'm talking about the actual acts of going to the bathroom, eating, paying bills, and so on.4.68.248.130 (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

4.68.248.130 (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that what you speak of has a technical term. Your mentioning of A Christmas Carol and Star Trek, however, implies that the reader or viewer believes that what they are reading/watching is real. Also if I were telling a verbal story about a specific event in my life I wouldn't mention what I ate or when I went to the toilet unless it was essential to the plot. Streamlining of the story is important otherwise we would lose interest quickly; the pieces missed out are either accepted or ignored. I hope this helps Lord Foppington (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You might call it an ellipsis. --Lambiam 17:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never quite got around to reading it, but I'm told that Marcel Proust used something like 30 pages to describe merely turning over in bed, in À la recherche du temps perdu. Just imagine if he described every moment of his waking day in such glorious and interminable detail.  It would expand from 7 volumes to 7,000!  Then there's the next day, and another 7,000, and so on.  Writers have to be vicious cherry pickers, and when it comes down to it they leave a HUGE amount of information out - but that's important because it's information that isn't relevant to their story.  I recall the first time (and, indeed, one of the very few times) that I saw a character in a movie sitting on the toilet and engaged in the act of wiping their backside.  It was Jane Fonda in the original (1977) version of Fun with Dick and Jane - and I thought, "Why the heck are they showing us this?".  It was, in fact, utterly irrelevant to the story being depicted, and was just put in there for titillative effect, I suppose.  Something that people would tend to notice (as I did) and tell their friends about (as I'm finally doing now, over 30 years after the event).  I remember next to nothing about the movie now, except for this bit.  So I suppose, for me, Jane wiping her ass has become the story.  Just imagine if Proust had gone into such intimate detail about such matters.  (Maybe not).  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * James Joyce in Ulysses famously goes into the intimate detail you describe JackofOz - Leopold Bloom going to the toilet in the morning, Bloom and Stephen urinating in the back garden etc. I'm not sure such details are relevant to the story but I guess they are relevant to the novel as a whole? Lord Foppington (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed how people on TV or in films never have to go to the toilet? Only very rarely do they do any work. They virtually never watch TV. Clearly, they are not human. 80.0.108.245 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Lambiam. Hmmm, since an ellipsis is the narrative device of omitting it, perhaps the time omitted would best be termed the charcter's "elliptic life." Hey, if this gets around, wikipedia may just get credit for a new word someday. :-) 63.3.19.1 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actors are told their characters' backstory, the previous history that makes the person who they are, before we knew them. As a parallel construction, how about "sidestory" for all that life they live offscreen, simultaneous to our knowledge of them? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, too - a "sidestory" sounds good, too. Of course, the backstory may include mroe thant he actor is told, too - he may be told certain things for not others about his childhood, for instance. But, that could still be part of the backstory.
 * I wonder what the post-fiction life would be called, then - "front story" sounds like something for a coverup. :-) Although, that is where an adjective that goes with "epilogue" would fit well. "Epilogic?"4.68.248.130 (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I edit?
Hi everyone, I'm Iranian living in Argentina, I have seen the article of Age of majority and saw Iran=18. It's wrong, in Iran, the age of majority is 15. Can I edit this? 190.49.116.210 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are allowed to edit anything on here, but if you do not have a valid screen name you cannot log in. It is free to set up an account, though. I only mention this because, for reasons beyond my comprehension, anonymous computers go by different IP addresses, and the IP address changes, seemingly at random. So, you may be blocked from editing only if you are anonymous and the system somehow thinks your IP address is one that did something bad earlier.


 * Then again, maybe that's only a problem with America Online users like myself.209.244.30.221 (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you change the information in the article, please explain the edit briefly in the edit summary window, and please note a reference or reliable source for the information. It would be great if you would establish a screen name ((could be a nickname or other screen name other than your own). Thanks for contributing. Edison (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

British throne taken by monarch from elsewhere - what happens?
I read the query about the British royal family from Nov. 2, 2007, so I'm somewhat educated about how Parliament might act, etc.; my question deals with the specifics between countries if the monarch of one should happen to become monarch of another - using Great Britain as a sort of guide. Harald V of Norway is only 62nd in line to the throne of Britain, as noted in the article.

