Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 11

= May 11 =

German Calvinist states
Out of the major German states (states during German Empire and major HRE states with significance but failed persist to 1871) how many of their ruling families were Calvinist as oppose to Lutheran? I know the ruling families of Prussia, the Electoral Palatinate and Hesse-Kassel were Calvinist.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That is already a pretty exhaustive list. You could add the Netherlands (before 1648 part of HRR), see religious map of 1618. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you list the states/families that you need? 184.147.137.171 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That map shows Anhalt and the Nassau principalities as Calvinist as well. I don't think there were ever that many. john k (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

French work, but I only know the Dutch title
This is a beaut. I am looking for the original title of work by Xavier de Montépin, translated to Dutch as De Wraak van den Koddebeier; this translation was published sometime around 1894 (see ad here, page 4). WorldCat doesn't have it, and these old newspapers and a book I'm using to reference Lie Kim Hok is the only proof I have that it exists. Can anyone help me find the original title? (If this helps, an adaptation of the translation was "a story of adultery, murder and revenge set in the context of provincial Chinese aristocracy"; a character "whom the hero thinks he has killed and whose death he bitterly regrets turns out to be alive after twenty years disappearance, during which time he has suffered from loss of memory.") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, de Montépin wrote a lot! There's a list or 80 or 90 books in his French Wikipedia article Xavier de Montépin. I have to go, but if no one else can help you look through them later, I can do some of the list. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He certainly did, and none of the titles I saw could be translated literally as De Wraak van den Koddebeier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Koddebeier should be "garde-chasse" in French? here are the results for that. (I really have to go now). Unfortunately, nothing came up for "Xavier de Montépin" +Chine. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The writer (Lie) tended to make his stories more Chinese focused, so I wouldn't expect China to play a role. *looking* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Brinkman's alphabetische lijst van boeken, landkaarten en verder in den boekhandel voorkomende artikelen from 1886 refers to it on p. 191 as an onuitgegeven handschrift, which translates as unpublished manuscript. Looie496 (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see that; does it say the French version was unpublished? The ad from 1895 says "De Wraak van den Koddebeier, uit het Fransch van XAVIER DE MONTEPIN, een werk dat men tienmaal uitleest" (The Gamekeeper's Revenge, translated from French, by Xavier de Montépin, an opus that you read ten times), so something was published. The translation certainly got to the Dutch East Indies if Lie was able to use it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The second work advertised in 1895 is De Vermakelijke spraakkunst by Jacob van Lennep. Lennep also influenced Lie Kim Hok. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, although the sources only point to Klaasje Zevenster as one which was extensively copied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Google Books turns up some more works not on the French Wikipedia list. Searching for "Xavier de Montépin" and "garde-chasse" in Google Books brings up "La nuit du vingt septembre (L'idiot)", "La Comtesse de Pern", and "La femme de paillasse" as works that mention a garde-chasse. (Although I am sure that Google Books does not necessarily include all of Montépin's works, so it may not be too useful.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel my hair falling out... I guess Montepin was too productive. Considering how difficult to track down this blasted book is, having anything more than what Tio writes would be close to OR... might not want to worry too much about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The 1895 ad is a bit strange, for it sells the eight items together at a loss for 1.25 Dutch guilders. This might hint at the possibility that this was a remainder of stock. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What a strange ad. For 1.25 you get all that--including a promissory note from a notary for a cutlery set, or its value (300 guilders). It's a scam, Crisco: don't send them your 1.25. And note that you're supposed to send them the money via money order marked "inexplicable packet"--but "inexplicable" here can mean "undeclarable" (like a customs term) as well. Crisco, you're likely to get Shanghaied if you persist with this kind of underground activity. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good thing I don't have any 1890s currency drifting around. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Try and get this from the library and look at page 231. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, good idea (there should be a copy somewhere in the city). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Are these coins original?
