Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 May 11

= May 11 =

How did the Portuguese get hold of Northern Brazil Amazon Forest but not the British, the French or others?
How did the Portuguese Empire get hold of Northern Brazil which is a large area of the Amazon Forest? Did the British, the Dutch and the French try to take Northern Brazil from the Brazilian Portuguese before? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Portuguese actually got an early start during the Age of Exploration. See Henry the Navigator for some background on why this happened.  As far as nobody else later taking it away from them, that might precipitate a broader European war, since there were many entangling alliances.  And while there was still open land that could easily be claimed in the Americas, risking war would seem like a foolish option.  StuRat (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is "yes", somebody else indeed try to take it away from them: please see the Dutch Brazil article. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Timeline_of_Amazon_history and Amazonas_(Brazilian_state) history section has some info. It seems even the Irish had a go at colonizing over there. Star Lord -   星王 (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * British acquisitions on mainland South America were limited to British Guiana. Establishing a useful colony from scratch in such an inhospitable place was expensive and dangerous. The British acquired their colony from the Netherlands during the Napoleonic Wars and held on to it by means of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814. Thereafter it was developed for sugar production by slave labour. The only possible use for rain forest would be for logging tropical hardwood and the British already had as much of that as they could use in British Honduras (now Belize). Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not only there are hardwoods, but precious minerals could be found there. The British Empire was the most powerful empire back 200 years ago and they could have taken Northern Brazil if they want to. Right? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not really. The British Empire had a sizable fleet, but was stretched to its administrative limit managing the entire Empire as it was, also it had no reason to impose itself upon the territory of it's historically strongest ally.  Seriously, there's no reason Britain would ever want to invade and take Brazil.  It had no means to do so anyways, but even if it did have the means, it had no reason to.  -- Jayron 32 01:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Brazil became independence from Portugal in 1822. That would mean Brazil had nothing to do with Portugal, and Brazil was not an English ally anymore because it was a free country like the United States. The British could invade and take some lands from Brazil if they want to. Am I right? 173.33.183.141 (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, Brazilian independence doesn't mean "they had nothing to do with Portugal", anymore than the granting of Dominion status to Canada would mean that the U.K. "had nothing to do with Canada" anymore. You can be damned sure that if, say, Portugal invaded Canada the UK would have a whole shitload of very angry words to say about.  Read up on the process of Brazilian independence, and you'll learn some of the nuances of history.  Or don't, and keep saying silly things that have no connection to the realities of history.  Makes no difference to me.  If you want to actually be educated, we have tons of articles on the topic.  Start with Transfer of the Portuguese Court to Brazil, and follow on through Brazil–Portugal relations to understand the modern perspective, and try to see if Portugal would have turned a blind eye to their historically strongest ally (Britain) invading their largest former colony with whom they also enjoyed a strong bond.  Or, you can continue to argue asinine ideas from a place of ignorance.  Makes no difference to me.  I've done my best to provide you with places to educate yourself.  You do what you want.  -- Jayron 32 00:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * They certainly could have tried. I would have expected a protracted jungle war leading to their eventual defeat, much like the French (and later Americans) in Indochina.  It's just too much land, in too different of a climate, and too far away, for them to do very well.  Of course, they did manage to conquer India, but that was many little kingdoms when they arrived, not a united nation fighting against them.


 * Also, as Brazilians were Christians by then, invading another Christian nation without just cause was consider bad form, at the time (similar to how invading any nation without just cause is bad form now). StuRat (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Does BPM Need To Cite Source
I edited the article for the song Leave Me Alone by Michael Jackson. The article stated that the song's tempo is 112 BPM when in reality the song is at 124 BPM. I don't have any source to site, but this information is self-evident when listening to the song. Is it alright not to have a source to cite in this case or no? This is my first (and perhaps my last) time editing on wikipedia so I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing. I'm not even sure if this is the right place to be asking this question or if I should have posted this on the talk page for that article, so please forgive me if I'm going about this the wrong way and making an ass out of myself. Thanks, --ElGimoni (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In this case the problem is that the article already cites a source for the tempo, and that source says it's 112. So by just changing the number and leaving the reference unchanged, you are claiming that the source says it's 124.  If you had another source that said it was 124, you could cite that source and mention the conflicting information.  But you say you know the tempo from listening to the song, and that's not a citeable source.  I suggest changing the number back to 112 but flagging it , and explaining on the talk page how it's obvious.  (I'd do that myself, but I'm not familiar with the song, so I don't think it's appropriate for me to do it.)


