Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 June 26

= June 26 =

female politician in recent American election who got her cue cards mixed up on live TV and said nothing for at least a minute?
This is killing me. I want to show the clip in a class about public speaking this afternoon to highlight the importance of being prepared, and for the life of me I can't Google up who this was.

I recall it was a woman, probably Republican though I'm not sure, and I'm pretty sure she was in New York giving a press conference during an election campaign and she screwed up her notes/cue cards and went a very, very long time on live TV in painful, awkward silence.

It pretty much killed her campaign.

Can you help me? Class starts in 3 hours! :-) 91.216.105.16 (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't remember the incident, but could it have been Caroline Kennedy? 98.226.122.10 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it was Jeanine Pirro when she tried to get the Republican ticket in the 2006 New York senate race. From United States Senate election in New York, 2006: "Pirro was considered the front-runner, but her campaign had immediate difficulties. During her August 10, 2005 live televised candidacy announcement in New York City, she paused for more than thirty seconds looking for a missing part of her speech, then asked, on the air, 'Do I have page 10?'" Very funny indeed. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Question regarding Trotskyism
After looking over the Wikipedia article on Trotskyism, a question came up that wasn't addressed in the article. Trotskyism is, among other significant pillars, a belief in a "Vanguard Party" of intellectuals well-versed in Marxist theory and Democracy. How would democracy happen in a Trotskyist political system if the Vanguard Party is the only party? Isn't this self-contradictory? Any help is gladly appreciated. 66.176.245.57 (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be assuming that democracy is only possible in a multi-party system. The word "democracy" itself means "rule of the people", no mention is made of parties. In a mind experiment, I could imagine a democracy which is not only not multi-party but where no parties at all exist - think about it: everyone votes for someone they choose, but the candidates stand alone, without party support, i.e. are all and every one of them independent candidates. Free elections, representation of the people, no parties. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The early United States was intended to be without parties. George Washington specifically refused to be counted as a member of any political party.  Political parties in the United States discusses this.  Even before the Constitution, the founders themselevs feared the existance of parties in any form, Federalist No. 10 specifically argues against political parties as themselves being inherently anti-democratic.  Democracy is perfectly compatiple in either a partiless system or a "one party system"; which, in one way of thinking, is partyless (if there is not at least a second party to compare to, then one party has no meaning).  -- Jayron  32 
 * First of all, organizing a vanguard party is not the same as striving for a one-party state. Secondly, since no Trotskyist party ever conquered power in any state, there is no empirical material to discuss what would happen if a Trotskyist party would have full control over a state apparatus. I think we have to separate between two different notions: 1) If Trotsky had defeated Stalin in the internal struggles in the Soviet Communist Party, would the Soviet state have developed differently? (and if so, how? Did Trotsky oppose the banning of non-Bolshevik parties?) and 2) what type of state do contemporary Trotskyists seek? --Soman (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Common confusion: Marxist and socialist theory is a revision of capitalism; there is no contradiction between Marxist theory and democracy. In fact, most Marxists and socialist would claim that it is impossible to have a properly democratic system within a capitalistic society, for the same reasons you all already know - corporate influences on elections (think why campaign finance reforms always fail), class-based leadership (try to figure out the last time we had a president who was not wealthy before he went into office), corporate control of political regions (GM bailed out because allowing it to die would devastate Detroit).  Of course, capitalists claim the opposite...  The confusing factor is that most putatively socialist states have not really been socialist at all - more at nationalist totalitarian states - so most people think of socialism as anti-democratic, when in fact it's nationalism that is anti-democratic.  -- Ludwigs 2  07:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the theory behind the elections in Cuba. --Error (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Shot in the head
Please read what I have to say CAREFULLY.

I hope that I be proved wrong because otherwise we have something besides Quantam physics(remember:"he who is not shocked by Quantum Theory does not understand it !") that is REALLY ABSURD.

