Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 October 19

= October 19 =

What if WWII Did Not Occur?
I read somewhere, that when Hitler's Mom was pregnant with him, she wanted to get an abortion, but the doctor convinced her otherwise. While this may have prevented WWII from occurring hence, preventing the horrible events of the Holocaust, is there anything positive that WWII brought to the world or positively influenced some part of the world today? Acceptable (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You may enjoy parts of our Alternate history article (search for "hitler" on the page; the "assassinate Hitler in the crib" plot is a popular 'bull session' topic). Sure, nuclear power is arguably a positive that came out of (or at least was greatly accelerated because of the events of) WW2.  The jet engine and rocketry were invented and greatly accelerated, respectively.  (I'm going to ignore the pre-WW2 claims in the jet engine article.)  Tempshill (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A few more: The United Nations was probably a positive.  Computers were first invented (I'm brushing aside other claims) as codebreakers; see Cryptanalysis of the Enigma.  A lot of Decolonization occurred after WW2.  Some people think the Constitution of Japan forced upon Japan by the US is an improvement over their earlier legal system.  Tempshill (talk) 02:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hitler’s role in WWII was hugely Euro-centric. The war in Asia almost certainly would have occurred even if Hitler had never been born. Indeed, Japan invaded China in September 1931, some two years prior to Hitler becoming chancellor of Germany. Hence, to suggest certain inventions or arrangements depended on Hitler is a bit of a stretch. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Attributing the occurrence of the War in Europe solely or mainly to Hitler requires a tacit acceptance of the Great man theory. (Note that in this context "great" refers only to degree of influence, and does not necessarily signify any form of approval.) As you will see from reading through that article, this theory is now largely out of fashion: currently historians argue instead that such major events are brought about by impersonal factors of economics, demographics, etc, and that individuals effect only the details, so absent Hitler, WW2 in Europe might have started a little earlier or later and proceeded differently at minor levels, but would still have happened. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If the conquering nations of WWI had treated Germany as nicely as we did following WWII, the "need" for a Hitler and a WWII might never have arisen, at least not in Europe. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * For a humorous take on the idea that does a fair job of fleshing out the difficulties, see Hitler's Time Travel Exemption Act. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great quote from that page "It might be much easier and more efficient just to ... kill Bismarck ... or kill Metternich ... or kill Napoleon ... but everyone is just so short-sighted they want to kill Hitler. Stop it: all it's doing is making him feel smug!" -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That article is not really about the effects of getting rid of Hitler, it's about the science-fiction stories on that subject, stories which are in no way sensibly researched or argued. They don't constitute evidence that killing Hitler wouldn't help any more than they constitute evidence that computers will print "error, error" and explode when asked to calculate pi. The motivation for most of these stories isn't to explore the premise, it's simple sour grapes: we can't change the past, so let's try to feel better about ourselves by arguing that our sucky world is the best of all possible ones. The arguments still work when the time travel element is taken out. Millions of children suffer from malnutrition; should we try to help them? Well, the world is dangerously overpopulated as it is; maybe they had better die and decrease the surplus population. Besides, if we save them one of them might grow up to be the next Hitler. An asteroid is going to hit the earth; we could try to deflect it, but is that really a good idea? -- BenRG (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think you give the science fiction less than enough credit on thinking things through. They do about as reasonable a job as the counter-factual historians can. The moral isn't "our world is great", the moral is, "our world is unavoidably constituted out of the consequences of the past." --Mr.98 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or to put it another way, suppose I could go back and kill Hitler. This would presumably result in my never being born (and the same for anyone born after, at a conservative estimate, 1945 &mdash; actually I would expect the cutoff to be much earlier).  Is that a sacrifice I'd be willing to make?  And then who exactly would go back and kill Hitler?  This is only a slight elaboration on the grandfather paradox. --Trovatore (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"What if WWII did not occur?" seems to express uncertainty about whether it did. "What if WWI had not occurred?" would express uncertainty about what would have happened rather than about what did happen. Michael Hardy (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...do we really need to be this pedantic about grammar? Is this really a useful contribution? --Mr.98 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No and no. --Tango (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Hitler didn't create the WWII era; the WWII era created Hitler." Duomillia (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Do the quotation marks mean that you have a WP:RS for that nonsense or just that you are trying to dissociate yourself from it while posting it? