Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 November 4

= November 4 =

Hiroshima apology?
Have americans ever publicly apologized to japanese for Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? like the senate did for slavery Kooz (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The US Government certainly hasn't. The prevailing opinion in US government and military circles seems to be that the bombings were a necessary evil (when compared to the invasion of Japan) so I don't think any such apology is likely any time soon. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, in population in general, some 60% of Americans still think Hiroshima was "the right thing" to do. Only 1 in 5 think it was "the wrong thing" to do. (The rest are undecided.) So says a recent poll, anyway. Polls, of course, aren't everything. But it is a pretty common sentiment in the US that there is nothing to apologize for—that the Japanese "brought it on themselves" (Pearl Harbor, etc.), that it was "necessary to end the war", that it "saved millions of American lives," and other common phrases (the veracity of which have been in debate since they were first suggested, but that's a totally separate question, and one in which we have a nice, long article on). --Mr.98 (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I will check the news archives. I would like to start looking in the year that the U.S. received Japan's apology for the Pearl Harbor attack. Anyone know when that was sent? It had not happened by 1991, the 50th anniversary of the attack. Edison (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of people across Asia who would feel quite offended by a US apology for the nuclear attacks... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? TomorrowTime (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In Korea, for example, the nuclear attacks are seen as a Very Good thing, because it stopped the Japanese, who had taken over their country rather brutally. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In WWII Japan invaded China in the Second Sino-Japanese War. Millions and millions of Chinese were killed, most notably as a result of Unit 731s activities and in the Nanking Massacre.
 * I realise that, but saying that the death of thousands of civilians is something that an apology for would be offensive just seems... petty, to say the least. Surely you can see that if a Japanese person said they would be offended by an official governmental apology for Nanking, Unit 731 and any other in the long, long line of atrocities they commited during WWII, that would be the worst possible stance to take. (And yes, I do know that Japan started the war - I just think that for instance the school children that died in the H-bomb attacks had little to do with that.) TomorrowTime (talk) 10:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Many countries (including many in the US, but also in Asia) saw the A-bomb (not H-bomb) as that which ended the war and Japan's ability to occupy their lands. They saw it as a generally good thing. (As for civilians... that's a bigger debate. The Japanese did not care about the civilian/military distinction very much, and neither did, frankly, anyone else in the war when it came to bombings. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed - the European theatre involved lots of attacks on civilians. No single attack comparable to the nuclear attacks on Japan, of course, but the total numbers of civilian deaths aren't entirely dissimilar. --Tango (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those numbers (from 1991) are quite interesting. I'm surprised by this part: "...only 16 percent of Americans favoring an apology. The proportion of Americans who would favor apologizing for Hiroshima rose to a total of 50 percent if Japan apologized for Pearl Harbor, however." That's quite a jump! I am surprised at the number of Americans who (at least in 1991) would have be fine with an apology if the Japanese apologized first. I would not have expected that to matter much, but I guess it does (or did). --Mr.98 (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should American apologize? War means retaliative death.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not get into an argument over whether they should or not, or whether Hiroshima was justified, and etc. If you really have no clue, read the article I linked to about the debate. Nobody on this board is going to say anything new in that regard, and we don't need to start an endless debate. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Negative view in U.S. multiculturalism
How is multiculturalism is view in United States in negative way? How about in a positive way? is there any websites that deals with this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.32 (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See Multiculturalism and Criticism of multiculturalism, for starters. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For a negative, I'd say that multiculturalism can be viewed as reverse discrimination -- sort of a bad thing from the perspective of those who are not part of the overemphasized cultures.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 02:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are confusing multiculturalism with affirmative action. They are not the same thing at all. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen presentations of multiculturalism that emphasize strategies that could be called reverse discrimination without being affirmative action, e.g. they've claimed that multiple studies have demonstrated that minority children perform better on standardized tests if there are images of members of their minority group present in the room. The implied actionable outcome of such studies is that we ought to have more images of minority members present in the school room. To many majority group members, this is viewed as reverse discrimination since wall space is a scarce commodity (placement of an image of say a prominent black figure will likely replace a prominent white figure) and they view the reason for the placement of the minority group member's image does not solely depend on that member's accomplishments, but a combination of their accomplishments and their race. The integral connection between the race of the individual and their presence on the classroom's wall is therefore viewed as reverse discrimination. I am not advocating any position here (and do not wish to debate the pros and cons of multiculturalism as some amorphous blob), just pointing out it may not due to confusion over issues that multiculturalism is viewed as reverse discrimination.--droptone (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I think you're conflating something else with multiculturalism. There are criticisms of multiculturalism, to be sure, but that it is reverse discrimination is not really one of them. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For cultural non-members to be socially coerced into celebration of cultural heritage or significance is dicriminatory, albeit politically correct.  DRosenbach  ( Talk 18:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ...Um, no. There is no actual discrimination taking place. No one is being denied anything. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ... what? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you're against a single culture having social or official weight behind it so that cultural non-members are socially coerced into celebration of it? Like Christmas and Easter? Or are you against other cultures having their celebrations mentioned? 86.142.224.71 (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Negative view in Canada multiculturalism
How is multiculturalism is view in Canada in positive way and negative way separate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.32 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Essay questions are intended to assess your own grip on the material. The Reference desk can't write your essay.--Wetman (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's assume good faith and refer the questioner to the responses to his or her question above. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Multiculturalism in Canada would presumably be the best place to start. If you are a Canadian high school student, you will have also learned the myth of the Canadian Mosaic. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would invite you to visit Richmond or Surrey before you dismiss it wholly as a myth. Vranak (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkic World in Toronto
Is there any Kazakh community, Turkmen community, Uzbek community and Kyrgyz community in Toronto according to 2001 and 2006 Canada Census? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.32 (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's Statistics Canada's census pages. The data should be there; I don't have time to look right now. -- Flyguy649 talk 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See also City of Toronto demographics - you can browse ward by ward for ethnocultural profiles. There's also an Uzbek restaurant in Toronto: . Best, WikiJedits (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