Shooting a person in the head is not so straight business (I mean literally). It is possible that a bullet does not fracture skull and go straight inside and hit the brain and cause death but instead travels around the skull without breaking it ! A person shot above left ear may die of injury to Jugular vein on right side because the bullets travels all the way around the skull and after doing the orbit hit the other way...! Jon Ascton    (talk)  06:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Problem 2 - these cases have been well-documented since at least as early as WW2, so you're not shocking anyone who knows anything about the subject. 61.189.63.189 (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Problem 1 - this is not a question.
 * Robert Lawrence (British Army officer). --TammyMoet (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a question in the sense it is a highly controversial and interesting topic. The presence of a question mark or two is a small matter. I can place a "Is it a fact that..." in the beginning if you want. You are wrong in saying that it is not shocking. It certainly is. We can do an opinion poll on this ! I for one was certainly shocked. Moreover I raised this topic to encourage people to discuss and try to found the reality. I think there is some misunderstanding here, it seems to be against the laws of physics, or is there some other theory we do not know about ? Jon Ascton    (talk)  07:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I might be misunderstanding something here. His article indicates Robert Lawrence got shot in the head from behind. The OP seems to be claiming that bullets can travel around the head, then hit you from the other side. If this is well-documented, does anyone know any sources? I'd be interested to know why that would happen. Vimescarrot (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've definitely seen cases in forensic textbooks about bullets traveling inside the skull (and along other bone paths—e.g. up an arm—if they are of a low enough speed and calibre). But around the skull... it seems like it would be a pretty unlikely thing, though there doesn't seem to be any obvious reason to me why it couldn't happen, if it somehow got stuck between the layer of skin and the bone and was traveling in the right direction and lacked the speed to break out of the skin again. It just seems fairly unlikely, but with a large enough sample size, why not? Weird ballistics results are not at all uncommon by itself, at least from what I gathered in a forensic anthropology course I took ages and ages ago. But even if true I have a hard time seeing what is so absurd about this in an ultimate, philosophical sense. It's just unlikely. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a question, or can I close this? ╟─ Treasury Tag ► constabulary ─╢ 12:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

UK CGT PPR
Is there an up to date online or offline calculator anywhere that will allow me to calculate the CGT due for houses? I may even be prepared to pay some money for one!

It would be far too time consuming to create one myself from the complex HMRC rules and regs. Thanks 92.15.15.76 (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * UK CGT rule are, as you say, complex - they involve tax bands, taper relief and a bunch of allowances and exclusions (the most important exclusion for most people is that CGT is not payable on the sale of your "main private residence"). If you don't understand the rules yourself (which most people don't), how much confidence will you have in a figure produced by some random calculator that has been recommended by a complete stranger ? If you are prepared to spend money to get an accurate answer, your best route is to consult a qualified accountant - they will be able to give you a figure, explain how they reached that figure and possibly suggest (legal) ways in which you can reduce your overall tax exposure. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, CGT is quite complex and calculating it can take time, but the HMRC website is very clear and I have found their helpline staff to be obliging and patient. I have done my own calculations for CGT and IHT in recent years; both were accepted by the Revenue, and an accountant friend who cast his eye over them after the event confirmed that I'd done a good job. Employing an accountant has the advantage of comeback if they make a mess of it, but if you are not in a position to employ one, your starting point should be HMRC's own step-by-step CGT walkthrough here.  Ka renjc 12:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I found the help sheets produced by HMRC useful. The forms and the free help sheets can be downloaded from here on the HMRC website.  In particular, though I cannot find a link to it at the moment, the HMRC produced a CGT self-calculation sheet which guided me through the calculations.  Astronaut (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, would much appreciate a link to the self-calculation sheet if you can find it please Astronaut.

I'm mostly interested in this from a forward planning point of view. 92.15.15.26 (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

where can I find a list of stylistic nuggets
I'm looking for literary nuggets such as "in any way, shape, or form" and "for all intents and purposes." Where can I find such a list? 92.229.14.60 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's one: ... you can search for an idiom, and at the foot of the page there's a list of a dozen or so idioms which are nearby, alphabetically. Not sure if you can browse the whole dictionary like a book, though. 213.122.65.167 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Are they not clichés? Try the External Links at the bottom of the article for a long list. 92.15.5.103 (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't a Marriage Registrar under the German Civil Code be a single person?
In accordance with the German Civil Code, section 1310, paragraph (1) and (2) which read:

"'(1) Marriage is entered into only if the parties contracting the marriage declare before the registrar that they wish to enter into the marriage. The registrar may not refuse his cooperation in the entering into of the marriage if the requirements for the marriage are satisfied; he must refuse his cooperation if it is obvious when the marriage is entered into would be voidable under section 1314 (2)."