They are selling 2000, 3000 years old coins and starting price is 10 US dollars or so. Are these original? --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't speak to these coins in particular, but according a my google searching, old coins aren't rare. That would suggest to me that there is no reason for these old coins not to be real.  But you'd have to do more research than I did to be sure. Mingmingla (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gartoon-Bluefish-icon.png User:Titodutta is very confused. The problem is the coins eBay is selling for $10—15, similar coins are being priced thousands of dollars here. The price of the first coin in the list is half million dollar! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Be careful when buying coins on eBay. It's safer to go to a reputable dealer. According to Criticism of eBay, it is estimated that about a quarter of all ancient coins and about two-thirds of all antiquities sold on eBay are modern forgeries.--Shantavira|feed me 20:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I will start with the caveat that I don't know anything about these coins, and as such, I can't really speak for how real they may be. As Mingmingla says, old coins aren't necessarily rare. I have some Roman coins that someone dug up somewhere that were bought from a coin collectors shop. What determines the price is how rare the coin is, but, as generally is true with all collectibles, how 'nice' it is. The more complete it is, and the less worn out it is, the more it is worth. (Some of those eBay pictures do show a massive quantity of coins, which should speak to their lack of rarity, and another is so worn out it's just a shapeless piece of metal.) Getting old coins rather inexpensively is possible (but they're not worth much if you want to sell them on). Again, I don't know about these coins in particular (heck! even my Roman coins could be forgeries), so if you are interested in getting genuine antiques, approach with caution. V85 (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * One comment on condition: Many of those coins listed in "excellent" condition are clearly not so. They are so worn you can't even tell what the original image was. StuRat (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * They mean in excellent condition for a really old and worn and scratched and mangled coin. :)  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  12:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not buy one for 10 US dollars or so and believe all your life it is worth thousands of dollars. You will be happy all your life. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was planning to gift my school's history teacher. I left school in 2006 but he was a great teacher. Gifting a fake coin might be embarrassing! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure your teacher would be OK with being given to some third party as a gift? :) --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  19:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, Jack, how do you think a teacher like Tito Dutta's got to be so very gifted in the first place? [Someone had to do it, and if not a current or former student, then who? There were certainly former teachers in my career whom I would gladly have made extremely gifted, to some deserving school on the opposite end of the Earth.] ;-) —— Shakescene (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto. -- Jack of Oz  [Talk]  20:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Higher education in USA
Three questions on Higher education in USA:
 * What Percentage of students are admitted to Harvard and MIT out of total students who have registered?
 * Since US have individual state citizenships are only students of Massachusetts eligible for admission to Harvard and MIT? And if students of other states of USA came to study at Harvard and MIT where they stay during college life?
 * Are there any universities in USA which teach all courses only in spanish? Solomon7968 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) In 2013, Harvard admitted 5.8% of people who applied for admission: . For fall 2012, MIT admitted 8.9% of the people who applied for admission:.
 * 2) States do not have state citizenship. They have state residency, but that is not citizenship.  IOn the U.S. the only citizenship is to be a citizen of the U.S. as a whole.  You are a citizen of the U.S. but a resident of the state where you sleep at night.  While all 50 states have "public" colleges and universities that offer some form of cheaper admissions for in-state residents (most require you to live in a state for a minimum of 1 year before your first year of college before applying for in-state tuition), and some state schools also have quotas for in-state students (that is, they can only take so many out-of-state students), neither Harvard nor MIT are state-supported schools.  They are fully private schools that have no ties to the State of Massachusetts excepting that they happen to be on top of it.  For Harvard, the breakdown of students by region is here.  Only 17% of students come from the New England region, of which Massachusetts is the most populous state; that means that it is likely that no more than 10-15% at most of Harvard students come from Massachusetts.  Here is the raw data for MIT by state.  It has total numbers, and not percentages, but the U.S. State with the most MIT students (undergrad and graduate) is California with 1201, while Massachusetts is in second place with 1008, that 1008 is less than 10% of the 11,000+ total students.