 * I note that it is possible that the song has been recorded both at 112 and at 124, but you've only heard one of those recordings. Or maybe it was originally written for 112 but they decided to use 124 when the recording was made, and the reference cited is wrong.  I wouldn't know about anything like that; but maybe someone does. --174.88.135.200 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The Humanities desk is probably not the best place for this discussion. In decreasing order I'd say the article's Talk page, or if you feel this specific problem brings up more general issues about editing Wikipedia you could go to the Help Desk, or if, for some reason, you must come to the Reference Desk your best shot is the Entertainment desk. Contact Basemetal   here  17:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Tobruk (Movie 1967)
Can anyone identify the German tanks in the film Tobruk, starring Rock Hudson? I watched it last night, and was bewildered to see German tanks that were shaped more like 1960s US tanks, such as the M46 Patton, just painted with German insignia. Also, throughout the film, they only use one type, so there is no need to watch the entire two-hour movie. KägeTorä - (影虎) ( もしもし！ ) 05:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Just read the article about Tobruk (1967 film), and the article says the Italian tanks are played by M48 Pattons, so I was close. The article makes no mention of the German tanks, but I expect they are the same. Also, the German half-track was also an American one, which I also thought was odd. Still, I guess that the people who went to see Rock Hudson films were hardly military hardware geeks. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 05:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * After watching RH crash through the barbed wire with a stolen tank at around the 1:29 mark on Youtube, it certainly looks like an M-48. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Other equipment in the film includes M3 Half-tracks imitating the Sd.Kfz. 251 and a Grumman Albatross masquerading as a German flying boat. Alansplodge (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I suspect that WW2 films made right after the end of the war would have had better access to working German and Italian tanks. Later films then had the choice of using other tanks, or constructing new mock-ups of Axis tanks, at great expenses, so this was probably only done in big-budget productions. StuRat (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't recall any early war films that use real Axis tanks, but I may be wrong about that. Certainly by the 1960s, Hollywood films are using current US tanks as stand-ins, notably in Battle of the Bulge (1965) with huge fleets of tanks; M47 Pattons representing the Germans and M24 Chaffees representing the Americans. Patton (1970) has lots of M48s. In Saving Private Ryan more realism was required and an ex-Soviet T-34 was convincingly turned into a Tiger I. Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You're wrong about that. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Memelland




What's that on the sides of the seal ?