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The era may not have created Hitler, but it made it possible for him to come to power. I second your question about the quotes, though (although it doesn't really matter who said it). --Tango (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be just hollow rhetoric, but I guess it's true in the sense that without World War II (and the continental Holocaust it enabled), Hitler, while still having existed, would be merely one of dozens of brilliant but half-mad dictators and tyrants blessedly forgotten by history, and one of the less attractive ones at that. Semioticians and semanticists would make tiresome distinctions between Hitler and "Hitler". —— Shakescene (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Hitler, and the Nazi government, was a product of the peculiar political and economic circumstances surrounding Germany and Europe generally in that period. An ineffective League of Nations, the unsustainable legacy of Versailles, an unbridled world economy which had barely survived the depression - all of these provided the breedingground for extremist politics. The National Socialists were around before Hitler came along; Fascism developed with little input from Hitler; even if all the extremist right-wing groups somehow died out without Hitler, Communism was immensely popular in many of the same states. Even if Hitler never existed, the same pressures would, probably, have pushed Europe towards war, with some other strong-jawed leader at the helm. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with PalaceGuard008 who succinctly describes the post WWI era. It is nonsense to call that "the WWII era" as in Duomillia's post because WWII had not begun. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we can give Hitler credit (or blame) for his version of National Socialism, even though there were other similar names and ideas floating around, such as National Bolshevism, National Syndicalism and the Social Nationalism of the anti-Semitic Mayor of Vienna (Karl Schoenerer?). And certainly, Fascism's origins owe far more to Mussolini, to whom Hitler always gave credit. So there would have been fascism and even some form of national socialism without Hitler. But before Hitler (party member number 7), the future National Socialist German Workers' Party was simply the German Workers' Party of Anton Drexler.—— Shakescene (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But Mussolini's fascism, though it embodied an obnoxious, liberticidal cult of the State, was hardly on the road to gas chambers, at least from anything I've ever heard about it. The transition from the Hoodlum State to the Assassin State required Hitler, personally.  I don't buy the determinism-of-social-trends argument.  The social pressures are there, but how they crystallize around a charismatic leader depends very much on that leader. --Trovatore (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hitler couldn't have done it without lots of supporters. One of those supporters could easily have taken his place if he weren't there. While he was unusually good orator, I expect there were like-minded people that were good enough. --Tango (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Could have" is not the same as "would have". The great man theory may have been overdone, but the cultural determinists are also wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also a lot of evidence that what Stalin had in mind for Europe was just about as bad as what Hitler did and that Hitler's invasion of the USSR, as unsuccesfull as it "seemed" to be, actually derailed Stalin's plans considerably. Vespine (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm British and I despise and condemn the treatment of the Jewish race at the hands of the Nazi state. Having said that; I would like to play Devil's advocate. Why don't we talk, with similar hatered, about the mass bombing of German cities by the British, the fire bombing of Japanese citites by the Americans, and the two nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans? (The development of the bomb being helped in no small measure by non-American allied scientists.) If we're from allied or axis nations then we should all feel thoroughly ashamed of the actions of our respective nations. Dr Dec (Talk)   22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Getting this thread back on track, the question of "What if there was no Hitler?" is probably one of the most-discussed bits of alternate history there is. One famous piece on the subject is "No Hitler, No Holocaust," an article by Martin Himmelfarb in the March 1984 issue of Commentary magazine, the title of which sums up the argument. Whether WWII itself would have happened without Hitler is a separate question. To say that WWI inevitably led to WWII is to absolve the actors in the drama from responsibility. However, it is no doubt likely that the widespread belief in Germany of the unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles, the lack of desire to enforce the treaty among the Allies, all of the gripes among various nations caused by the changes to the maps after WWI and the fear of Russian Communism created a milleau in which peace was unlikely to last long in any event. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ". . . absolve the actors in the drama from responsibility." In most dramas, the responsibility lies with the playwright (historical contingency?), and the actors have little freedom of action, so this might not be the most appropriate metaphor. Perhaps something more along the lines of a jazz improvisation? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

From a logical point of view, it is totally impossible to predict what might have happened had Hitler not been born. Mathematics, and especially Chaos theory, tells us that small changes to initial conditions can lead to unimagined and unpredictable changes to a dynamical system in the long run. Removing such a high-profile figure as Hitler would lead to a massive change in initial conditions and ultimately unimagined and unpredictable changes to a dynamical system that is, in an informal sense, world order and world politics. Dr Dec (Talk)   23:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't truly know if history/politics really is a dynamical system subject to Chaos theory, because we can never re-run events with variations to see if they actually do lead to macroscopic differences, or if "historical inertia" would, as some argue, return them to the trough of a "stable valley." If the unwinding of history was so amenable to calculation, we could anticipate the future consequences of present decisions much more readily and in theory avoid many unfortunate or disastrous outcomes (where are you, Hari Seldon?), although in practice even those future conditions that are somewhat amenable to mathematical calculation, such as changes in climate, are apt to provoke prevaricatory denial and obfustications serving short term interests. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the analogies to math or chaos theory, while true, are accurate or appropriate; the unpredictability of human behavior trumps any card played. Call me cliché, but there's not a single damn thing in human history that could've been accurately predicted.  That's why there's no point playing Monday-morning quarterback and (one of the reasons) why the Reference Desk doesn't speculate.  Let's not forget that a fair portion of the world didn't know for the better part of a decade (depending on whether you were German, Polish, or American) what would have happened if Hitler was alive, and they actually had evidence to back up any decisions! ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 02:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What all of this is getting at is a larger historiographical debate about whether history is focused on the acts of individuals or whether it is about structuralist transformations. The reality is a bit of both. There are actually people who make their living predicting the apparently unpredictable (see this recent NY Times article), knowing a small number of initial conditions. These can only be applied forward, not backwards, of course. On the other hand, there are no doubt lots of wildcards out there as well, especially if we are talking about past historical events. The "reality" of it is no doubt something of a mix... Hitler, the man, could not have been what he was without the conditions for his existence; on the other hand, once he reached a certain level of prominence (e.g. post-Putsch), he was himself a powerful enough actor to affect future conditions as well, and extricating him from them is pretty much impossible. There is some discussion of these different views of history in Carr's famous What is History?. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * well, it's not clear that the absence of Hitler would have prevented Germany's getting big ideas and WWII. but if WWII had occurred and germany had avoided Hitler's antisemitism, then all the jewish nuclear physicists the nazis chased out to the US would have remained loyal germans, and it's likely (or at least possible) that germany's nuclear weapons project would have succeeded first rather than the US'. that would probably have changed the world quite a bit. "Doing nuclear physics without Jews is like opening a pizza place without a guy named Tony" - Bill Maher Gzuckier (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Free contract bridge software for Windows Mobile
Greetings,

Might anyone be able to tell me if there exists free contract bridge software for Windows Mobile?

Thank you in advance,

148.60.182.135 (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I searched on Google for '"contract bridge" "windows mobile" freeware' but could not find any. If you search on Google for '"windows mobile" freeware' then a lot of sites offering free software for Windiows Mobile come up. I suggest looking through these individual sites to see if any of them offer contract bridge. They certainly offer other card games. n.b. do not inclue the single quotes in your search string. 89.240.199.100 (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppetry
What's the Wikipedia policy about logging out of one's account to edit under one's IP address? I've seen the special cases in the sock puppetry article, but they seem to talk about having multiple accounts. I guess it's a no-no, but can anyone direct me to the relevant policy pages, please? Dr Dec (Talk)   15:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:Help Desk or WP:VPP is better for this sort of question. In general though, having two accounts or logging out to edit is mostly treated the same. If used inappropriately a definite no-no. However there are definitely cases when it's okay. Nil Einne (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Word of waning; no matter what the policies say, checkusers often simply ban everyone on a range without checking and thus cause a hell of a lot of collateral damage. And once banned by checkuser you can kiss goodbye to ever getting your account back because NO ONE will believe you are innocent once they see checkusers supposed "confirmed" tags on it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To provide a (slightly less vitriolic) answer, as long as you play nice you'll be fine. Trouble starts brewing when you do things on the IP that you wouldn't normally do on your account.  Since you obviously won't do that, there is rarely a reason to have to log out.  People (usually sysops, as they have something to protect) do create alternate accounts for use on public terminals only. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seconding that. A checkuser recently explained to me that, realistically, there's no way to "ban everyone on a range".  In practice, suspicious activity gets investigated and, if confirmed by range matches, may result in blocks.  In other words, suspicious activity is a necessary condition.  (But with that said, it is the case that editing from an IP, and also from a logged-in account which is based at that IP, often ends up looking suspicious.  So I wouldn't do it without a good reason.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Checkusers DO have the ability to block every account on a rage. User:Alison has said this many times while taunting User:Grawp and his sockpuppets, and has displayed the ability to block hundreds of accounts on the same range in a single minute. When performing such an action there is the possibility of HUGE collateral damage of innocent accounts being caught in the mass block. I know this for a fact because I have been caught in these mass blocks several times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.2 (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record: I wasn't intending to edit under my IP address. Another user had expressed their intention to do so. I was trying to find policy to support my explicit objections. Thanks for all your comments. Dr Dec (Talk)   14:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a very bad habit of forgetting when I am not logged into my account, and posting something as an IP. I usually try to fix it, but I'm sure it looks bad when I replace the IP timestamp with my timestamp. Falconus p  t   c 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could just replace the IP link with which just drops your name, and then leave the original timestamp alone. (  drops just the timestamp, anyone's wondering.) &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 15:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I frequently use the "leave me logged in" function on my home computer. When that expires (as it does every 30 days) I oftan accidentally edit under my IP, and have to fix the signature. I think it's a pretty common blooper. --S.dedalus (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you always start from your watch list, you can't make that mistake. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Range blocks are explained at WP:RANGE. And the best way to avoid getting investigated, blocked, etc. is refrain from making dubious edits.  As long as you do that, nobody will bother you. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Connect the following