"(2) A registrar includes a person who, without being a registrar, publicly exercised the office of a registrar and entered the marriage in the marriage register.'"

If I am not misunderstanding, a marriage registrar, if not being a registrar, should be a person excercising a registrar's office and having married lawfully, isn't that correct? And if I am correct, why a marriage registrar in Germany can only be a married person, can he be a single person?

Thank you so much,, ^^

124.121.7.200 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am misunderstanding. Just my confusing in reading legal provisions. I am now clear for that.

124.121.7.200 (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You are misreading, a registrar includes (a) a registar or (b) any person not officially a registrar is (still) considered to be a registrar who is someone who has "entered the marriage in the marriage register"; nothing to do with the registrar being married or not. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The "unnecessary" curve of JFK in Dallas
When JFK visited in Dallas in November 22th 1963 his car drove for a long trip straightly by the Main Street from east to west. He was going to go under the railroad bridge which is on the west end of the Main Street. It would have been the "normal" way to go if JFK would have drove just straight by the Main Street and went under the railroad. But it didn't happen by that way as we all know.

When the limousine of JFK came by the Main Street nearby the Dealey Plaza it turned right to the Houston Street and drove it about 100 meters. After that it turned on left to the Elm Street and started to drove the hill down to the railroad bridge that I mentioned. That was just the place when the shooter(s) started to shoot.

My question is this: Why JFK didn't drove straight by the Main Street to the railroad bridge? Why his limousine had to make that small and "unnecessary" curve by the Houston and the Elm Street?

80.186.127.126 (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you can cite a source for any of this material, it would help other editors look up possible answers. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the map closely, I see you cannot turn right from Main St onto I-35 North, the route towards Love Field where I presume Air Force One was parked earlier in the day. Astronaut (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Y'know, that map is almost 50 years newer than the events in question. Roads might have changed. --Anon, 17:30, June 26, 2010.
 * Maybe, but this page comes to the same conclusion: you have to swtch over to Elm to be able to take the ramp onto the freeway. Astronaut (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's better, thanks. --Anon, 22:28 UTC, June 28, 20o10.