They are described as either wooden scaffolding (doesn't look like it to me) or "wharf elements" here:. Does anyone have a photo of either that resembles the seal ? StuRat (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * If "wharf elements" is correct then I'd guess they are stylized images of a wharf crane. That search gives mostly modern images, but I found an older picture here that has a device that vaguely resembles those on the flag. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * There are more images of the seal at Coat of arms of Klaipėda. Reading our article on Memel Castle, the castle was originally "wooden, protected by a tower". Could the scaffold bits represent wooden structures that were part of the castle? DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've included that much better pic here, to help us figure out what it is supposed to be. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * An article on GenWiki here says they are "wooden marker buoys (as in Bommelsvitte and "Galgenbake" in Schmelz).". DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

First Amazon bridge
Upon its completion a few years ago, the Rio Negro Bridge was heralded as the first bridge anywhere in the Amazon system. How could this be the case? There aren't a ton of roads in the far western parts of the system, but Google Maps shows some that cross rivers; there's a big one on a national highway at the Ecuadorian provincial capital of Puerto Francisco de Orellana, a cable-stayed bridge (picture; approximately -0.47222°N, -76.97944°W) over the Río Napo, and this book, which predates the Rio Negro bridge by several years, mentions the Napo bridge as already being in place. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to a source making the claim for the Rio Negro Bridge? If we can all read it, maybe we can parse it for what it is saying.  -- Jayron 32 14:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Example, but that's just one thing; it was all through the press when it opened, and I'm sure you could find lots of different statements. I'm running on memory here.  Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, then the statement made by that article is wrong. Plain and simple.  -- Jayron 32 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what about the tons of other sources that said the same thing? It's got to be a more nuanced situation than "well, duhh, it's wrong".  Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the nuance is "the first source got it wrong, and the error permeated through the other sources because lazy journalism." If you have evidence it's blatantly wrong, then it is blatantly wrong.  Things continue to be wrong even if lots of people keep repeating its wrongness.  -- Jayron 32 23:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What was the first source? The Guardian's source seems to be this. Hardly a reliable source a Guardian article ought to refer to, to begin with, at least if you care to ask me. Amusingly the Guardian amended one bit of info in this 05/08/2010 article ("This article was amended on 6 August 2010. The original stated that the Manaus-Iranduba bridge is the longest in Brazil. This has been corrected."). Obviously they take accuracy in reporting very very seriously. Contact  Basemetal   here  00:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at the forum, the only thing I noticed where the claim could originate from is where someone said "Very impressive ! The only bridge on Amazon. ". In the very next post someone else says "Actually, the bridge is not over the Amazon River itself, but over the Negro River, an affluent, which merges with Amazon ~5km downstream from the bridge." This person doesn't actually say that there are other bridges, but they also don't say there are none so can't be said to support the statement. So if the Guardian is really relying solely on someone making a unclear and potentially misleading statement (depending on how you interpret "on Amazon"), it's even worse than simply relying on a forum post. I wonder if the person is partly right. Is there any bridge on the Amazon River itself? (It may depend on what you mean by the Amazon, since as our article mentions, definitions vary.) There is some talk in page 6 of that forum of building a bridge over the Amazon itself. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Cartoon Character
I remember from maybe 50 years ago a cartoon character named "Dgeaux Bleaux," a satirical spelling of "Joe Blow." I thought Al Capp created Dgeaux Bleaux, but I have checked with his historians and his records and do not find this character. I have facetiously used the first name occasionally in place of my own name, "Joe." Do you have any record of this character?

JP Allryze — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.196.128.177 (talk) 15:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find any record of the character on the interwebz. But it would not be impossible.  The use of "-eaux" in place of the "oh" sound in English words is often used to humorous effect as a means of representing "pseudo-French" language.  The best example I can think of is the LSU Tigers which use Geaux Tigers as a motto; LSU being Louisiana State University, and Louisiana being home to many French-speaking Cajuns.  -- Jayron 32 15:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ... and for some, the Tigers Bleaux, naturally. Jos Bleau appears to be a Québécois French version of Joe Blow (see the Canada section in our article on John Q. Public, or the French WP article on homme de la rue, e.g.), but I wasn't able to locate a cartoon character named "Dgeaux Bleaux" (or Djeau/Djeaux Bleau/Bleaux, ...) ---Sluzzelin talk  16:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course it ought to be Gaux or Gueaux. —Tamfang (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're thinking of the Al Capp character Joe Btfsplk. --M @ r ē ino 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Who painted these?
