Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 August 13

= August 13 =

Black POWs in Nazi Germany -- Is Hogan's Heroes accurate?
Not that I'm saying that Nazi Germany was a totally racist state, but does anyone know how African American or Afro-French prisoners of war were treated in the POW camps? I don't recall that Nazi Germany then had any anti-Black laws or prejudices (probably because there were very few blacks in Germany so they were not really an issue).

Really all I know about this is from the TV show Hogan's Heroes where the Luftwaffe staff at Stalag 13 all treated the black dude (Sgt. Kinch) there just the same as the other white POWS. Is that how it really was? Does anyone here know anything about this from research, or even personal experience in Nazi POW camps (or concentration camps)? Thanks, Herzlicheboy (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I myself knew nothing (nothing!) about the subject. Then I found Black people in Nazi Germany. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They certainly were anti-Negro. See Nuremberg laws for example. Rmhermen (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I was told when I was young that Jesse Owens was treated poorly at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, but our article says that was not the case. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Cracked also mentions that myth. Apparently, he was better off in Germany than America. Not to say it would have been so if he'd stayed longer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Segregation in the United States Armed Forces meant that black US soldiers were largely restricted to logistic and labour duties, so I suspect that few were captured until the Battle of the Bulge in 1945. More research needed when I have time later. Alansplodge (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Nazi Germany certainly was "a totally racist state". They had more racial laws than any country before or after them, and they enforced them in the strictest and most brutal way, systematically enslaving and murdering people of "unacceptable" race. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone is seriously asking if "Hogan's Heroes" is "accurate"? ROFL Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not an answer to the question, and Nazis did not "systematically enslave and murder" black people. Nazis, of course, considered Africans to racially inferior, but this was also a very widespread view in Europe and America at the time. Hans Massaquoi was taught in an integrated school in Nazi Germany, which wouldn't have happened in much of the USA at the time, but that's simply because there were only a tiny number of Germans with African ancestry. Nazi laws forbade sexual relations between Aryans and non-Aryans, which certainly included Africans. The Rhineland Bastards (mixed race children of French African occupying troops after WWI) were sterilised. I don't know of any evidence that black POWs were generally badly treated. That also applies to Jewish POWs from the western Allied armies. Paul B (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * That is not an answer to the question either. The correct answer is "No HH was not accurate" nor was it even attempting to be accurate. It was a Sitcom whose sole purpose was to try and be entertaining enough to attract an audience and make some money for its production company and CBS. Any attempts to try and tie it to the reality of the 1940's is a waste of time. On the other hand you can tie it into the reality of late 60's and 70's television in the US where Hollywood was trying to integrate black people into the casts and storylines of its programs whether comedy or drama. BTW McHales Navy, Sgt Bilko and, later, CPO Sharkey weren't accurate either. MarnetteD | Talk 19:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While the OP did ask if HH was accurate, it seems clear from taking their question on the entirety that they aren't particularly interested on whether HH is accurate (and if not, why not) but more on how blacks were treated in Nazi POW camps and perhaps how blacks were treated by the Nazis in general. The OPs is apparently aware how Hogan's Heroes potrayed the treatment so we can presume it's not actually that important to give a yes or no answer on the accuracy since they can decide for themselves if we answer their main question. It's perhaps worth pointing out that it's unrealistic to expect sitcom which aimed to entertain and didn't care about accuracy, to be accurate, but that isn't an answer to the OPs real question. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It is worth noting that anti-miscegenation laws in most U.S. states also forbade sexual relations and/or marriage between whites and non-whites (especially blacks) right through and beyond WWII. Indeed, when Hogan's Heroes first aired in 1965 – a full twenty years after the war – there were still 16 U.S. states that enforced anti-miscegenation laws; those remained in effect until overturned by a 1968 Supreme Court decision.  From our not-so-distant vantage a few decades later, it is all too often forgotten that the abhorrent attitudes and actions of Nazi Germany were different in degree but not necessarily in kind to those widely applied in the contemporaneous United States. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * South Africa wasn't all that flexible on such matters at the time either. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all your answers so far. I take issue with User:Rmhermen's response of see Nuremberg laws. That section of the article is so vague as to say nothing at all. The article on the Nuremberg Laws would not be hurt one bit if that entire section was removed. My original question, just to be clear, was asking if anyone knows from research or personal experience how Western Black POWs were treated in German WW2 POW camps. Herzlicheboy (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The section certainly should not be removed. It's very important to note that the laws did not only apply to Jews. The vagueness is to a considerable degree due to the inherent confusion about what "related" to "German blood" means in practice. It's inherent in the wording of the law. The term "Aryan", which was used in the original legislation was replaced precisely because that was confusing (Gypies are Aryan, in the literal meaning of that term). However, that's nothing to do with POWS, who were not subject to the law. Essentially the German army treated all British and American soldiers in accordance with international rules, mainly because they wanted their own prisoners to be treated in the same way. There are individual cases of Western Jewish and black POWs being mistreated, but in general it did not happen, and there were very few black POWs because, as was explained by another editor, most did not have combat roles in the US army of the time. There were many more combat-active black French solders, especially in the Italian campaign. As for Hogan's Heroes, that was made at a time when there was often a "token black" character in ensembles. The most bizarre case of that I remember is in the 1965 film The Long Ships, in which there is a black Viking. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Correction, the black Viking is in The Norseman (1978). It's a masterpiece. The black character in the The Long Ships is not a Viking, but a Moorish prince played by Sidney Poitier, not that this has any relevance to your question. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * One quick note - while there were relatively few black combat units, one of the two large segregated formations (the 92nd Infantry Division) did serve in the Italian campaign from August 1944 onwards. On the Western Front, most black combat units were artillery, tank destroyer, or (in a couple of cases) tank battalions, all of which would tend to be less likely to have men captured than infantry units. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

UK weather forecasts in the 1960s
According to a discussion at the Language Desk, this video was produced in the 1960s, so I'm guessing that this other video (very similar, sounds like the same group, and definitely the same style) is also from the 1960s. The "other" video pokes fun at weather forecasts on UK television. If you go right to 1:00, you'll be in the middle of a nautical forecast: the surrounding areas of the Atlantic and North Sea are divided into little zones, and a forecast is given for almost all of them. In the 1960s, was it common for TV weather forecasts to include such a segment, or is this simply another silly part of an already silly video? Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The seas around Britain are always full of ships, so weather forecasts are important even for places that are seemingly in the middle of nowhere. And of course we have an article on everything, including this: Shipping Forecast. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But on television? Shipping Forecast says that the BBC never broadcast the forecast on TV until 1993.  If other television broadcasters existed (I have no clue if they did or not), would they broadcast a shipping forecast on television?  The lack of television towers in the middle of the sea makes me guess that you'd have to be on land to get the forecast, so remote areas of ocean wouldn't be easily reachable, and after all the mariners could presumably receive the normal Shipping Forecast on BBC Radio; it just doesn't seem as if anyone would benefit from a television broadcast of the shipping forecast.  Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The songs are from the 60s but I suspect the videos are from a later period. Notice that both are in colour but the BBC didn't broadcast in colour until 1967, Timeline of the BBC and First colour TV]. Also in the first video at about 4 seconds in it uses a US street scene. By the way Canada has the same layout of zones that are used for marine forecast and probably the US too. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can confirm that the shipping forecast was never on British TV in the 1960s. I suspect that the song was intended as a parody of radio forecasts whioch were rather more formal than their TV equivalent (radio was a BBC monopoly until about 1980). Most of the images of TV forecasts on the video are from the 1980s, including the redoubtable Michael Fish. Alansplodge (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice that the graphic for the shipping areas includes the new-fangled 'Fitzroy', which has only been in use since 2002, replacing 'Finisterre', as used in the chant, so at least that part of the imagery is recent. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 08:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Master Singers ( yikes, no article!.. ) song (which actually reached the UK Top 50 in 1966) was a rendition of radio weather forecasts, not those on TV. The video itself was produced, as others have suggested, probably in 2007 when it was uploaded, using (mostly) 1980s imagery.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the input (and the article :-); it never occurred to me that the video was separate from the recording, although I did observe and was confused by the singers'..."unusual" pronunciation of Fitzroy. Nyttend (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've finally found a PC with speakers (somebody "borrowed" mine) but can't hear them say "Fitzroy"; however, they are parodying the exaggerated annunciation used by some choirmasters who have to make the words audible in a vast resonant building. Alansplodge (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Belay that, I've just realised what you were talking about. Alansplodge (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Morganatic marriage in Spain
Was the marriage María Teresa de Vallabriga y Rozas, Español y Drummond and Infante Luis, Count of Chinchón really a morganatic marriage?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I found three references describing the marriage as morganatic, though unfortunately they are all google books in snippet view, meaning that the crucial word (morganatic) is only visible in the google search result.