 * This page discusses the choice of the route (including the turn) and the related conspiracy theories (and some debunking) in great detail. Like everything related to JFK, there is all sorts of speculation and over-wrought analysis, though in this case, at the end of the page, the argument offered—that there are traffic reasons for the turn—seems plausible to me. It strikes me as rather unnecessary for a conspiracy theory to think that they'd have to throw in a specific kink in the road to execute the plan, and seems quite unlikely to me that whatever conspiracy theory one dreams up, that someone as low as the route planner would be involved (it seems like an obvious "loose end" that you would want to avoid—if it were me, I'd just want to know whatever the route was planned to be, and work around that, and not waste time/effort/exposure on trying to influence the route in a really obvious way). --Mr.98 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody say in Simple English what was the reason to that JFK did'n drove straight by the Main Street? So why did he drove to the Houston and the Elm? 80.186.28.158 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Knowing that he would be shot, the route was planned just to give conspiracy theorists something else to feed their silliness. -- Jayron  32  18:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC
 * Actually this has been posed before by many people and not just conspiracy theorists. It would indeed have been quicker and more logical to go straight down Main Street toward the Trade Mart than take the turn down the curving Elm Street, which of necessity slowed down the motorcade. It should have been up to the Secret Service to plan the most secure route. What the OP is referring to is the Triple Bypass where the three streets (Main, Commerce, and Elm) converge. One can see it in the Zapruder film when the Lincoln is speeding toward it to get JFK to Parkland.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't it possible that this "new" route would get more people to be able to see him? Why have this motorcade waving to people if a lower number of people can see him?  It's better PR.  Dismas |(talk) 19:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That Google Map agrees with the newspaper route and shows it pretty clearly. Main Street does not connect to Stemmons Freeway (I-35); you have to take the dogleg over to Elm. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 20:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strangely enough Google Maps driving directions suggest taking N Lamar St rather than Elm. Astronaut (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could it have been so that more people would have an opportunity to see the President drive by? My understanding is that the motorcade was basically a parade.  As such, the route's length likely would have been in favor of maximum visual contact with the people of Dallas. Kingsfold (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Did the American revolution affect Britain's access to tobacco?
After the American revolution, were Britain's eastern colonies capable of producing enough tobacco for the English, or did they simply have to go without for a while? Was this quite an issue in England? Smoking Newton  (MESSAGE ME)  18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * According to History of tobacco, tobacco was already cultivated in such places as the Middle East, Japan, and Australia. Britain certainly had access to it from places other than the American South.  -- Jayron  32  18:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The First Fleet didn't set sail for Australia until 1787, so I don't think there can have been any grown there then. Trade with Japan was very restricted until 1853. The History of commercial tobacco in the United States says that Britain sourced her tobacco from Turkey and Egypt. More details of the "Tobacco War" here. This page tells the story of William Cuninghame, a Glasgow tobacco merchant, who made a fortune by buying tobacco stock at 3 pence per pound at the start of the revolution and selling it at 3 shillings and 6 pence (ie 42 pence) once the blockade had taken hold. This page says that in 1772, Britain imported 90,000 hogsheads of tobacco, 49,000 going to Glasgow which then exported nearly all of it, mainly to France. The French must have cut out the middle-man thereafter, as the Americans were paying them in tobacco for military supplies. Alansplodge (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The first tobacco was not grown in Australia until 1818, and it was small-time stuff for a long time.. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   22:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind too, that even if the British didn't get tobacco directly from the U.S. (or even the colonies), that changes the market price and thus does influence the British decision making process. Any commodity that's fungible will care about supply fluctuations even if the buyer doesn't buy directly from that supplier. Shadowjams (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Odds of marriage

 * 1) What are the statistical odds that any particular male in the United States will get married? (With that question, I'm trying to determine what statistical chance I have of getting married...if age is needed for generational differences in the statistics, my age is on my userpage).
 * 2) What are the odds of my two best friends (who are currently dating each other and are the same age as me) getting married? (This would be the statistical chance of high school sweethearts getting married, which I believe I've heard quoted somewhere, but I can't remember where).

Thanks in advance, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer to #1 could be worked out by doing some rudimentary research at www.census.gov, where they do keep track of the number of marriages. As far as #2, it may be unanwerable given that we don't know much about your best friends.  As an aside, one of my wife's bridesmaids married one of my groomsmen.  They did not know each other at all; they met at our wedding.  Weird, rare, one of a kind stuff happens all the time.  Its likely that everyone knows of some anecdotal situation in their own lives which is very rare; we just all have different rare stuff that happens in our lives.  -- Jayron  32  19:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll decline the bet on your best friends' odds of getting married, but, at your age, they would be doubling their statistical chances of staying married. That says nothing of them as individual persons or as a couple, of course.  NY Times: Now, the Bad News on Teenage Marriage.  But most men certainly marry, sooner or later: obviously, the data isn't in yet on your generation.  Some comparative factoids from U.S. Census here show the trend toward later marriages: Percent Never Married, 1970–2008 and Median Age at First Marriage, 1890–2007.  Some possible reasons are explored -- loss of good-paying blue collar jobs for men and increased education and income for women, being prominently mentioned, here: Facing Middle Age With No Degree, and No Wife.  It does gets better: in 2000 Census, at age 85 there are almost twice as many women as men.  Can't wait that long?  Lots more to ponder in U.S. Census data, like happy hunting grounds where women outnumber men, at Nationalatlas.gov - gender   Paulscrawl (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