John II's nephew?
Something is amiss. In the article on John II, Count of Holland it says Floris V, Count of Holland is the nephew of John II. In the article on Adelaide of Holland it says Floris V is her nephew. Adelaide is the mother of John II. Explain please.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Floris V is the son of William II of Holland, who was Adelaide's brother. Thus he is definately her nephew.  Since John II is Adelaide's son, that would make Floris V the son of his mother's brother, and thus his first cousin, at least in THAT family.  It is entirely possible that Floris could also have been John II's nephew on the other side of the family.  John I of Avesnes, John II's father, had only one brother that I can find, one Baldwin; that would mean that Floris would have had to have been Baldwin's son in order to be considered John II's nephew on that side of the family.  However, we know this not to be so.  It looks as though the article may be in error unless someone else can come up with a better explanation.  -- Jayron  32  14:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I just thought of another possibility. If this article, or some of its source material, had been translated from another language, it may be using the word "nephew" in a more general sense.  In many dialects of English, for example, "Cousin" can be a general term from any blood relative not otherwise described by a different name.  The term Cardinal-nephew for example, does not mean that the person so designated was the actual son of the Cardinal's brother/sister; merely an undesignated relative of the Cardinal.  So, the term nephew in this case could be being used generally as "relative" rather than specifically as "sibling's son".  -- Jayron  32  21:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be proper then for someone at this point to change "nephew" to "cousin", since it looks like that was the intent? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed "nephew" to "cousin" for Floris V in the article on John II, Count of Holland as that appears to be more correct.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Floris V, Count of Holland
Part 1: If Floris V's father was William II of Holland, then who was his mother (spouse of William II)? Why did Floris have to go under guardenship of Adelaide of Holland when has father was killed in 1256 when he was two years old? Was not his mother around? What was her name? Officially married to William II?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Part 2: If Adelaide of Holland was Floris' guardian from 1258-1263, I assume his uncle was his guardian from 1254-1258. THEN, who was his guardian between 1263 and 1266 when he came of age? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Part 3: Did Floris V have another name he was born with before he got this title? If so, then when were the names changed? Apparently Floris IV was his grandfather, correct?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * For details on Floris's genealogy, have a look at this site. His mother, to whom William II was married on 25 Jan 1252, was Elizabeth of Brunswick-Luneburg, who died 27 May 1266. According to the biography there, "Floris was born on 24 June 1254, the son of Willem II, count of Holland, who was elected German king (emperor-elect) in 1248, and was killed in battle in 1256 by the Frisians when Floris was just two years old. First his uncle Floris 'de Voogd' acted as his regent. When the latter was accidentally killed at a tournament in 1258, his aunt Aleida became regent of Holland from 1258 until the Battle of Reimerswaal (fought over custody of Holland) in 1263, when Otto II, count of Gelre served as his guardian until Floris was considered capable of administrating Holland himself. In 1266 Floris was declared to be of age when only twelve years old." As to why his mother was not regent, I have no idea, but it's not all that uncommon for a regent not to be a parent.