 * 3) This article may be of interest to you if you are interested in studying at a U.S. university which teaches in Spanish. The Ana G. Méndez University System - Universidad del Este, a school based in Puerto Rico, has branch campuses in Orlando and Miami, Florida, and plans to expand into Tampa as well, according to that article.  There may be others, but that is all I can find.  -- Jayron  32  19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On point 2, the 14th amendment disagrees with you: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.  It's true that this sort of "state citizenship" is a bit unusual, in the sense that you can get a different one apparently just by moving, with no other formalities whatsoever.  And I'm not clear what, if any, juridicial effect it might have.  Some states have treason laws &mdash; I wonder if a Californian who made war against California could be convicted of treason against California, but a Nevadan could not? --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * States have citizenship, and that's a fact that the 14th amendment diminished more than it created. That's basic constitutional law. The Privileges and Immunities clause (there's 2) has more relevance here. Shadowjams (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So what juridicial effect, if any, does this citizenship have? All the distinctions for taxation and tuition and such seem to talk about residency rather than citizenship. The notion of being a "citizen of California" seems to show up mostly in speeches. --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Saenz v. Roe would be one, and we have an article on that. I'm sure there's more. Shadowjams (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Privilege to travel and work between states would be one, btw. Shadowjams (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Those seem to be more about the limitations of the notion of state citizenship than about its effects. What juridicial effect, if any, does state citizenship have?  Meaning, what is the difference if I am a citizen of California rather than Nevada?  Your answers seem to be, not about what is the difference, but about what is the same, which is directly opposite to what I asked. --Trovatore (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * State citizenships existed before the U.S. constitution came into existence, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause is interpreted as meaning that a citizen of any state has the same rights in other states as do citizens of those states. The Dred Scott decision has a lot about state citizenship, but not much of it applies to today's law... AnonMoos (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul the Apostle
According to the New Testament, Paul apparently went to Jerusalem, Asia Minor, Damascus, Macedonia, Corinth, Rome, and a lot of other places. He even claimed in his letter to the Romans that he was visiting Spain, although our article seems to indicate he never made it. Was it really that easy to travel across the Roman Empire for a man of moderate socioeconomic status, or is his "travelogue" somewhat exaggerated? How would he have traveled? Could you just rent a horse or boat, buy a map, start traveling, and stay at hotels along the way? Was there some empire-wide pony network? Also, was there a postal service to deliver his letters, or did he use private couriers? --Bowlhover (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think he went on his own? He would have had some people with him. For a start, he would need numerous translators and interpreters. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, all the places he went were within the Roman Empire so he would only have needed to speak Latin. He did have travelling companions, as are mentioned in his epistles: he also stayed with the Christian communities in those locations, as he mentioned in his letters. I'm sure someone with deeper knowledge of chapter and verse will be along later to give exact quotes. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by V85 (talk • contribs)
 * Most of Paul's journeys are described in detail in Acts of the Apostles, though additional details can be gleaned from his letters (see Pauline epistles). You can find a synopsis of these in Wikipedia starting at Paul the Apostle.  During this time, the missionary work of the early church was carried out in "pairs" of leaders, with a senior leader and a junior leader.  There also may have been a retinue of supporters which may or may not have traveled with the two missionaries for parts of the journeys, but there were certainly times when Paul and his companion would have been traveling just as a pair.  During his first journey, Paul was the junior member of the pair, with Barnabas as the leader, though Paul eventually assumes leadership of this journey.  The group also includes at least John Mark for part of the journey, and I believe that others can be inferred.  On the second journey, the same two (Paul and Barnabas) set off together, and meet up with John Mark and Silas in Antioch.  Paul has fallings out with Barnabas and John Mark, so it is decided to essentially swap companions: Barnabas and John Mark leave in one direction and Pail and Silas in another.  Paul and Silas pick up Timothy along the way; Timothy later becomes a major church leader in his own right.  Priscilla and Aquila join late in his second journey, and also along the third.  Except for his arrest and transport to Rome to stand trial as a Citizen of the Empire, Paul's journeys were all within the Eastern Roman Empire, of which he was a native (being from Tarsus), and everywhere he went outside of Palestine he would have spoken Greek to everyone, which would have been a first language for him, as well as for most of the people he was visiting with.  In Palestine, aside from Greek many people would have spoken Aramaic; Paul also likely knew Aramaic well.  -- Jayron  32  21:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm actually reading Acts right now, which is what inspired the question. My question is more about how Paul traveled (by horse, boat, walking, etc) than who he traveled with.  