Are there any paintings named Jefferson Dreams and Monument for a Vietnam Shrine? If yes, who have painted it? I've Googled a lot and couldn't find an answer. All I know is, this works are related to art movements. I found these names from a question paper. So, any help will be much appreciated.-- Jos   eph   16:43, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Was it this question paper (p. 11)? If so, it's the only result that Google is providing for "Monument for a Vietnam Shrine" (the next painting in the question is Rain, Steam and Speed). Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I found "Study for Jefferson Dreams" (12" x 16"), by Lincoln Perry, an artist for which Wikipedia does not have an article, but he does have a website; lincolnperry.com. Alansplodge (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. That's is the question paper. Thanks for you effort.-- Jos   eph   07:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Vietnam Shrine" painting might be "Reflections", by Lee Teter (no article) - see this page on his website. Tevildo (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hitler at strategy
Was Hitler a sophisticated strategist? Or was he more of a mad dog who just ordered his troops to attack?--Llaanngg (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wehrmacht is a good place to start your research. Hitler was commander-in-chief of the military, the actual strategic operation of the military was managed by Wilhelm Keitel, leader of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, or OKW.  Military strategy of Germany during WWII was complex and complicated; the Wehrmacht was officially insulated from the Nazi Party; Wehrmacht officers were forbidden from being members of political parties.  I'll leave it to more experts to give better references for Hitler's actual involvement. -- Jayron 32 18:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * He declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan, thus opening the door to our entry into the European theater of WWII. How well did that strategy work out? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To be fair, most strategists don't consider the U.S. involvement in the European theatre to have been the turning point, per se. The war would have likely dragged on for 2-3 more years, but the Eastern Front was a lost cause for Hitler and it was a matter of when rather than if Germany fell.  The numbers bear that out: the Western Front (World War II) saw a total of about 1,000,000 Axis and 3,000,000 allied casualties.  The Eastern Front (World War II) saw 5,000,000 Axis and 10,000,000 Soviet casualties.  U.S. involvement in general, and D-Day specifically, was about not letting the Russians conquer all of Germany as much as (and perhaps more so) than defeating Germany itself.  The Americans were only heavily involved in Europe from about 1943 on, both in the Italian Campaign and later D-Day.  The Soviets had already softened up Germany pretty well by the time the U.S. had any fighting strength on the ground in Europe to challenge Germany.  U.S. involvement was important, don't get me wrong; the U.S. had a major role to play in the outcome of the war in Europe, but it wasn't like without the U.S. Germany would have won the whole war; that seems unlikely.  Without the U.S., the Iron Curtain would have been considerably further West (perhaps as far as the Atlantic Ocean), and THAT was the greater importance of U.S. involvement.  Ultimately, if we were to make a claim to Hitler's biggest strategic mistake, it wasn't declaring war on the U.S. in 1941 (since the U.S. were already supplying the British war effort anyway), it was Hitler's decision to violate the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.  That was by far his biggest blunder.  His major strategic goal was to re-establish the German Empire ("Grossdeutschland") and establish a buffer zone of satellite states to make it defensible.  He achieved the first goal with the Anschluss and Munich Agreement; the second goal with the subjugation of France and Poland, and his alliances with Italy, Croatia, Hungary, etc.  The invasion of Russia was Hitler's biggest mistake, and as Wikipedia's article on Operation Barbarossa notes, " the largest military operation in world history in both manpower and casualties. Its failure was a turning point in the Third Reich's fortunes."  Many would argue it was the turning point.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hitler thought of himself as an inspired strategist mainly because he championed a plan devised by Erich von Manstein and Heinz Guderian against the advice of his general staff, resulting in a resounding victory in the Battle of France. The victory might have included the destruction of the British Expeditionary Force, had Hitler not got cold feet and issued the "Halt Order" on the advice of his staff but against the opinion of von Manstein and Guderian, allowing the British to slip away from Dunkirk. Perhaps because of this, Hitler convinced himself that he was a military genius and became increasingly reluctant to listen to advice, relying instead on his own intuition. Perhaps his worst performance was staking so much on the pointless capture of Stalingrad (probably because it was named after Stalin), and when it was clear