The relationships between Floris V and his 3 regents (Otto II of Gelre was a cousin):

1  Otto I, Graaf van Gelre  b. Abt 1150 d. Aft 30 Apr 1207 & Richardis von Scheyern-Wittelsbach b. Abt 1173 d. 7 Dec 1231
 * 2  Gerhard, Graaf van Gelre  b. Abt 1185 d. 22 Oct 1229 & Margareta of Brabant  d. 5 May 1231
 * 3  Otto II, Graaf van Gelre  b. Abt 1215 d. 10 Jan 1271 &  Margareta von Kleef  d. 10 Sep 1251
 * 2  Aleida van Gelre  b. Abt 1187 d. 4 Feb 1218 &  Willem I, Graaf van Holland 1203-1222 b. est 1170 d. 4 Feb 1222
 * 3  Floris IV, Graaf van Holland 1222-1234  b. 24 Jun 1210 d. 19 Jul 1234 &  Machteld of Brabant  d. 22 Dec 1267
 * 4  Willem II, Graaf van Holland 1234-1256, Emperor-Elect  b. 19 Jul 1227/3 October 1227 Leiden d. 28 Jan 1256 &  Elisabeth von Braunschweig-Lüneburg  d. 27 May 1266
 * 5  Floris V, Graaf van Holland 1256-1296  b. 24 Jun 1254 d. 27 Jun 1296
 * 4  Floris 'the Regent', Regent of Holland 1256-1258  b. Abt 1228 d. 26 Mar 1258
 * 4  Aleida van Holland  b. est 1230 d. 1 Mar 1284/9 April 1284 & Jan I d'Avesnes, Count of Hainault b. Apr 1218 d. 24 Dec 1257

- Nunh-huh 10:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Nunh-huh for the information. Now I know his uncle was Floris 'de Voogd' and Otto II of Gelre was a cousin. Did not know it's not all that uncommon for a regent not to be a parent, so that answers that. His mother, Elizabeth of Brunswick-Luneburg who died in 1266, might be the reason why he became "of age" so young at the age of twelve in 1266. Great information!--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Part 3: Did Floris V have a birth name other than this and if so when did he take on this "official" name?--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

John I of Avesnes
The article on John I of Avesnes says ...John and his brother Baldwin undertook to receive imperial recognition of their legitimacy and did so from the Emperor Frederick II in March 1243. Is there details anywhere as to what it took for John I to get his legal rights for inheritance that happened in 1243? What procedure and how often did he have to see Emperor Frederick II before he was intitled to his legal rights? John I of Avesnes died in 1257. John II, his son, ultimately became Count of Hainaut and Count of Holland, through his mother since he ultimately had legal rights to inheritance, in 1299 upon the death of Floris V's son.--Christie the puppy lover (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a bit of plagiarism from Genealogics' page on John, which has used since 1997 the same phrase added here on 17:03, 8 July 2006. (I've added the page now as a source rather than allow the plagiarism to continue.) Anyway, that page doesn't have the details you ask for, but does have subsequent historical details. - Nunh-huh 10:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