I suspect we don't have evidence about Paul in particular, so it would be interesting to know about other Romans of his socioeconomic status and whether they could travel as extensively as he did.  --Bowlhover (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * By "Latin," I am certain Tammy means Greek. Latin was never a lingua franca outside Italy in any meaningful sense. The upper classes and government officials would have been fluent, but Paul's audience (primarily, but not exclusively, common citizens and even slaves) would have been lucky if they could count to ten in Latin. It is likely that Paul spoke Aramaic; one would also expect him to know a good bit of liturgical Hebrew as well, assuming his claim to a Pharisaic background is to believed (though why he quotes the Septuagint so damn much if he can read Hebrew is beyond me). As far as the exaggeration question goes, you'd probably be interested in Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 23:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes you're right. I had in mind Paul's conversation with an official when he was going to be flogged, something along the lines of "I'm a Roman Citizen dontcha know" (civitas Romanis sum). --TammyMoet (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Civis Romanus sum. He would not have described himself as a state (civitas) and Romanis is the dative/ablative :) Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Romani, Ite Domum!" [[Image:SFriendly.gif|20px]] -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that is Romanes eunt domus. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Vide Romani ite domum. --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  08:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh well I only did Greek at school, for 2 years, took the exam and promptly forgot every single word, so I'm not surprised I got the Latin wrong.--TammyMoet (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If Latin wasn't a lingua franca outside of Italy, how come people speak Romance languages from Lisbon to Bucharest and from Paris to Barcelona? 109.99.71.97 (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Latin was the lingua franca in the western part of the empire, and in the army. In the eastern part of the empire, where Paul did most of his travelling, the lingua franca was Greek, as most of the eastern provinces had been part of the empires of Alexander the Great and his successors, and the upper class Romans, who were sent to govern the provinces, were educated in Greek. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Overland he would have likely walked, using donkeys or mules as pack animals. He definitely traveled by boat, as he was shipwrecked at least 3 times.  I'm not sure horses were used often by anyone except the Roman aristocrats at the time (i.e. the Roman equestrian order and the military Cavalry they supported); Paul was a Roman Citizen, which likely means he was given freedom to travel anywhere in the Empire he wanted.  The fact that he was a Citizen is why, after his arrest, he had the right to demand trial in the city of Rome itself. -- Jayron  32  23:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See Roman Roads—Monuments to Ancient Engineering &mdash; Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 * and Did You Know? &mdash; Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY, published by Jehovah's Witnesses.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Although I don't doubt the information (it seems unexceptional), does anyone have a more reliable source than Watchtower?  --Bowlhover (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is all rather common and basic knowledge, I don't think you are going to find any source that contradicts what has been said. For a very readable history of the era, try Will Durant's Caesar and Christ. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Romans are famous for their engineering skills, and the network of roads they built all across the empire made travel easier for rich and poor alike, creating a traveling class of traders, tourists, and health-seekers going to spas or shrines. Inns providing food, drink, lodging, and stables were dotted along the roads, and if need be, one could hire wagons or pack animals at certain places.  See the wikiarticle Roman roads.  You can easily find many books describing particular methods of private transport and travel by searching Google Books (for example this one or this one):  but chances are that all but the very wealthy traveled on foot, or riding a mule or donkey.  There was no public postal system as we know it; official messages were sent by the cursus publicus, but ordinary people relied on trusted friends or acquaintances going the right way to deliver letters.  And of course, there were many merchant ships plying the Mediterranean who would also accommodate private travelers.  So there is no need to think Paul exaggerated anything about his travels.  Textorus (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Bowlhover -- see Apuleius' "Golden Ass" for some vivid accounts of travelling in the Roman empire... AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want some exaggeration, see the Acts of Paul and Thecla. And that is only an early Christian variation on a common theme of Greek novels, where starstruck lovers were separated ("by pirates") and travel all around the mediterranean, always just missing each other (and, of course, "fates worse than death") until they find each other (or God, in the case of Paul and Thecla) in the end. I can imagine the lurid four-colour covers of the scrolls ;-). But even if unrealistic, these novels attest to the fact that long-distance travel was a well-understood feature of the ancient world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Nuking Targets in Japan in 1945