So, trying to stay off the hypothetical, is there a plan in place? Would Parliament get involved and decide if Harald should remain king? Parliament would have to act if he were to then abdicate, I know from the earlier query. But, it does seem like that's what would be most prudent - since Harald's children are next, he would probably just let one of them become reigning monarch of Great Britain, and the other reigning monarch of Norway. I mean, I doubt that Britain and Norway wound engage in an act of union at this point. (Though it would be an interesting way to seal Britain's total submission to the European Union, if they were to combine with Norway.)209.244.30.221 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Norway is not a member state of the EU. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

209.244, I think you should understand that a monarch of one country becoming the monarch of another country does not necessarily entail political union between the two. Between 1603 and 1649 and then again between 1660 and 1707 Scotland and England had the same monarchs but still continued to have a separate political existence. Similarly, between 1714 and 1837 the kings of Great Britain were also the Dukes of Hanover, though the two were entirely separate political entities. It might also be of interest to you that Norway was joined with Sweden for almost a hundred years in what was purely a personal union.

On the wider point Parliament would have to give its consent to any constitutional changes. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How can there be constitutional changes when there is no written constitution? Edison (talk) 04:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Edison, the UK has a constitution, however its an unwritten one. I'm guessing that the monarchy falls under this. Furthermore the Commonwealth realms would have to approve any personal union between the UK and Norway. - Thanks, Hoshie 06:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about that last comment, Hoshie? If all the others dropped dead and Harald V became the legitimate heir of QE2, then surely the law says he becomes King Harald of the UK at the moment of her death.  The realms have no say about that, just as they have no say about Charles being the current heir.  If it just so happens that the next UK monarch is already the monarch of another country, then a personal union is simply an effect of the law and can't be undone except by an amending law.  --  JackofOz (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My last comment comes from two articles that I remember reading, namely Statute of Westminster 1931 and Queen's Privy Council for Canada. If I read the germane sections correctly, it seems in my mind that a foreign monarch ascending to the British Throne would be such a moment. This is my own speculation, so if I made a logical error, I'm sorry for the mix up. - Thanks, Hoshie 08:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's easy to get confused. The Statute of Westminster said that "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom".  The abdication of Edward VIII was such a case because kings cannot abdicate unilaterally but require the law to be changed to permit them.  However the legitimate accession of Harald V of Norway as King Harald III (?) of the UK and Northern Ireland, not to mention King of Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Canada and all the others, is not a case of an alteration in the law, but of its culmination.  Now, if it were considered just too damn odd to have a Norwegian reigning over Jamaica, and the Jamaicans wanted to choose somebody else closer to home, they'd have to either first withdraw from the Commonwealth, or get the agreement of all the other realms to changing the Law of Succession.  --  JackofOz (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, Edward the Confessor isn't counted in the numbering, so I don't suppose either of the previous Harolds would be. Here's another funny thought – The name under which a monarch names may be new, e.g. the grandfather of the chap in question changed his name from Karl (of Denmark) to Håkon. Is there any precedent, in crown unions, for a monarch reigning under two different names, thus "Harald V of Norway alias Alexander IV of GBNI"?  —Tamfang (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To say the British constitution is "unwritten" is an exaggeration. Many written Acts are constitutional in substance, in the sense of defining how the state is organized and run – though they can be changed by a new Act of Parliament, unlike the US Constitution, whose amendment requires extra-legislative procedure, such as appointing judges to rationalize any violations.  —Tamfang (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tamfang, I stand corrected on the above. However you are a bit off on amendments are made to the US Constitution. They can ether be proposed by Congress or by a convention called by the states. They are ratified by the state legislatures or by conventions called the states. For more see Article Five of the United States Constitution or here. In short, adding an amendment to the US Constitution does not require a judge's input. - Thanks, Hoshie 05:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You describe the official procedure. (To pick a nit: the amending convention is not "called by the States", but by Congress when N states so demand.)  I described the more usual practice, with an attempt at humor.  I could have said: the US Constitution is amended by declaration that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" (with which I'd agree, though with implications opposite to what is customarily meant) or "The Founders could not have foreseen this or that" (which is why they wrote Article V). &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Clio, I had thought that only shortly before 1707 did England and Sctoland have the same monarch. Interesting stuff. 63.3.19.1 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The UK already shares a monarch with several other countries, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and it doesn't make much difference to the political situation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I talked this over with a friend who knows such matters, and he said that in essence, a personal union would arise normally; the countries would share a king but would be separate countries as were England and Scotland before they were united (and similar to the UK and Canada now, although they used to be more closely linked). The sovereignty should in theory pass instantly (or at the speed of light, if you prefer your technicalities to make physical sense) at the moment of death to the next heir. However, there is a problem in this particular case, which is that apparently Sweden's constitution forbids the monarch to be sovereign of another country without parliamentary permission. He wasn't quite sure what would practically happen in such a case; presumably he'd be king of both illegally until the Swedish parliament allowed it or told him to abdicate. D  aniel  (‽) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Women in the 18th century
Where can I find literature or information about womens status in the 18th century? - Kittybrewster  &#9742;  19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Vivien Jones (ed.), Women in the Eighteenth Century: Constructions of Femininity (Routledge, 1990) is an excellent collection of essays on the subject Lord Foppington (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My goodness, there is so much! On the assumption, Kittybrewster, it is the status of women in England at the time that you are interested in, I would add the following to Lord Foppington's recommendations, in just the order they come into my head;


 * Women in England, 1760-1914 by Susie Steinbach.