did Hitler know allied countries would consider his murderous actions evil?
did Hitler know that the allied powers would think his murderous actions (specifically concentration camps) would be evil? If so, why didn't he "get rid" of the people he murdered by just shipping them somewhere instead, dumping them on an allied power's lawn like the police in rich neighborhoods will sometiems take the homeless and dump them in the slums just to get rid of them. Sorry for the naivete of the question, but I just don't see why Hitler or the Germans wouldn't have anticipated how evil their murderous concentration camps would make them seem in the eyes of other countries, even if they were total psychos who felt no remorse over the action itself. Even a cold, calculating psychopath knows how certain actions that don't bother his conscious personally would make him seem in the eyes of others, and so avoids doing those things. Why didn't Hitler avoid murderous concenctration camps based on the same principles, even if he didn't actually have anything like a conscience? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.146.7 (talk) 14:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There were early discussions, continuing from the 1930's through 1940, of moving the Jews to some small and inhospitable country such as Madagascar, rather than killing them. The colonies of conquered European powers could be used for resettlement. Himmler wrote that "the physical eradication of a people" was a bolshevik behavior and un-German. Establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was discussed by the Nazi leaders but rejected.This was seen as something to be done after the war, since transport overseas for 4 million  or more people would have been difficult in wartime, with the superiority of the British navy. Edison (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Was the assumption that England would... attack the transport ships? ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 15:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That would not matter, what would matter is that those ships would not be able to be used for moving war materials and troops if it were carrying refugees. Googlemeister (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even when they had an inkling they were losing they wanted Germany to have no Jews after the war. They were driven by efficiency considerations in carrying out their aims, not by fear of the allies. Dmcq (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