Why did the United States nuke the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (full of civilian populations) during World War II instead of nuking Japanese military locations? Also, how much of a role/say did President Truman have in regards to determining which targets in Japan the U.S. should nuke in 1945? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, the article about these nukings has some info on this. Also, this statement in the article about these nukings--"In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, US military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb, and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation, and the wish to maximize psychological shock."--makes me wonder: how much of a say did U.S. President Truman have (or was able to have) in not dropping these leaflet warnings and in not doing a test detonation beforehand? Futurist110 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they were industrial centres. I have no idea about President Truman's say in this. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki states that 'Hiroshima, an embarkation port and industrial center that was the site of a major military headquarters', and 'Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby' i.e. it was a city that had strong ties to the Japanese military. V85 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this info. Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The political decision making was largely devolved by the President to the Interim Committee. Target selection was done by by a committee that reported to George Marshall and secretary of war Stimson (see Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Conant, head of the committee with overall charge of the Manhattan project, wrote to Curtis LeMay, who was in charge of the massive aerial bombardment of Japan, asking that these cities not be bombed (to maximise the before-vs-after differential); LeMay pointedly wrote back saying he would have "completed the strategic bombing of Japan" by the winter of 1945 (meaning that if they didn't get a move on with the A-bomb, he'd have already destroyed every city of note by Christmas). Stimson and Marshall were direct reports to the President, and Conant's demesne was so massive he was effectively too. Truman approved the plans presented to him by Stimson; had he wanted to change them he could have done. Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a good, detailed coverage of this entire process. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info about this book. Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Our articles on this are the best we're going to do in response to this question, but the only thing I'd add to the really good answers above, is that Truman absolutely had the final say, and I remember hearing a story (perhaps untrue) that one of the first things after he was sworn in he was told was about the existence of the bomb. Also, as Finlay alludes to, Hiroshima was selected (there were backup targets too in case of cloud cover) because it was largely unaffected by previous bombing. Tokyo was absolutely decimated (much like Berlin and London) from conventional bombing. Shadowjams (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, in case you were using "decimated" in its formal sense, of reducing by one-tenth, down to 90%: our article says "Over 50% of Tokyo was destroyed by the end of World War II". --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  22:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So basically if Truman wanted to, he could have ordered leaflet warnings to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki beforehand and done a "practice" nuclear test somewhere outside of major Japanese civilian areas beforehand? Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As a legal matter absolutely. As history has turned out I think Truman made the right decision, but that's my own opinion on what is the lesser of many evils. If japan's colonial instincts hadn't led them to bomb the U.S., and side with a stone cold psychopath named Hitler, they might be like Vietnam right now. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify--on "the right decision," do you mean on nuking Japan, not distributing warning leaflets and doing a practice nuclear test beforehand, or all of these things? Futurist110 (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure. It's hard to see what could productively be written on such leaflets, however. Operation Meetinghouse killed around 100,000 people in Tokyo in a single night in March 1945. As that didn't break Japanese resolve, a leaflet warning that the US had a different way of dealing the same degree of devastation wasn't likely to either. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The leaflets could have contained warnings about how the United States would throw an extremely powerful weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and about how all civilians should flee from these cities immediately. Futurist110 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Our article suggests strongly that no warning leaflets were dropped over Hiroshima. I find that curious, and possibly inaccurate... But Truman could have done any of that. He could have just invaded japan, and lost hundreds of thousands more, or could have just continuously firebombed japan's major cities, and killed thousands more. Japan bombed the U.S. first. The U.S., for all of europe's retardedness, stayed out for as long as it could. The notion that the U.S. has something to apologize for ending the most horrific war in modern history is absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You probably ought to know that from looking at Japanese records, there is very little evidence that the atomic bombs were what made them decide to surrender when they did. The premier scholars on the issue, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, has rather authoritatively concluded that it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific War, not the atomic bombings, that made the difference. Whether you think the US's decision was proper or not given what they knew (it's an open question), one should not confuse the motivation to drop the bomb with the actual reasons that Japan surrendered. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Bullshito, as they say. Edison (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that Japan might have surrendered due to the U.S.S.R. declaring war on them, but that the U.S. did not know what was going on in the minds of the Japanese leadership until after it has already nuked Japan twice? Futurist110 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Europe's retardedness" needs some explanation. Or withdrawal.