 * Wives and Daughters: Women and Children in the Georgian Country House by Joanna Martin


 * Women in England, 1500-1760:A Social History by Anne Lawrence


 * Disorderly Women in Eighteenth-Century London: Prostitution and the Metropolis by Tony Henderson


 * Living by the Pen: Women Writers in the Eighteenth Century by Cheryl Turner


 * Women, Work and Sexual Politics in Eighteenth-Century England by Bridget Hill


 * The Autobiographical Subject: Gender and Ideology in Eighteenth Century England by Martha Nussbaum


 * Women and Urban Life in Eighteenth-Century England: On the Town by Rosemary Sweet and Penelope Lane


 * Consuming Subjects: British Women and Consumer Culture in the Eighteenth Century by Elizabeth Kowaleski-Wallace


 * The Invisible Woman: Aspects of Women's Work in Eighteenth Century Britain edited by J Carre, I Baudino and C Revauger


 * Gender in Eighteenth Century England: Roles, Representations and Responsibilities edited by H Barker and E Chalus

Phew! I could go on but I think that is quite enough. If you have any energy left you might wish to dip into some contemporary literature; and here I can think of no better guide than Jane Austen. There is also Alexander Pope's satirical Epistle to Miss Blount, published in 1760, which laments the plight of a country lady;

She went, to plain-work, and to purling brooks,

Old-fashioned halls, dull aunts, and croaking rooks:

She went from opera, park, assembly, play,

To morning-walks, and prayers three hours a day,

To pass her time 'twixt reading and Bohea,

To muse, and spill her solitary tea,

Or o'er cold coffee trifle with a spoon;

Count the slow clock, and dine exact at noon;

Divert her eyes with pictures in the fire,

Hum half a tune, tell stories to the squire;

Up to her godly garret after seven,

There starve and pray, for that's the wav to heaven.

Clio the Muse (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Very nice, Clio. The line "Divert her eyes with pictures in the Are" intrigues me.  It seems to be out of place in the rhyming sequence.  And what's "the Are"?  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For Are read fire (is this an OCR error?). Algebraist 02:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ha! Ha! Yes, it is.  Well spotted, Jack!  It was a pure and simple typo, now corrected!  Clio the Muse (talk)

Churchill and Russia
When and under what circumstances did Winston Churchill discover that Hitler planned to invade Russia? What action did he take? Sal Coats (talk) 21:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The internet says April 1941 Churchill warned Stalin of an invasion threat. The information came from decoded german military intelligence transmissions.87.102.2.103 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Over the winter of 1940 and into the spring of 1941 Hitler had been building up his forces on the Soviet border in preparation for Operation Barbarossa. Before any attack could be mounted he had to secure his southern flank in the Balkans, which meant, amongst other things, drawing Yugoslavia into the Tripartite Pact. To exert as much pressure as possible three German panzer divisions in Poland were moved to the Balkans. After the Yugoslavs gave way on March 25 they were ordered back to their original positions. But following the Belgrade coup of 27 March, Hitler immediately countermanded these instructions in preparation for the Invasion of Yugoslavia. Hitler's order had been sent by a top-secret radio message, intercepted by British Intelligence at Bletchley Park. As soon as it was decrypted it was sent to Churchill, who at once understood the significance of the movements, not just for the attack on Yugoslavia but for the solid indications it provided that Russia was becoming a clear target. He at once sent the information to Stalin, saying, "Your Excellency will readily appreciate the significance of these facts." Fully aware of the dire prospects for England of a Soviet collapse he gave further instructions that all future intelligence of this nature be immediately forwarded to Stalin. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Who demanded 1914 borders in east of Germany in German political scene after World War 2
I just found this election poster and I wondered if SPD demanded 1914 post-war ? I did heard that organisations of transfered Germans did make such claims but this poster of SPD clearly shows Germany in 1914 borders. 

The poster is from a webpage showing election posters in 1949-65 in Germany.