 * The life and complete work of Francisco Goya, 1981. Search result says: ”...his ecclesiastical dignities as well as life at the court by making a morganatic marriage in 1776 and withdrawing to his...”
 * Goya: man among kings, 1987. Search result says: ” ... And this morganatic marriage duly took place in the summer of 1776. ...”
 * Francisco Goya (1746-1828): Letters of Love and Friendship in Translation, 1997. Search result says: ” ... of Avila, home of the ex-cardinal Don Luis since his morganatic marriage in 1776 with Maria Teresa de Villabriga.”
 * However, note this reference in Goya: Images of Women, 2002. It says an edict of 23 March 1776 prohibited children of the marriage from bearing their father’s name and barring Maria Teresa from the court. The implication is the marriage was declared morganatic after the fact? There’s a Spanish Wikipedia article Pragmática Sanción de 1776 with a paper book reference. 184.147.136.32 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Neglect
I know its illegal for kids to work, but what if you grew up in a home where your parents neglect you? Are there any provisions in place where the child would be able to financially support himself such as hrough employment. Pass a Method  talk  09:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Children are often allowed to work, albeit with certain restrictions.


 * 2) Child neglect may result in the child being taken away from the parents.


 * 3) In some places, the child may petition the court to become an emancipated minor, which may include the right to work, again with restrictions. StuRat (talk) 09:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Weisbecker-Calendar
I'm looking at a picture that includes a low-resolution image of a calendar inscribed "Weisbecker-Calendar" and featuring a pair of fish as the primary design. I'm trying to learn anything about this calendar, but all I can find is this webpage. The design is basically the same, and note that the webpage mentions "zebra fish" as one month's entry. Has anyone heard of this company (or Meyer Gasters) and does anyone know when they were making calendars for the American market? I don't have a solid date for the picture; it's part of a group that shows a subject that was built in 1971, but (according to people who know fashion better than I do) the hairstyles are perhaps more like something from 1980. My ultimate goal is to date the picture via the calendar, so if you could find another year when this calendar was produced, I'd appreciate it, or even more if somehow you could say "1975 is the only option". I've put everything I can think of into Google, but I'm getting literally ten hits per search, and nothing relevant except the Worthopedia page. 2001:18E8:2:1020:5C69:D059:29BC:F807 (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * According to the de:WP, Klaus Meyer-Gasters was (†2013) a German graphic artist and founder of the Meyer-Gasters Bildverlag (a publishing house for graphic artwork). It seems that he produced quite a few calendars (ink / aquarells of plants, animals, land- and cityscapes) since 1963.  You may want to contact the firm to date the specific calendar containg the zebra fish.  Carl Weisbecker apparantly is a publisher who had some of Meyer-Gasters calendars printed in the 1960s and presumably later.  Unfortunately, the only fishy lithography I can find is for the February-page of the 2014 calendar.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Australian geographical names - loss of apostrophes
The current news activity about the Second Sydney Airport got me thinking about the way Badgery's Creek has become Badgerys Creek, New South Wales, or Regent's Park in Sydney has become Regents Park, New South Wales, according to the powers that be anyhow - and the apostrophe-less name is now reflected on public transport signs, maps and on Wikipedia. I'm vaguely aware that this is due to some sort of standardisation by the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. I think it looks quite odd (as if Regent's Park has become a commemoration of multiple Princes Regent, or Badgery's Creek has become named after a mysterious Mr "Badgerys" instead of Mr Badgery), but I know government moves in mysterious ways. By direct contrast, I know that Regent's Park in London is still firmly singular and possessive.