Can anyone tell me exactly how the following are connected? Cape Cobras, Diamond Eagles, Otago Volts, Sussex Sharks, Somerset Sabres, and Wayamba..... Thanks in advance!117.194.231.176 (talk) 16:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a homework question, if you must know. I came across this question in an answer and win column in the paper yesterday, and I've already sent my response. I just wanted to cross check my answer here on Wikipedia. Besides, what sort of school would set a dumb question like this for homework?? 117.194.231.176 (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a homework question but extremely easy to answer with a search. Since I didn't have to search to answer though I'll be generous and suggest you look at 2009 Champions League Twenty20. P.S. If you already knew couldn't you just check yourself or at least give us your answer? Nil Einne (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite so! If it were such a "dumb question" then what would the need be to make a post asking for the answer? Dr Dec  (Talk)   17:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think by dumb 117 meant academically pointless. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there such a thing as pointless academic research? See Blue skies research Dr Dec  (Talk)   18:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The academy doesn't always think so, but I think most people would agree there is, especially when public funds are required to sustain it... --Mr.98 (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's interesting that you mention "most people". In my own day-to-day experiences most people are ignorant, under-educated, bigots. Maybe I need to move house. Dr Dec  (Talk)   21:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Or at least lighten up. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the prize? If you win what will you contribute to Wikipedia in gratitude? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant by "dumb" is that school students aren't going to score marks in any exam by knowing the answer to this question. My answer (the one I sent to the newspaper before coming to the Ref Desk) was that all of them were first-class cricket teams. The reason I got my answer wrong was that every time I did a Google search, I entered a single name, instead of the names of all the teams together, the result of which was reading their respective articles on Wikipedia, instead of coming to know how to they were related. And since I only had enough patience to read only the first three teams' articles, I saw the apparent connection -- that all of them were cricket teams. It was only later that I realised that I might've been mistaken. Everyone happy?? Oh, and the prize is supposed to be an audio CD... not much for a donation... haha... You ended up asking more questions than you answered... 117.194.227.89 (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I guess at least you learnt if you have a list of associated things it's always wise to searching for multiple or maybe even all of them together rather then one by one first. While this question was IMHO unlikely to be home work, it could still be a school quiz or some such Nil Einne (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Portland, Maine and suburbs
Does Portland, Maine have suburbs? Heegoop, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Why would you imagine a city with 62,000 residents, would not have suburbs? Portland, Maine has a list.  Other places within the wider urban area that I would also consider Portland's suburbs, include South Portland, Falmouth and Westbrook, though these are actually separate cities  Astronaut (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also see Portland-South Portland-Biddeford metropolitan area. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Astronaut appears to be applying a British English definition of suburb to an American city. Akrabbim's answer is the one an American would expect. Rmhermen (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Others seem to share Astronaut's definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rmhermen was referring to Astronaut's first & second sentence. Suburb in British English includes subdivisions which are officially part of the city. In American English, it's limited to separate governmental entities which are simply located nearby. While South Portland, Falmouth, and Westbrook are cities/towns which are not part of the City of Portland (and so are A.E. suburbs), those listed in Portland, Maine fall under the umbrella of Portland governance, and as such are not A.E. suburbs, (but are B.E. suburbs). -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I was aware there was a difference between American and British English, I just thought the American English definition was the other way around. And not knowing where the OP is from, that is why I emphasised the point about South Portland, Falmout and Westbrook being a separate cities.  Astronaut (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You might be interested to know that Australia uses both meanings. Brisbane is governed by a single city council with a budget larger than the state of Tasmania or some smallish countries; whereas, the government of the other state capitals is shared between many different councils.  For example, the City of Sydney covers just the CBD and some surrounding areas. But in all cases, anywhere outside the CBD that's part of the conurbation known by the generic name ("Sydney", "Melbourne", etc) is considered a suburb.  --  JackofOz (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)