you've answered half my question, guys, but you didn't address a kind of basis I had for the question, which I also put in questuon form: did Hitler and the Germans think that the allies would consider their murderous camps 'evil' (obviously they themselves did not, or they wouldn't have done it). 85.181.146.7 (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I have no support for my belief, I would believe that Hitler thought the rest of the world would have thought it evil, or he would not have tried so hard to keep it secret. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking about this, I'm not sure that German has a word that is quite equivalent to the English word evil. The German words that could carry this meaning, böse and übel, don't have the same intensity, I think, because they have other, less intense meanings.   For example, böse means naughty or morally bad.  When a child is scolded, he may be told that he has been böse.  Übel means nasty or offensive, such as a foul smell.  I think that neither concept may have the same absolute quality as our evil, such that a German would feel shame or recoil from the thought that others might consider their actions böse or übel in the way that an English speaker would react to the thought that another person might consider his or her action "evil".  As for why the final solution was kept secret, I don't think that we have to include Allied reaction as one of the reasons.  I think that the Nazis were probably more concerned about destroying their legitimacy among elements of the German population who might be offended, such as liberals (in the European sense of the word) and devout Christians who weren't also anti-Semites.  Marco polo (talk) 17:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Marco polo, your knowledge of the German language is sadly... lacking. Try 'schlecht', 'krimminel', 'verbrecherisch' (especially the last one, comes from the the term 'Verbrechen') before jumping to certain conclusions. To be honest your idea that the Germans were somehow unable to feel the same degree of "shame or recoil" because their vocabulary is a bit different only shows that you know precious little about the German language and people in general. Flamarande (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Once they found the war in the east was unlikely to be won, the SS went to great lengths to exhume corpses already buried and incinerate them.Alansplodge (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Amory - the RAF did in fact attack and sink a shipload of 7,000 concentration camp prisoners in 1945 - not our finest hour.Alansplodge (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Nazis cared (ed: as far as the moral justification of genocide goes) whether other countries thought the death camps were evil. Any dedicated Nazi who supported the death camps would presumably label critics as "Jew-sympathizers" and therefore not worth listening to.  Have you read the Untermensch article?  Under that philosophy, many Nazis thought genocide was OK.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They hid what was really happening from the Red Cross inspections. They cared what other countries thought of them even if only for selfish reasons ("if the other countries discover what we are doing they will redouble their efforts to fight us - and use the concentration/extermination camps as justification and propaganda"). Flamarande (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. For some reason I had interpreted the OP's question along the lines of, "The Nazis should have realized it was evil and stopped due to the probable reaction of other countries", which is not what the OP was asking.  Sorry.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that they incinerated corpses not out of shame but for sanitary reasons. Thousands of corpses decomposing in pits at Maidanek were probably considered a public health issue.  I don't think that the Nazi command began to accept until well into 1944 the likelihood of defeat, but the use of crematoria began well before then.  Marco polo (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but have a look at this and and  and .Alansplodge (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The high command was aware that they were in serious trouble after the battle of Stalingrad and after D-day, at the latest, they knew that they had lost the war. You have to realize that Hitler and his inner circle were the true power and they weren't not interested in surrendering.Flamarande (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the original questions is: "Yes, he knew and that's one of the reasons he tried to hide it. However he believed that he would win the war and therefore his efforts to conceal it were not enough. If Hitler had won the war the Holocaust would be probably erased from all records and all evidence would have been destroyed." Flamarande (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to know whether Hitler knew it or not that the Allies would consider it evil. There is evidence to the contrary. Indeed, Hitler expected anyone to hate the Jews as much as he did. Equally, it is not possible to know if most Germans believed they would win the war. Considering that they expedited their efforts to kill more and more Jews towards the end of the war, there is also here evidence to the contrary. If they thought they would win the war, the annihilation of Jews - and other people - would not be an urgent task.Quest09 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC).
 * Hitler knew very well that the allies (and I dare to say the majority of Germans) would be horrified by the final solution. Why do you think it was done in (relative) secret and in a need-to-know basis? Why did they use excuses like "deportation" and "transfer to the East"? If Hitler truly believed that everybody else hated the Jews as much as he did he would do it in the open. Please read carefully what I wrote: I never wrote that most Germans believed that they would win. I wrote that Hitler believed that he would win the war (there is a major diff between the two, you know?). Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Concentration camps were by no means secret - even if the details were secret - the German government used the concentration camps to terrorize its opponents (communists, socialists, Jews). It was a collective effort that required the cooperation of many thousand people and the passivity of many millions. Furthermore, I didn't say you suggested "German believed they would win the war." I simply don't draw a wall between the German government and the German people, since I am not German and I am free to believe that Hitler was a product of the masses. Of course, there is an alternative view to this. Some historians do believe that history is shaped by the actions of great men (in the sense of influential). However, I stay by the side of Herbert Spencer who believed that "that attributing historical events to the decisions of individuals was a hopelessly primitive, childish, and unscientific position."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quest09 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So the concentration camps weren't secret but only their details? Well, it is all about the details. You are certainly free to believe what you want to believe, but please notice that the reasoning of Herbert Spencer fails to explain Jesus, Muhammad, and Gengis Khan (and many others). Leaders matter; they might require certain circumstances but they have a decisive influence upon history. Flamarande (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel that I stand corrected. It does seem that there was a campaign to conceal directed by Himmler. @ Flamarande, I was thinking to myself, "Wait a minute, the word evil doesn't have a direct translation in German."  So maybe the Nazis wouldn't understand what it would mean to foreigners to see them as evil.  I agree that it was a bit of a myopic thought.  A phrase like böse und verbrecherisch would probably have an intensity similar to the English evil.  I didn't mean to imply that all Germans lack a moral sense (though clearly the Nazis were gravely deficient).  Marco polo (talk) 02:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, just be more careful with such conclusions. The Nazis (and Hitler in particular) were fanatics; they believed that "a Greater Germany, a Jew-free Europe, and the destruction of Communism" was a heroic ideal, worthy of every sacrifice. Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe Marco polo has a valid point here: your native language makes you construe the world under a different perspective. If for example, you lack a word like "Nibelungentreue", a word meaning intense loyalty and with historical and cultural connotations, you probably would have more difficulties expressing that you demand "Nibelungentreue" from your followers. Quest09 (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * you're right, but there's a more pressing reason I can't communicate that to my followers. 85.181.150.186 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But your native language will (almost) assuredly have similar expressions (the English equivalent would be: "absolute loyalty unto death" - or something similar). And we are not dealing with a people and culture from completely alien culture. We are dealing with a people sharing the same Christian/Western morals. There are some (minor) differences between a German and a British or a French but all of them know what is wrong and what is right (under the Christian/Western POV). What is a crime against humanity and what isn't. You might argue that the average Japanese soldier (during WWII) had a different world-perspective "Serve the emperor (a true living god), fight until death, death before dishonour, etc) but not the average German soldier. Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but we're talking about Germans here, not some sort of isolated tribe... they certainly know right from wrong, and have concepts to express how horrible and uncivilized people can be. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Each people has different ways of defining what is right and wrong. And each one have different ways of evaluating things. If you trust the highest authority, and this authority is wrong, as was the case of the Germans, then you'll get a big mass of people committed to a destructive enterprise. If you were taught to question authority and to be skeptical, you won't get that amount of momentum.--80.58.205.99 (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But most European/Western cultures/peoples share the same basic principles and morals (there are certainly some diffs but they share the same basics ideas). And yes the majority of Germans would/will rather obey the lawful authority, especially during wartime. Don't ever forget that it was war, and during wartime the majority of us will stand united behind the (rightful) government (unless it is a full-scale civil war - in that case you will fight for your own side). Flamarande (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, most peoples share the same basic principles. That makes the III Reich even more appalling. Individual Germans could come to the conclusion that what was happening was wrong. Nonetheless, Germans were astonishing passive as their society turned into a machine of destruction. And not only of Jews, but of many other groups, added to the material destruction and the irreparable destruction of culture. Quest09 (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes the III Reich so appalling and, quite frankly, so interesting. Remember that some individual Germans tried to stop it. However the majority of us will obey the rightful and lawful GOVERMENT (passivly or not). Especially during wartime; most of us will stand behind it and support it.
 * And it isn't a case of "German exceptionalism" (granted: they went much further than anyone else). The decision of the US goverment to put its own citizens of "enemy orgins" into concentration camps was also obeyed. Who knows how further it could have gone? Flamarande (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The German people as a group could be said to have been "passive" about what was going on; but for many, perhaps most, individuals, the reason they didn't do anything was that they were afraid, and rightly so, that any counter-action on their part would mean death not just for themselves but for their entire families and various others they were associated with. It's one thing to risk your own life in a noble cause; but nobody has the right to risk the lives of others, particularly people for whose welfare they have a responsibility.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)The question and some answers may share to some degree a misconception. There is no question that the Allies knew of the exterminations and condemned them during the war. See note 45 of this 1944 book by Raphael Lemkin. Hitler simply didn't care. From his POV, he was defending Germany from the Jews and Allies who had evilly embroiled Germany in another war, and was punishing what malefactors he could, as he had announced in a famous speech before the war.John Z (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please notice that the book was written in November of 1944 (the war was already in its final stages). I read the note (45) and it doesn't mention the knowledge and condemnation of the allies at all. Some government officials (of the Allies) knew about it, but many more didn't believe the reports. Your statement that "Hitler simply didn't care" is faulty (we could even say that it is OR). Hitler hid what was happing inside the camps. His reasons were selfish: "if the other countries discover what we are doing they will redouble their efforts to fight us - and use the concentration/extermination camps as justification and propaganda", but he cared just enough to hide it.