that it was unachievable, refusing to allow a breakout. He never really understood the concept of a tactical withdrawal and towards the end of the war was continually ordering last stands, which resulted in huge troop concentrations being encircled and stranded in isolated pockets, the Falaise pocket being the best known example in the west. The Western Allies forbade any attempt to assassinate Hitler, in case somebody that knew what they were doing took charge. Have a look at Hitler's Leadership Style by Dr Geoffrey Megargee and A MILITARY LEADERSHIP ANALYSIS OF ADOLF HITLER by Major Paul A. Braunbeck. Alansplodge (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Many thanks to Alan for providing these. I was a bit disappointed with the second item. What level is the Air Command and Staff College supposed to be, academically? Four-year college level? <small style="font-family:Courier New;color:#C0C0C0">Contact Basemetal   here  19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Basemetal, I had a very cursory scan through it and it seemed to hit some of the salient points. I was working on the principal thet the college wouldn't have published it online if it wasn't any good. 16:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, as for US influence on the defeat of Germany, you have to include the critical non-combat role of the US, as the "Arsenal of Democracy" in arming and supplying the UK, Soviet Union, and other allies. Without this aid the UK and then the war might have been lost. StuRat (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Which is why I did exactly that. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You said "The war would have likely dragged on for 2-3 more years, but the Eastern Front was a lost cause for Hitler and it was a matter of when rather than if Germany fell." I took that to mean you thought that Germany would have lost, even without any US assistance.  Is that not what you meant ? StuRat (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. The USSR was busy letting Hitler stupidly throw the bulk of his army against the impenetrable Russian winter to try, and fail, to capture a midling industrial city of little strategic importance.  The USSR received little benefit from Lend-Lease (there was some nominal aid) and was beating Germany through sheer attrition.  While twice as many Soviet Soldiers as Germans died along the Eastern front, population-wise the Soviet Union had roughly 4x the population to throw at the war effort as Germany did.  They could afford to wait them out.  The involvement of the U.S., while vital to keeping Britain in the war and keeping Germany busy in the west, merely accelerated a defeat that was already decided once Hitler invaded Russia.  U.S. involvement was vital to the eventual outcome of the war, in terms of what spheres of influence existed within Europe after the war.  But there was probably no way that Germany had the means to defeat the U.S.S.R.  Had Germany been able to defeat Britain, it would have merely made more territory for the U.S.S.R. to subjugate once it rolled into Berlin.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We aren't supposed to do counterfactual speculation, but control of an ample oil supply was really the key to victory in World War II. Britain stood between Germany and the oil fields of the Middle East. If Germany had been able to knock out Britain, while keeping the Soviet Union locked temporarily in a stalemate, Germany could have gained control of the oil fields of the Middle East. This need not have been a matter of brute conquest but could have been achieved by diplomacy.  (Sell us your oil at a favorable price and we won't attack you.) Turkey would then probably have seized the opportunity to join Germany as an ally, and a strengthened Germany could have turned itself to the defeat of the Soviet Union.  With a firm base in the Middle East, Germany could probably have gained control of Azerbaijan, the Soviets' main source of oil at that time.  It's not likely that Germany could have conquered Russia, in the sense of occupying and fully subduing it, but Germany could have encouraged the (already somewhat fissile) Soviet republics to break away from Russia, and Russia could have been reduced to virtual economic dependence on Greater Germany.  So, while I agree that the Soviet Union did most of the work of defeating Germany, it very likely would not have succeeded without American assistance to Britain.  Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, except that the Battle of Britain wasn't really won with American hardware or American forces or American funding. Lend-Lease, and it's precursor, the Destroyers for Bases Agreement, came after Britain had already defended itself by itself thank you very much against pretty much everything Germany could throw at it, before Germany had even opened the Eastern Front.  Knowing the chronology here is vital to understanding the history, and if you're going to present counterfactuals, they should at least be consistent with actual events as they happened to the point where you take off from history.  The ability of Britain to defend itself against Germany all on its own let the U.S. know it was a good investment, and that's almost exactly WHY the U.S. agreed to supply the Allies with materiel and money.  