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  22:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So does that comment about 'they might be like Vietnam'. I actually don't understand it. It either comes from a person who has never visited either Japan or Vietnam and knows nothing about either Japan or Vietnam, or, on the other hand it comes from a person who has never visited either Japan or Vietnam and knows nothing about either Japan or Vietnam. Which one shall we choose? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Europe got into two major wars, among others. "retarded" doesn't need explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course, and the Americans have been in war after war after war (usually on easy targets - with outside help, which is nothing to be proud of, especially when you have President Friendly-Fire in command) ever since the British created America. The Americans even fought each other when they had nothing else to do (the only war they won). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * American history doesn't begin in 1946 or end in 1992. But your suggestion that we should act unilaterally and decisively, rather than collectively and altruistically, is appreciated. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm - I think the goings-on of Messrs Schickelgruber and Dzhugashvili might be described as "retarded" without causing undue offence. However, WWII was a walk in the park compared to the Great War, so "most horrific war in modern history" is the statement that calls for justification. Tevildo (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you mean they were morally retarded. Whatever, but it's not a word I'm comfortable with using about humans, because it is hyper-loaded with meaning much of which can be so easily misinterpreted.  It doesn't help, and it has a great potential to hinder.  --  <font face="Papyrus">Jack of Oz  <font face="Papyrus">[Talk]  02:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh? "WWII was a walk in the park compared to the Great War, ..." 10 million died in WWI but 60 million died in WWII. Not a walk in the park comparison at all. Rmhermen (talk)
 * The primary target for the second raid was Kokura, a center for arms manufacturing: the raid diverted to to Nagasaki because of cloud cover.  Acroterion   (talk)   21:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we please keep this on track for the reference desk. If you want to bitch about the politics of it all, find a forum that is appropriate for it. --Onorem♠Dil 02:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

For Truman's role in the decision, the OP would do well to read volume 2 of Truman's Memoirs, available at libraries or on Amazon, as well as the definitive biography by David McCullough, both of which delve into the subject at more length and with greater nuance than is possible here on the Ref Desk. Of course, searching for "truman atomic bomb" on Google Books will turn up many, many other books which examine his role in the decision. Textorus (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Dowager consorts
Did the dowager imperial consorts and concubines (excluding empresses) of Qing and Ming emperors live in different quarters of the Forbidden City and what did they do with most of their widowed lives?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear targets in Germany
Had the United States come up with a list of targets in Germany to drop atomic bombs, should the war have continued past the point when the atomic bombs were ready to be delivered? RNealK (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, no. Even if the US had the atomic bomb ready to go, it was obvious for quite some time that Nazi Germany was headed for imminent collapse.  They had enemies closing in on all sides, and no oceans to protect them from massive land invasions.  Also, the average German soldier was far more willing to surrender, as were many of the generals.  So, it simply wasn't necessary to resort to the atomic bomb.  StuRat (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To the best of my knowledge, yes. From Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:


 * "Preliminary research began in 1939, originally in fear that the Nazi atomic bomb project would develop atomic weapons first. In May 1945, the defeat of Germany caused the focus to turn to use against Japan."


 * "The 509th Composite Group was constituted on 9 December 1944, and activated on 17 December 1944, at Wendover Army Air Field, Utah, commanded by Colonel Paul Tibbets. Tibbets was assigned to organize and command a combat group to develop the means of delivering an atomic weapon against targets in Germany and Japan. Because the flying squadrons of the group consisted of both bomber and transport aircraft, the group was designated as a "composite" rather than a "bombardment" unit."


 * OsmanRF34 (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * But the OP asked about a list of target cities in Germany, and that's something you do in the late stages of preparation, not right at the beginning. After all, it would be pointless to do so early on, as which cities were in Allied control, which were already totally destroyed, which had POW camps, and which were accessible to bombers would all be likely to change by the bombing date. StuRat (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, the OP asked about if the US would come up with a list of target in Germany, if needed. And I still maintain that yes, the atomic bombs were not only for bombing Japan. If it had been the case, the US would have dropped a bomb in Germany too. There's nothing special about nuking the Japanese. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the question again, StuRat is right, the OP asked if there (edit: was) ever a list prepared in case the war was still on going when the bombs were ready, not if they would come up with a list if needed. However I don't agree with the rest of his comment. It seems easily possible they would have come up with a highly tentative list which may have been updated until it was clear it was no longer necessary, or perhaps just a few random thoughts on possibilities. OTOH this source Japan was already the primary target in 1943, at least among those actually planning even if not among the builders and others. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * @Nil Einne: nope, the OP didn't ask that. Indeed, "Had the US come up ..." is the same as "Would the US come up ..". It is not if the US had a list. "Had" can also be a conditional in English in some cases like this. In any case, the US was analyzing target to drop atomic bombs in Germany, as the rest of my answer implies. Obviously, that doesn't imply that the US had a 'to do' list with items on it like: nuke Berlin, nuke Munich, free Jewish people, napalm bomb Japan, .... OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your meaning is unclear, Osman. It is quite obvious the OP was using the pluperfect "had come up", not a conditional. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See Reference_desk/Language for a discussion about my interpretation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * An article in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists from 1995 says that fear of a German atom bomb motivated the US and Allied atom bomb project in 1942 on, and was used by Gen groves to justify highest priority for anything the project needed, at the cost of other war programs. The scientists, many Jewish and/or refugees from Hitler, were motivated to strike at Germany rather than Japan. But the delivery airplane chosen, the B29, was not intended for European use, and had the very long distance capability needed to strike Japan. By the fall of 1944, there was no US thought of using the bomb against Germany. There was some fear that if a dud were dropped on Germany, their atom bomb project might be able to gain rapid advances from it, though other intelligence said the German atom bomb project was lagging. (Such intelligence in wartime is too often deceptive, such as the Allied intel that the invasion of Europe would be at Dover rather than Normandy, and a sensible commander would have allowed for intel to be misinformation from double agents or turned agents). I couldn't find evidence that German atom bomb targets were selected and analyzed. Allied terror bombing of German and Japanese cities via imprecise night-time bombing was able to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians via firestorms etc using conventional means. Edison (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Military planners could have chosen a list if the bomb had been perfected in 1944 instead of after the Germans surrendered, or if the war had persisted due to a failed D-Day invasion. MI6 urged Churchill in mid-1944 to get Roosevelt to nuke Germany to counter the V2 strikes. MI6 may not have known how far behind schedule the bomb actually was. Alternative history military schemers provide lists of likely nuke targets in Germany if the bomb had been developed in time., . One problem with nuking Germany if the war had persisted past mid 1945 was the vast system of  factories, military stores depots, V2 and jet plane assembly and launch points and troop barracks the Germans were building so far underground that WW2 nukes would have had little effect on them. Edison (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is pure speculation on my part. but when Edison writes (or paraphrases) that "There was some fear that if a dud were dropped on Germany, their atom bomb project might be able to gain rapid advances from it, ...", the thought popped into my head that this fear might also have applied to the Soviet atomic bomb project. The USSR was technically at peace with Japan until August 1945, but the Red Army would have been reasonably close to any Anglo-American A-Bomb dropped far enough east from the Second (Western) Front for the (Western) Allied Expeditionary Force's own safety. Had there been some kind of misfire or misaiming, the Soviets might have had a great opportunity to study such a device (or at least its effects) from direct observation rather than, or in addition to, spies' reports. (Of course, for die-hard anti-Communists in the U.S. military like Patton, MacArthur and Curtis LeMay, that might have seemed a double-edged sword, since they could envision such a close detonation having the same desirable shock and moral deterrence on Stalin and the Red Army as it later had — or was meant to have — on the Japanese emperor, military and people.) ¶ It should also be remembered that the A-Bomb project started as the fusion of two separate Allied efforts, American (later the Manhattan Project) and British Empire (later code-named Tube Alloys). The Third Reich was a threat to the existence of the British and Russian nations (and millions of their people) in a form far graver, more real and more imminent than Germany or Japan realistically posed to the Americas (as compared to China, Australia, Indochina, the Philippines and the East Indies). Had Hitler's own A-Bomb been closer to reality, it was infinitely more likely to be tried on British and Soviet targets (and Allied forces in Europe) than on the American mainland; so rank self-preservation would have caused British and Soviet strategists (had the chronology been different) to insist on nuking the Reich first. But, as I said, this is mainly semi-informed speculation. I won't object if anyone wants to enclose this in &lt;small&gt; brackets &lt;/small&gt;. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As a quick note, the BoAS article mentioned by Edison appears to be the same one I linked to earlier using an archive.org copy of the web version, which may be easier to read on a computer screen. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The B-29 was chosen because it was the only airplane in US inventory that was long enough to carry the Thin Man bomb and wide enough to carry the Fat Man bomb. Things like having the range to hit Japan were irrelevant -- simply being able to carry the three proposed bomb designs was the deciding characteristic.  If the decision had been made to bomb Germany, the Silverplate B-29s would have been sent there, even if the airplanes "weren't intended for European use".  --Carnildo (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)