Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 December 23

= December 23 =

Is there any particular reason that Kharkiv became much more populous than nearby cities such as Kursk, Oryol, and Bryansk?
Is there any particular reason that Kharkiv became much more populous than nearby cities such as Kursk, Oryol, and Bryansk? Did Kharkiv's early status as the capital of the Ukrainian SSR (later moved to Kiev) have something to do with this? Or was there some other reason for this--and, if so, what exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "As the capital of interwar Soviet Ukraine, Kharkiv was developed more intensively than most other Soviet cities. Its area grew substantially, from 141 sq km in 1924 to 272 sq km in 1939... The reconstruction of industries destroyed during the Revolution of 1917 and subsequent Ukrainian-Soviet War, 1917–21, was followed by accelerated industrialization. In 1931 the huge Kharkiv Tractor Plant went into production; in 1933, the Kharkiv Machine-Tool Plant; and in 1934, the Kharkiv Turbine Plant. The prerevolutionary electromechanical (est 1887), cable (1890), motor (1882), and transport-machine-building (1885) plants increased their output. In 1930 the Kharkiv Regional Electric Station began supplying the city with electricity. By 1937 the output of Kharkiv's industries was 35 times greater than in 1913". Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So, my hypothesis here might have been correct! Futurist110 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, after the war-time destruction, also the law of the stimulative arrears in action. --Lambiam 11:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Or maybe because it was easier to pronounce. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Easier for whom? Russians? They would have said Харьков anyway. --Lambiam 11:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect that it was chosen as state capital because of it's proximity to Russia rather than having a central position in Ukraine. It stands at the junction of 3 major rivers and has been a rail hub since the 1860s, so has everything going for it. Alansplodge (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So that it would be easier for Russia to dominate Ukraine? Futurist110 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was just the first city that fell under Bolshevik control - but probably because it was closest to Russia.
 * Kharkiv says: "In December 1917 Kharkiv became the first city in Ukraine occupied by the Soviet troops of Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko... In February 1918 Kharkiv became the capital of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic; but this entity was disbanded six weeks later... Prior to the formation of the Soviet Union, Bolsheviks established Kharkiv as the capital of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (from 1919 to 1934) in opposition to the Ukrainian People's Republic with its capital of Kyiv". Alansplodge (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Indian mystics, hypnotists, ascetics portrayed in popular culture in 1940s, 50s
In the Tintin comics, Seven Crystal Balls there is a small plot about a Indian magician performing in Europe.

There was a very old Looney Tunes cartoon released in 1939 showing a Hindu mystic performing on stage in USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=5201&v=s1LS0gTxepU&feature=youtu.be

1950s horror comics written in USA or UK, has one story about Hindu sadhu wearing coat pant with Indian turban married to a white woman who has supernatural powers. In this story they also perform on stage in some western country, not specified USA or UK.

https://www.amazon.in/Haunted-Horror-Banned-Chilling-Archives/dp/1613777884

Even though these are work of fiction, not real.

But there must be some in real life who inspired these comics and cartoons.

I want to know that, as compared to today the number of Indian Hindus were very less during 1930s, 1940s, 1950s in USA, and these holy godmen are unlikely to speak English, so how did they manage to reach USA and perform there   80 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1133:12AC:54B1:2B11:9F5E:2974 (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * See Of Fakers and Fakirs: Faux Indian Mysticism in Professional Magic which says that many (if not all) Indian performers in the West were just blacked-up Europeans. One of them was a certain Harry Houdini according to this.
 * An actual Indian performer in the West was P. C. Sorcar, a student of Ganapati Chakraborty (who appears not to have got further abroad than Singapore). See also Indian magic.
 * On your linguistic point, note that India had been in British possession (or at least influence in the Princely States) since the 18th century, so the English language was not unknown there. See Indian English. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The Tintin stories were originally written in French by a Belgian living in Belgium. Some are set in Belgium but there are books set in various different countries. I don't know the story you mention but there is at least one each set in Germany, USSR and the Congo. As noted above English is spoken by many in India-Im not sure what percentage. There would be fewer Indians able to speak French. In English literature set in Britain, because of the Imperial connection, there are quite a number of Indians although there would not be many living in Britain until the 1960s. For instance see the Moonstone by Wilkie Collins, The Sign of Four by Conan Doyle (a Sherlock Holmes story).and in Frank Richards Greyfriars stories there is an Indian Prince; Hurree Jamset Ram Singh who by his name must be a Sikh. These stories were printed in a boys story paper (not a comic) called the Magnet which was published between 1908 and 1940. He was a pupil at the Greyfriars School along with the other characters including Harry Wharton and Billy Bunter. Greyfriars was a public boarding school in the English sense : private school in the US sense. I don't know if any Indian characters went to the USA in British stories but like everybody else they would have gone by sea, probably via England. In real life Indians went all over the British Empire to work e.g to Kenya,Uganda, South Africa and the Carribean and Pacific islands.Spinney Hill (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC). .

How effective would banned bullets be compared to ones that don't break the laws of war?
Like poisoned, expanding, exploding, uranium, self-sharpening uranium, fragmenting, solid copper or something strategically weakened to partly or fully split into several sharp pieces if it enters meat... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by "effective". These types of ammunition are banned because they are designed to cause grievous bodily injuries, making it more likely that any survivors will suffer lifelong debilitating ill-effects, when compared to regular bullets, making them unnecessarily cruel. I doubt they really increase the likelihood of actually winning a battle. Xuxl (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I know they're cruel, I was wondering if they're ever not just sadistic but would also have some military benefit if one were willing to use them (which probably would just get you back to square one as it likely wouldn't be long before the other side gives up diplomacy and starts attacking you with cruel things they hadn't used yet (which is a good reason to not use first in the first place, or better yet sign a ban before tensions)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Some could be more effective at causing death rather than merely wounding, but the value of that is questionable. In fact, some forces like the IDF are thought to try to cripple people rather than kill them as a constant visible warning to others who might protest and to drive the people into poverty through having to take care of the wounded. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:C4C7:93E4:4DC5:C15E (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if that isn't propaganda (I've heard they make bomb cases that turn to tungsten dust to reduce injury range by air resistance with the unavoidable physics of untreatable and worse damage close in) the other side did the same thing first by filling their bus bombs with ball bearings and/or sharp metal things dipped in rat poison. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "...the goal of modem warfare is not necessarily to annihilate an adversary, but more directly to reduce an enemy’s capability for further resistance. Whether through intimidation or physical damage, the military usefulness of weapons must ultimately be judged in terms of their contribution  to this objective. Indeed, the proportion of non-lethal injury may have an even greater impact on operational success than the absolute number of deaths among an opponent’s force...
 * "...by creating greater numbers of casualties among  opposing forces,  many with multiple  wounds, the enemy force will not  only be weakened, but the logistic needs  of their medical services will be increased. This may often evolve at the expense  of the combat  arms,  since more enemy logistical resources and personnel will need  to be withdrawn from offensive operations to care for the injured  and facilitate their  evacuation." Understanding weapons effects: A fundamental precept in the professional preparation of military physicians1  Alansplodge (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article: Dum-dum. 95.149.135.151 (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)