Hitler wouldn't start Operation Barbarossa until 9 months AFTER it had already knew it couldn't take on Britain.  Now, if Hitler had not attacked the U.S.S.R, AND if they had concentrated their entire force on an amphibious attack on Britain, they may have been able to defeat them.  But the situation in 1941, on the eve of Pearl Harbor, the die was already cast.  Hitler had already abandoned the Western Front to a quiet stalemate, with France under friendly control, and was content to leave his forces in the West to tamp down the French Resistance  and defend the Channel and Atlantic coast passively.  He had, by the time the U.S. became actually involved in committing troops in December 1941, already committed the his forces to the Eastern Front in June 1941.  The only reasonable counterfactual decision point which results in German victory is not attacking the U.S.S.R.  The three biggest defeats the Germans faced in the entire war were all against Russia with no meaningful help from the US or UK: the Battle of Kursk, the Battle of Moscow, and the Battle of Stalingrad.  Again, I'm not saying the involvement of the U.S. was not vital to history, not vital to the outcome of the war, etc.  But it is more complex and nuanced than "The U.S. saved the world from Hitler!"  No, The U.S.S.R saved the world from Hitler.  Or more properly: Hitler saved the world from Hitler, because he foolishly attacked the U.S.S.R.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Had Hitler invaded the USSR properly, such as with full winter equipment, and then bypassed major points of resistance, like Stalingrad, he might have fared a lot better. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Soviets saved the world from Hitler; it's just too bad they failed to save the world from Stalin. — Kpalion(talk) 15:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup... -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hitler should not have invaded the Soviet Union in the first place. With all that effort to fight a war there saved, he would have had the resources to mass produce jet fighters like the Messerschmitt Me 262, and develop the Horten Ho 229 of which only one prototype was build. Such an air force based on the existing German technology at the time, would have made the allied invasion impossible. The British and US air forces would have been unable to operate over Western Europe, and without any air cover any invasion attempt would have been doomed.


 * Then without any significant allied attacks on Germany, the Germans would have found it much easier to improve their jet fighters and also their missile program would have progressed much faster. By the mid 1940s, Germany would have been beyond military defeat, because the US would by that time not have been able to deploy nuclear weapons due to a lack of a delivery method. The B-29 would not have been able to penetrate German controlled air space anymore. Then the post war development of our jet and missile technology would not have have happened on a similar time line, because we profited a lot from captured German technology and their scientist and engineers who decided to work for us. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For a comparison of Hitler's and Napoleon's thinking which led them to attack the USSR/Russia I found Grégoire Gafenco's "Preliminaires of the War in the East" pretty interesting. Unfortunately there's no English translation, only the French original ("Préliminaires de la guerre à l'Est"). "Prelude to the Russian Campaign", London, 1945 (translated by Edgar Fletcher-Allen) pretty interesting. (But I read the French original "Préliminaires de la guerre à l'Est", Paris, 1944). Among the reasons that induced them to attack the USSR/Russia was also what they felt was the risk of leaving at the their back a huge power that could decide to attack them when circumstances allowed. We may think today there is zero chance Stalin/Alexander I would ever have done that, but the question is whether it was reasonable for them to believe they could. <small style="font-family:Courier New;color:#C0C0C0">Contact Basemetal   here  20:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What was also a factor is that Hitler knew that sooner or later the US would join the war. That meant that Germany needed far more resources to be able to defend itself. The only way to get enough raw materials was to invade the Soviet Union and then get control of the vast oil and gas reserves there. Also Germany was engaged in Northern Africa, the plan was that these forces would take control of the Mid East and then link up with the forces in the Caucasus. So, I think the mistake made by Hitler was to think too much in terms of the industrial base and control of territory to get the raw materials to power that industrial base, rather than attempting to expand the advantage in technology that Germany already had. Count Iblis (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

UK elections 2015
I have two questions: How many candidates were of Bangladeshi descent? and is there a list of candidates for Respect Party on the internet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See this article and UK General Election 2015 candidates - Other candidates. Nanonic (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)