USA saved Europe?
Is it just to say that the USA saved Europe in both WW1 and WW2? 83.31.119.157 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not unless you wanted to be excessively simplistic. The USA played a very important role in both World Wars in Europe (though a much greater role in WWII).  The U.S. involvement in WWI was limited to the American Expeditionary Forces, who fought only during the last months of the War; when the Central Powers were already starting to wear down.  It could be argued that in WWI at least, the American involvement may have hastened the end of the war in the favor of the Allies, but the war would have probably gone that way anyways, albeit after a longer time.  IN World War II, their involvement was much more important, being involved from a much earlier date.  Also, their involvement in the final campaigns to win the war, such as D-Day, was central to the winning of the war.  However, to use the phrase "saved Europe" has major problems.  First, it implies that Europe would have been worse off had the war gone the other way.  During World War II, this may be argued, given the morally apprehensible policies of the Nazi party.  However, WWI lacked much of this moral problem, while the the German Empire and Austria Hungary represented a certain anarchistic and conservative view of nationhood; there was no moral aspect to that war such that no one thought of the Kaiser or the Archduke as "evil" people, or of their administrations as being particularly immoral.  Had the Central Powers won WWI, the situation may not have been markedly "worse" so it may not be worthwhile to say that the U.S. "Saved" Europe after WWI.  -- Jayron  32  20:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You must have missed all that anti-"Hun" propaganda... Kaiser Wilhelm II wasn't "evil" in the hand-rubbing-cackling-mad-scientist sense, but he was a diplomatic moron, who managed to make a bad international situation worse on a number of occasions (starting with gravely offending Britain by building up Germany's surface navy, without gaining any correspondingly great military advantage for Germany), apparently because he was entranced with the shininess of the gold braid on his military uniforms (rather than ever sitting down to make a sober cost-benefit analysis of the probable consequences of militaristic policies) -- so it's hard to see how the long-term situation in Europe would have improved by giving him even greater power.  Not to mention that it would have meant continued repression of Slavic nationalisms which would have been guaranteed to create further instability... AnonMoos (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree about WWI. When the Americans arrived, the Germans were making significant gains on the Western Front, moving toward Paris. The Russians had dropped out of the war, and the U.K. and France were warning the Americans that they could not continue much longer. There were food shortages in England due to the German U-boats and the British were even having trouble resupplying their troops in France because of the U-boats.


 * As for WWII, Stalin admitted privately that he could not have defeated Germany without the help of the allies. We gave him extensive aid and made Hitler divert troops from the Eastern Front to the Western one. Our bombing campaigns were also crucial in destroying German factories, railroads, and so on, which were used to resupply troops fighting the Russians. For example, in many circumstances, the Germans ran out of ammunition while fighting the Russians in later stages of the war. Hitler also withdrew troops from the Battle of Kursk upon hearing that the Americans and British invaded Sicily. That decision resulted in the Germans losing that battle. Most historians believe that we played an essential role, not just an important one.


 * However, neither war would have been won if it hadn't been for the allies of the U.S. The U.S. wouldn't have won entirely on its own. So, it's not accurate, either, to say that we won it single-handedly.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Zhukov thinks the USSR could have won the war single-handedly, although I disagree with him. And by the way, if the USSR had been defeated, the rest of the world would not have stood a chance. If the USA was left to fight the Axis alone it would have been defeated and subjugated.--92.251.186.144 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * One other thing I forgot to mention is that if the USSR had defeated Germany single handedly, then Europe would then have still been doomed because then they would have had to suffer under Stalin. Stalin was almost as bad as Hitler, so the fact that the U.S. and Britain invaded Italy, France, Holland, Western Germany, and so on, before the Soviets means that we saved them from disaster. Then, we loaned them large amounts of money through the Marshal Plan. So, at the very least, we saved Western Europe.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any of the three major Allies, the USA, the Commonwealth and the USSR can claim to have "saved Europe", in that if any of them weren't fighting the Nazis the war would be very likely lost. Of the three the USSR probably did the most. 35 million Soviet soldiers fought vs 11.5 million Commonwealth and 11.5 million Americans. 25% of the Soviet soldiers were killed compared to 5.2% of the Commonwealth and 2.8% of the American. I don't have figures for the other Allies. And if WWI had been lost I don't think WWII would ever have happened.--92.251.134.231 (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just the Allies but also the Axis. as noted above Kaiser Wilheim II wan't a great help to Germany's military and Hitler ordered all sorts of desperately stupid things which sapped Germany's capability. So you could say he helped save Europe as well! I'd agree the USSR probably did the most to crush Germany. Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the international bankers and the blind stupidity of the Allies after WWI that paved the way for Hitler and WWII. The outrageous terms dictated to the Germans at the Treaty of Versailles were guaranteed to spawn a Hitler. As if the entire war was caused solely by the Germans!!! The politicians were so naive, arrogant, and stupid..... So while the USA saved Europe in 1918, its President (Wilson), along with a vindictive France and England, left Germany in such a ruinous, humiliated state that one could say the war was merely suspended for 21 years, not ended. No other nation in modern history had been so harshly dealt with following its defeat.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As was said above, that's a bit simplistic. How do "international bankers" factor into this exactly? Yes WWI economic reparations by the victors damaged Germany's economy severely, affecting the political conditions in Germany in a now infamous way, but Germany's hardly the first defeated power to suffer that fate, and that's hardly the worst fate a major aggressor has suffered at the hands of its victor. To list the other nations in modern history that have been much more harshly dealt with following defeat would be to list a group of nations that no longer exist. Shadowjams (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "International bankers" = "Jews". What is this, Mein Kampf? It's all Russia's fault anyway. Nicholas II could have prevented WWI, but he was incompetent. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