Did SPD called for 1914 border in the East looking at the poster ? What other organisations called for such border ?--Molobo (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For many years the SPD, along with other political parties in the Federal Republic of Germany, refused to recognise Russian and Polish occupation of the lands to the east of the Oder-Neisse Line, pushing for a return to the pre-war border of 1937-the Versailles border. So far as I am aware they never promoted a return to the border of 1914, a rather extreme revanchist position.  There are two possibilities with that map.  First, and most unlikely, it is simply an over-liberal application of the printer's yellow ink!  Second, the poster has been misdated and was actually published in the old Kaiserreich.  The fact that the print is partially in Gothic script would, on the face of it, seem to support such a conjecture, as this type-face was abandoned after the Second World War.  I was slightly reluctant to suggest this on the assumption that the people who organised this display presumably had some degree of expertise in the matter.  But I can think of nothing else.  Clio the Muse (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't Hitler get rid of Gothic script in 1940-41?,  ,  , . Edison (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a Socialist poster. Perhaps they were using the Fraktur script to prove their distance from Nazism. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Gothic script (Fraktur / Schwabacher) was, though infrequently, used after WWII. Hermann Hesse insisted on his books to be printed using the font and a major paper,the FAZ, used a sort of Fraktur typeface for headers until quite recently.
 * I suggest that the usage of this particular font was indeed a subtle attempt to imply the continuance of pre-war Germany. Bear in mind that the division of Germany at that time was considered to be a temporary situation, as, for instance, was the case in Austria where the occupied sectors were reunited in 1955. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Cookatoo, you seem to be missing the point. What you have written, moreover,  is only partially true.  Yes, the division of Germany into three-subsequently four- occupation zones was considered to be a temporary arrangement, just like the Austrian divisions.  However, the movement of the Polish border westwards to the Oder-Neisse Line was to be  permanent, a decision the leading Allied powers had taken at the Yalta Conference, though there was to be much subsequent disagreement on the precise line of the border.  Stalin made recognition of the Oder-Neisse Line a condition of allowing the Soviet Zone of Occupation, now the German Democratic Republic, to re-enter a fully unified Germany, a condition turned down by Konrad Adenauer, first Chancellor of the Federal Republic.  For years after, all of the German political parties in the west were united in calling for a return of the territories lost to Poland and the Soviet Union, all of those areas within the 1937 borders; namely East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia and parts of eastern Brandenburg.  And so it continued, until Willy Brandt began his Ostpolitik.  In 1970 he concluded the Treaty of Moscow and the Treaty of Warsaw, giving final recognition to the Oder-Neisse Line.


 * However, this is getting far away from the essential point at issue. The map in question shows the borders of the old Second Reich, the Germany of Kaiser Bill, borders that existed in 1914 prior to the First World War, not the Second.  I cannot for a moment believe that the Social Democrats, at any stage in their political career, were calling for a restoration of the Kaiserreich, which, as I have said, would imply the deepest forms of revanchism.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to see, but it looks to me like the yellow map is missing Alsace-Lorraine, so it is not exactly the old Kaiserreich, but a chimera composed of bits of the borders of the late Second Reich and bits of the borders of the Weimar Republic. If I'm right, the dating 1949–1965 must be correct. Curious. --Lambiam 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure, Lambian. West Prussia is certainly included, and that slightly rounded edge to the western border also suggests the inclusion of Alsace-Lorraine.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Deutsches_Reich1.png  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First time you are not completely right, Clio. In fact Lambian is right. The map does not include Alsace-Lorraine. It shows the current south-west german rhineborder, exsisting since Versailles. You will find a lot of german afterwar maps that include the lost eastern territories (after Versailles) with the text "under polish administration" implying that this is temporary. The new system for numbers and abreviations on license plates even were planned leaving room for additional ones for these territories. Germany didn´t relinquish it´s claims officialy until 1990. This was an important political question for the wast number of refugees (up to 14 Millions until 1950) of formerly german territories from the east. Those people were organized and did massive lobbying. Having even an own ministry . So parties had to make concessions to that. Strange enough this never caused as much trouble as now (Erika Steinbach) that those people have lost all political power (due to natural causes) and are basicaly no political factor anymore.--Tresckow (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Tresckow; that was very useful. I don't want to belabour the point, but I have to say-and I know the scale does not help to make it absolutely clear-but that slightly rounded edge suggests to me the border of 1914, rather than the more angular post-Versailles border.  But let that pass.  I'm still puzzled, though.  Are you saying that the SPD was, in fact, laying a nominal claim to those territories lost to Poland in 1918-19 as late as the 1950s?  Surely the Treaty of Final Settlement and the subsequent German Polish Border Treaty only relates to the territories east of the Oder-Neisse Line, lost in 1945?  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)