My question is therefore twofold:
 * 1) Does anyone know the reason for the standardisation to drop apostrophes, and how has it become enforced in normal, and not just bureaucratic, contexts? (The motivation for the latter part of the question is that, if it is for example simply because the government's antiquated computers can't handle apostrophes, then I would have expected this not to have affected normal usage.)
 * 2) Has the same happened in other parts of Australia, and other parts of the world? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't give specific references because I read it ages ago in a paper book rather than online, but in a number of books about place name origins I've read about British Columbia and Canada, it's extremely common up here. If I recall what I read correctly, it often had to do with "making life easier for the postal service". I don't know how. Mingmingla (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There has been some apostrophe-dropping in U.S. placenames (Pikes Peak etc.). You can turn up some interesting material with a Google search apostrophe dropping placenames... AnonMoos (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The British bookseller Waterstones dropped there apostrophe last year, stating the reason that it was "a more versatile and practical spelling" for the digital age. Grammar purist's were outraged. Although also Tim Waterstone had not worked their for ten years, something which is unlikely to apply to place names. Although it could be that they're dropping there apostrophe's for the digital age as well? Horatio Snickers (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Grammar purist's outraged, Horatio? I can't imagine why dropping there apostrophe's would produce such a reaction.  :)  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Timmies is one of the more well-known Canadian cases. Interestingly, our article says one motivation was that without the apostrophe, the name was no longer obviously "in English", therefore their sign was ok in Quebec (which has strict laws on the language used in signage). 184.147.136.32 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Back to geography, here's a reference. Wall Street Journal. It appears Australia is less conservative than the UK and more so than the US.... “The U.S., in fact, is the only country with an apostrophe-eradication policy” (per the United States Board on Geographic Names and the UK has an Apostrophe Protection Society. One reason mentioned is that you can't have apostrophes in URLs (so far, anyway). 184.147.136.32 (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Umm, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/' or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badgery's_Creek. Nyttend (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably meant no apostrophes in domain names... AnonMoos (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Fascinating stuff. So the policy goes back a long way in the US. I wonder if it has the same sort of pedigree in Australia. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't really answer the question, but I know we as a nation have multiple personalities on the spelling issue. We drop the apostrophes in place names as a matter of policy, yet in the late 1990s we went to the trouble of correcting, but also making even more difficult the already-too-difficult-for-most-Australians-to-get-right spelling, of our highest mountain, to bring it closer to the way the honouree actually spelt his own name.  It still isn't quite there.  He had an ś, while we make do with a humble s.  That was probably a matter of bureaucratic policy too.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't just lose the apostrophes. Particularly when it's the name of a road, we lose the "s" as well. In the 40 years I've lived in my current neighbourhood on Melbourne's outskirts, two local minor roads obviously named after someone who lived on them have became fairly major thoroughfares, and lost both the apostrophe and the "s". I have come to assume that it's happened to many roads. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me of Princes Highway, now named after multiple unspecified princes. It's also interesting that Wikipedia articles do not regard name changes like this as noteworthy - many articles would start off saying something was named "X's Y" in the 19th century, then move without a pause to referring to it as Xs Y. I would have thought the loss of the apostrophe changed the name? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, just the spelling of the name. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  12:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a relevant distinction there? Mount Kosciusko -> Mount Kosciuszko was a "change of spelling" which is duly noted. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It happened in Birmingham, UK some years ago. It happened before this reference http://metro.co.uk/2009/01/29/birmingham-bans-apostrophes-from-road-signs-406036/ Although the report says part of the reason is "the need for consistency", I am of the opinion there are two other reasons. Firstly, the use of the apostrophe is not taught in schools to such rigor now, but more importantly, a huge change in the demographics.  Fifty plus years ago the population of Asians (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Other) in Birmingham was very small; today it is about 20% and for a large number English is not their first language.  Grammar is difficult to deal with if your native tongue is English and I suggest more so if English is a second language. --TrogWoolley (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Maybe a question of style rather than spelling per se, PalaceGuard008. The bureaucratic/government powers that make these decisions are not saying that the English language has changed and we no longer use the apostrophe to make our nouns possessive.  All they're saying is that in the specific context of place names they consider it a better policy not to use them.  The convention is widely known and understood, although people can be forgiven for writing "Wilson's Promontory" etc. Other organisations obviously have similar policies*, which is why we see adverts saying "Australias  biggest canned air provider" or whatever.  Most young people see these ads and never give them a second thought, since they're texting "im at dads house c u at mall".  Others tend to notice them and wonder what's going on.  (* I'm being incredibly charitable here.) --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In the United Kingdom, the estimable chaps at the Ordnance Survey are the guardians of our apostrophes; while just about everybody, including Wikipedia, has dropped the apostrophe from Goffs Oak in Hertfordshire, the good old OS still has it on their latest maps. Alansplodge (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why did people, especially military personnel, think WW1 would be "over by Christmas"?