@Jayron32; in what sense did Germany and Austria-Hungary represent an "anarchist" concept of nationhood? Don't you mean anachronistic? --Soman (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my brain got faster than my fingers. I meant to say "anachronistic" and not anarchistic.  As in "backward looking" or "not appropriate to the contemporary time".  -- Jayron  32  13:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Adam, I mean international bankers, who are comprised of all nationalities and religions. It was actually a German-Jewish, high-school friend of mine, whose parents narrowly escaped the Holocaust who pointed out to me how the Allies, along with the international bankers, left Germany in such dire strais that it was inevitable that someone like Hitler would come along. I am currently reading Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which clearly lays out the ultimatum the Allies gave to Germany. The people, who had started to blame France for the nation's financial and humiliating situation, were cleverly diverted by Hitler, who convinced them that the Weimar Republic was responsible for the Treaty of Versailles, and the subsequent disasters which befell the nation, including the devaluation of the mark. It's obvious that international bankers as well as wealthy German industrialists benefitted from the situation. Again, Hitler did not blame the latter, but only the former which he falsely claimed were all Jews, to further his anti-Semitism policies amd protect the very people (industrialists, etc.), who had begun to support his fledgling party.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's more complicated than that. The reparations demanded after Versailles were huge, but Germany actually made fairly modest repayments in the 1920s, relative to the size of its economy, and simultaneously received even larger American loans - see the Dawes Plan. Hoover announced a moratorium on reparations payments in 1931, and the Allies collectively agreed to suspend reparations demands at the Lausanne Conference of 1932.--Pondle (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The reparations (I have no idea what "international bankers" have to do with it - I'm not even sure what an "international banker" is) weren't really a reason for the rise of Nazism, they were just a good justification for it. If there hadn't been reparations, the Nazis would have found some other way to unite the people against a common foe (it's a fairly standard strategy, as explored in Nineteen Eighty-Four). --Tango (talk) 18:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree about Russia. France dragged Russia into the war. The first fatal step on the path to war happened in the May Overthrow in 1903. I would say the blame actually lies with the cumbersome, seething cauldron that was the Habsburg Empire, that could not assimilate the many ethnic groups within, and the wheels of the Pan-Slavic movement had already gathered speed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to throw a screwball, I think the unintended bombings of residential areas by a few stray luftwaffe pilots on August 24th 1940 are far more of a turning point than the US entry into the war. Given that this (after Britain's retaliatory bombing of Berlin) caused Germany to switch its attacks from Industrial and RAF targets to population centers (the blitz) it is arguable that the battle of britain may have ended differently had those few German pilots dropped their bombs elsewhere.Jabberwalkee (talk) 04:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Here’s another screwball (the count's 0-2): In The Wages of Destruction, Adam Tooze offers strong evidence that the WWII German high command was obsessed with ammunition, because the lack of sufficient ammo is, they believed, why they lost WWI. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is going beyond the proper boundaries of the Reference Desk, but I feel I have to point out that the problem wasn't the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles -- it was the fact that the Allies weren't willing to back it up. After forcing through a peace that caused a lot of resentment, the Allies did nothing after the German military buildup, the militarization of the Rhineland, the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, and even with the invasion of Poland, Britain and France didn't really do much (see Phoney War). The terms imposed on Germany after World War II were far harsher than Versailles, yet no one complains about those because the Allies were willing to enforce it with tens of thousands of troops on German soil.
 * Back to the original question -- American intervention might have made the difference in the world wars, but it's hard to argue that America "saved" Europe when the U.S. did what it could to avoid participating in both wars. In both cases, the U.S. remained on the sidelines until its own interests were attacked -- merchant ships in 1917 and Pearl Harbor in 1941. I remember hearing arguments in 2002-03 that France shouldn't oppose U.S. military action in Iraq because Americans had died to free France. But no American soldier died for France -- they died in France because it was on the way to Germany, a country with which the U.S. was at war. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguable, it wasn't a lack of willingness of enforce the treaty but a lack of ability. It is often argued that Appeasement was primarily a stall tactic to buy Britain (and it was mostly Britain involved) time to prepare for the inevitable war. Also, Germany wasn't harshly treated after WWII - West Germany received enormous amounts of help from the western powers to rebuild. --Tango (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they did lose much of their territory; the remainder was carved into two states, one a communist dictatorship, with a death strip at the border; they had no self-government at all for four years; they were supposed to pay $20 billion in reparations; thousands of foreign troops were stationed there; and millions of Germans got kicked out of their homes in Central and Eastern Europe. Not that they didn't deserve it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

