Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 December 23

= December 23 =

Uniform Standardization for the Legion of the United States
The images we have of the US Legion portray them with heavily standardized blue uniforms. For example:   Is this historically accurate? Would US soldiers from the time have had a universal standardized blue uniform that was worn with this degree of regularity, or would they have worn a more random hodgepodge of brown, blue, and other uniforms? I know that similar images (shown below) of the Continental Army during the revolution are inaccurate, but I'm curious if the same applies to the US Legion. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  14:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Head Quarters Hobsons Choice 29th July 1793...The Utmost Attention will be Observed, by the Command Officers of Companies, and Corps, in causing a thorough repair of every part of the Mens Uniform and cloathing&mdash;The cause is obvious and pressing"


 * "Head Quarters S. W. branch Miami 12th Nov. 1793...an immediate return for Cloathing from the Captains or Commanding Officers of the Companies Under Marching Orders, i. e. for 1 Hatt, 1 Coat, 1 Vest, 1 pr Wollen Overalls, 2 pr Socks, 1 shirt, 1 stock & Clasp 1 pr Shoes 1 pr Buckels, and one Blankett for each Man..."


 * "Head Quarters&mdash;Greenville December 23d 1794&mdash;...The respective Pay Masters will make out returns for Clothing for the Sub Legions, Viz&mdash;One Hat, One Coat, One Vest, One Stock & Clasp for each Non Commissioned Officer & Soldier, for shirts, shoes, socks and overalls, so as to complete every Man to Two Pair of each of those articles, including what they have already drawn towards this Years clotthing"


 * "Head Quarters December 25th 1794&mdash;...to oblige the Soldiery to preserve their New Uniform...The Advantage the Troops now have not only from experience, but by being in Possession of good Cloathing, independent of the New Uniform, will preclude all pretext of Excuse for their, or either of their unsoldierly appearance, on the Grand Parade, either for Guard, or Review in future."


 * "Head Quarters GreeVille 30th Aug't 1795&mdash;...John OBryan Charged with Deserting from the Rendezvous at Lexington and Disposing of his Coat...to receive One hundred lashes, and to suffer such legal Stoppages from his Pay 'as will reimburse the United States for the Damage' sustained by his disposing of his Coat"


 * I think this is another H. Charles McBarron Jr. plate not on commons, possibly first published in which i can't find online. fiveby(zero) 16:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this is another H. Charles McBarron Jr. plate not on commons, possibly first published in which i can't find online. fiveby(zero) 16:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

USA in World War II
Which WWII front turned out to be the most deadly for the United States and its enemies? Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 14:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're feeling ambitious, the answer can be derived from the following:


 * 136.56.52.157 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 136.56.52.157 (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Given the size of the US, and the average number of deaths that occur normally each year, I’m going to guess the actual answer is: “the home front”. However, I suspect that the question is asking about combat related deaths… so… never mind. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * During World War II, the most deadly front for the United States and its enemies was the Pacific Theater. The United States and its allies, including Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines, fought against Japan in this theater. The fighting in the Pacific Theater was characterized by brutal, close-quarters combat and the use of new and deadly weapons, including aircraft carriers, submarines, and nuclear bombs. The United States suffered heavy casualties in the Pacific Theater, with over 300,000 military personnel killed or missing in action. Japan also suffered heavy losses, with over 1.7 million military personnel killed or missing in action. Grotesquetruth (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, God bless you! 37.145.63.226 (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

government, market, balance?
What is the most effective way to promote social justice in a democracy governed by the rule of law? can we say that market-based approaches, such as economic development and job creation, are the most effective way to lift people out of poverty and promote social mobility? Or that more direct interventions, such as redistributive policies or social welfare programs, are necessary to address deep-seated inequalities and ensure that all members of society have a fair chance to succeed? how can we strike a balance between market-based and more direct interventions in order to achieve the greatest benefit for all members of society? Grotesquetruth (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As per header above: We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. These questions can be, and have been debated ad nauseam.  It is unlikely that these can be resolved definitively from references on this desk. 136.56.52.157 (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * IP and @Grotesquetruth: Not only what 136.56 says, but the questions can be, and have been, debated ad nauseam, for hundreds of years, by people all over the world. We aren't going to solve those questions here. David10244 (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The answer can be found by looking at the indices for quality of life. The US ranks 19. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where can I find 1 through 18? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Rudolf Schmundt
He was a close friend of Erwin Rommel and had always supported him. Can you find if, just like Rommel, he had discovered the SS crimes in war and in the prison camps, and was also critic about Hitler and the Nazi? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.160.150 (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since he was mortally injured by the 20 July plot bomb, there seems little prospect of his knowledge and opinions becoming available to posterity. Before his death, expression of such views to anyone else would most likely have meant arrest and execution. If any such information about him has been published, it would likely already be mentioned in his article.
 * Please note that Wikipedia can only cite information already published, it cannot conduct primary research into un published documents and records (see No original research). If an individual editor chose to conduct such research and found new information, it would have to be published elsewhere in a Reliable source before Wikipedia could take note of it.{The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But he could have heard that from Rommel?
 * It's possible, but equally possible that he didn't. If it's not documented anywhere, it's impossible to find out without access to a Time machine.
 * You may also be misinterpreting Rommel's attitudes, which seem to have been varied and sometimes self-contradictory, and have been extensively discussed. Read carefully that article's Sections from 4.6 through to 11. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidence from the "Cockfosters Cage", a bugged POW facility near London, shows that senior German officers were well aware of SS atrocities on the Eastern Front. It seems unlikely to me that somebody would accept the post of Hitler's adjudent if they weren't in favour of their politics. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then can you search if he was a convinct Nazi or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.234.187 (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * He acted as an agent in favor of improving recruitment in the ranks of the SS in a context when the Church was accused of being the main source of restrain against having the nazi propaganda fully efficient as planed. What is not known is whether he had any realistic image of the intrication between the party line and the systematic atrocities it exacted. What is known is that he'd been afraid by the launch of Barbarossa but certainly did not vary consequently in the execution of what is known of his duties. --Askedonty (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Can you search if there are other sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.249.232.245 (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Other sources than what ? --Askedonty (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Other information about his personality with or against the Nazi. He was also an old friend and comrade of Trescow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.117.187 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * His article is 17 years old and has around 200 edits by probably scores of editors (I haven't counted them). If such significant information existed in available references, it's likely that one of those editors would already have found it and added it to the article. It is unlikely that any volunteer on this Reference desk would be able to find further information not in any of the references already listed. Your best bet would be to contact the History Faculties of major German Universities and ask if anyone there specialises in this area and has more information, or would be willing to look for it. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you find something other? Maybe if he was contrary to the Nazi atrocities againt Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.128.119 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Heinz Brandt
It's seem that, just like his superior Adolf Heusinger, he was also a conspiracy member and the Nazis discovered it after his death. Can you find if it's true? Thank you very much.
 * I see nothing in the article Adolf Heusinger to suggest Heusinger was involved in the conspiracy: from where do you draw such a conclusion? If your source is Reliable, we ought to be citing its information in his article. The fact that it's not there, nearly 80 years after the events, suggests no-one has published credible evidence for it. The same considerations apply to Brandt.
 * Note that the members of the German General Staff (and their aides, etc.) were by definition colleagues who would likely all have known each other to a lesser or greater extent, so the fact that A knew B (who was a conspirator) does not in isolation suggest that A was also a conspirator. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then can you search if he was a convinct Nazi or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.249.232.245 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Some authors tell that, after his death, it was supposed he was a member of the conspiration. Can you search if it was true? Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.140.82 (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you find something? You can use this for the search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.128.119 (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)