When World War One broke out politicians assured the public that it would be over in 6 months and a quick victory, and this seems from what I've read to have been a widely held view from the public to the top brass in the army. I get that politicians are often optimistic about success, and the ordinary man on the street doesn't have any real way of knowing that the papers and politicians are wrong. But why didn't the army realise this was unrealistic? WW1 dragged on because trench warfare lended itself to stalemates very easily, but trench warfare was always the plan from what I can tell. Were there wars before WW1 where armies fought using similar tactics and someone won fairly quickly? Prokhorovka (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, most (all?) the major parties were planning on a short war based on manoeuvring armies - for instance, the Germans based their overall strategy on the Schlieffen Plan (a quick, crippling strike of France, before turning on Russia), while France put their hopes on Plan XVII (a a "scheme of mobilization and concentration" to regain control of Alsace-Lorraine). It was only when they realised that modern weapons (bolt loading rifles, breach loading field artillery and the machinegun) made mincemeat out of soldiers caight in the open that they started digging in - lessons they could have learned from other wars in other parts of the world if they had been paying attentions.
 * Everyone planned on having trenches — because they're good temporary field cover. Nobody imagined trench systems at all resembling what happened.  Note what had happened in some other wars, such as the South African, Franco-Prussian, Austro-Prussian Wars of the last fifty years: they were wars of movement, and long sieges were more of the traditional type (e.g. the Siege of Paris) and didn't have the extensive trench warfare seen in battles such as the Siege of Petersburg.  Nyttend (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been said that if European military types had paid a little more serious attention to the U.S. Civil War (especially the Virginia theatre), they might have been less surprised by the way WWI turned out to be fought... AnonMoos (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a common claim by US popular historians that the American Civil War was the first truly modern war and its outcomes were ignored by European military thinkers, however the facts don't really bear this out. The infantry of both sides still fought in close order lines and formed square when charged by cavalry, the same as every other 1860s army. In the example quoted above, the Siege of Petersburg lasted 9 months; there was plenty of trench warfare in the Siege of Sevastopol (1854–55) which lasted a whole year in the previous decade, so it's plain wrong that the British and French didn't understand what it was all about. The British Army in 1914 were ahead of the game because of the lessons learnt in the Second Boer War at great cost, but even they were unprepared for the power of modern weapons when used en masse.
 * Trench warfare in WWI wasn't inevitable,; the Germans came damned close to turning the French line in August and September 1914, and it has often been suggested that if they had followed Alfred von Schlieffen's deathbed advice "Remember to keep the right flank strong!", the war would indeed have been over by Christmas. There were only brief spells of static warfare on the Eastern Front and in the Middle East, here mobile warfare complete with large cavalry contingents was the key to success. It has been suggested that it was the well developed rail network in France and Germany that made the Western Front possible and enabled defenders to snuff out any offensive by throwing huge reserves at it. By WWII, armour, motor transport and air power had reduced the role of railways somewhat, allowing the Germans to concentrate overwhelming force on weak points in the line before they could be reinforced. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Berlin police vs. BEF
All these World War I questions makes me wonder: what was the numerical strength of the Berlin Police in 1914, when it was suggested by Imperial officials that they be sent to arrest the BEF? Of course I understand that it was an exaggeration, but Google shows nothing, and Berlin Police jumps directly from 1848 to 1936. Nyttend (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find an answer for you, but I did find this amusing photo; BERLIN POLICE OFFICERS ON SLEDS, 1914, which would have made a rather good cartoon by Heath Robinson. Alansplodge (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this source, there were 7,000 police officers in Berlin in 1915. Marco polo (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)