 * Read the article Holocaust: "The BBC and The New York Times published material from the Vrba-Wetzler report [only] on June 15 and June 20, 1944". It can be argued that Hitler's efforts to hide the extermination were largely successful from 1938 until late 1944. Flamarande (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Lemkin's note refers to a statement that was published by the allied governments in December 1942. Here is the front page article in the New York Times on it. See also this. I used it because a while ago it was the only free source on the net for the full statement, haven't checked more recently (The linked version of Lemkin has a typo, 1943 for 1942). Are you looking at the same note?  "The above-mentioned governments and the French National Committee condemn in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination." does not mention "knowledge and condemnation of the allies" at all?  There is no serious question that there was widespread publicity during the war about the exterminations. If our Holocaust article suggests otherwise, it is wrong. Of course it took time in wartime conditions for the (full) truth to be known, and Hitler did not go out of his way to publicize it.  A recent book that emphasizes how much publicity there was is Robert Rosen's Roosevelt and the Jews, with a preface by Gerhard Weinberg.John Z (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jesus man, you wrote: "There is no question that the Allies knew of the exterminations and condemned them during the war. See note 45 of this 1944 book by Raphael Lemkin". I checked note 45 it and found: "The Jews for the most part are liquidated within the ghettos, (45) or in special trains in which they are transported to a so-called "unknown" destination". The note itself doesn't mention any knowledge and condemnation of the Allies at all. Now I know better, (the Allies knew it since 1942 at the latest, and had condemned it), but you gave the wrong evidence before. I amend my previous statement: It can be argued that Hitler's efforts to hide the extermination were largely successful from 1938 until late 1942. Flamarande (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By note 45 I meant the actual note at the bottom of the page, which has the full statement, not the passage that referred to the note.John Z (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a detail missing here, perhaps a result of Anglocentrism in the discussion. I think Hitler (or other high-ranking German officials at the time) were not very bothered by what their enemies (i.e. the Allies) would think of them. Not that they didn't care at all, but they would probably be able to brush off any accusation from Washington, London and Moscow as propaganda. Nor would they have been bothered by the prospect of being put on trial after a defeat (their expectation was that they were going to win the war).