ship memorabilia
Please note I'm not using this site as a crystal ball or anything like that. But by any chance would the USS Arlington (LPD-24) and the USS Somerset (LPD-25) have their own websites and ship's stores?24.90.204.234 (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I rather doubt it, since they're not exactly major ships. However, you can buy hats and street signs(?). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oz
Is the Land of Oz as in the Wizard of Oz based on the nickname for Australia, vice versa, or are they not related at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.212.10 (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Assume that it's based on the facetious pronunciation "Oz-stralia", and that the Baum book came first... AnonMoos (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Land of Oz speaks with 2 minds on this subject:
 * It is quite possible that Baum took the popular nickname of Australia as the national name for his fictional world. But later:
 * However, according to the Oxford English dictionary, the first references to Australia by this name were made in 1902—after the first book had been published. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * My guess would be that Baum had some kind of US political referent in mind, since there's so much prairie politics in the books to begin with - Baum was not all that subtle about it. no idea what that would be, though - maybe a blending of OK and KS (abbreviations for Oklahoma and Kansas)?  -- Ludwigs 2  07:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The explanation I heard was that Oz was an abbriation for Ounce, which was the common measurement of Gold value. Remember that The Wizard of Oz is an allegory for American financial politics of the 19th century (the Gold standard, the Silver standard, urbanism vs. ruralism, Greenbacks, etc.) The yellow brick road (made of gold) leads to the Wizard of Oz (the measure of Gold) who is an empty myth (Gold is an empty standard for a repositiory of wealth.)  There are lots of texts which attempt to explain the symbolism of the Wizard of Oz, and they predate the Internet by decades.  -- Jayron  32  21:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that "The consensus is that the books are written mainly for the pleasure of Baum's younger readers, to give them a sense of possibility and imagination" (The Wonderful Wizard of Oz) Rmhermen (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * However, see also political interpretations of the wonderful wizard of oz. Just because I book was written primarily for a younger audience does not mean that some greater metaphor was not also intended.203.217.33.61 (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because someone’s come up with great political interpretations of a children’s book doesn’t mean that’s what the author intended. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Another speculation is that a two-volume dictionary or encyclopædia with two volumes, A-N and O-Z was involved. PhGustaf (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * of course, it could always be something truly mindless like "The Magical Land of Aaaaaahs". sometimes you just can't tell when an author is being deep and when he's being so superficial that it looks deep.  -- Ludwigs 2  04:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * O-Z per PhGustaf is the only explanation I've ever heard. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 15:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is definitely the official rumor. Whether it's true or not may be lost in the mists of time. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)