However, they were of course highly interested in not affronting the opinions of their own allies. Had the full extent of Holocaust, and the detailed planning behind it, been publicly know then the willingness of other countries to aid the German war effort would have diminished. Fascist Italy did not support Antisemitism at the time of the outbreak of the war, for example. A neutral country like Sweden (exporting iron ore and steel to the German military industry) would have difficulties maintaining military exports. Not to mention the German public, who's support Hitler needed. Furthermore, remember that Hitler often thought of how he would be portrayed in history, he was obsessed with the idea of being the founder of a 1000-year Reich. The Holocaust would, even in a Nazi history discourse, have posed trouble to that image. --Soman (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Soman. Hitler "cared" about it, just enough to conceal the extermination. He knew that it would be judged a crime against humanity and he hid it. Flamarande (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And how do you expect to conceal moving millions and millions of people around? It would have been utterly impossible. Hitler could only conceal to the general public the details of the extermination. Hidden the details of any military operation is strategically essential for it and this could be his motivation. Hitler could also have hidden some aspect of the holocaust to avoid the psychological shock upon his soldiers, like he had done earlier, when he chose this killing method to reduce the impact on the executers.


 * It is also not possible to say Hitler "cared" about the opinion of others or that he knew it would be judged a crime against humanity. The concept of "crime against humanity" was not entirely new at the time of the holocaust. However, it was not a mainstream concept. The concept of crime against humanity was finally defined by the Allies in the Nuremberg Charter (1945). Before that, people used the expressions “crimes or offenses against the laws of humanity" - a much weaker wording.


 * Already in 1920, Hitler talked about extermination. And the German people was necessarily aware that Jews were disappearing. People in Germany, in the best case, could speculate that Jews were being deported to the East and released there. However, that would also amount to murder, given the conditions there. Every one was aware of the intensity of the war on the Easter border of the III Reich.--Quest09 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't move them at the same time and never at these numbers. The much weaker wording is irrelevant, Hitler knew that it would be judged as a capital crime. Deportation is simply not the same thing as extermination (and that's why 'deportation' was used - to try to hide what was happening). If, as you argue, the extermination wasn't a secret how come the victims (Jews, Homosexuals, Communists, etc) meekly obey? Or are arguing that the victims knew of their fate but choose to obey regardless?


 * If, as you argue, the extermination wasn't a secret, why did Hitler issue an order to keep it a secret (under death penalty - at least that's what this article says)? Let me guess: it was because "Hitler expected anyone to hate the Jews as much as he did". Therefore Hitler was convinced that the extermination would be considered a good thing and everybody (and the Allies too) would applaud it in the end? How about reading the articles Holocaust and Responsibility for the Holocaust and some others? Flamarande (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for the outcome of a legal case (if it's publicly known)
Once on the news there was a story about a woman who had severely underdeveloped arms and did everything with her legs and feet who went to a McDonald's drive through and was humiliated by the employee there and not given her food. They said in the news piece that she was suing McDonald's for something like $2 million dollars (big surprise). I can't find anything on whether she won her case or not. Does anyone else know? 71.161.57.157 (talk) 18:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This news story was in 2007, looks like. Googling "dawn larson" mcdonalds yields about 2,900 links; all of them I saw were from 2007; maybe you can dig deeper.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

payment
what is the minimum wage per hour for a 19 year old per hour in the netherlands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.118.126 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Between €4.18-4.65. See pages 4&5 of this: . Fribbler (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Title and Composer of Music in NFL TV Follies
What is the title of the piece of music on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axaBG4t-gJs starting at about 2:50? And who wrote it? I tried "Name My Tune" and Musipedia to no avail. Thanks! Kingsfold (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)