Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 May 8

= May 8 =

Polish Government in Exile
the Polish Government in Exile had maintained its existence, but France on 29 June 1945,[6] then the United States and United Kingdom on 5 July 1945[6][27] withdrew their recognition. The Republic of Ireland, Francoist Spain and the Vatican City (until 1979) were the last countries to recognize the Government in Exile.
 * What was the reason why the G.B. had quit their recognition of Poland?
 * Why does countries like Cuba and Spain have still recognize the Polish Goverment? And did Cuba recognize them even if it has become communistic and "best friend" of Russia? What was the "benefit" for the country of Spain to recognize the Polish Goverment, was it because of the catholic religion, like Vatican did? --Ip80.123 (talk) 12:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You've quoted the Polish government-in-exile article; for background see Potsdam Conference and the earlier Yalta Conference, and generally Western betrayal, all of which should really be linked from the government-in-exile article.
 * The holdout recognition countries were both Catholic and anti-communist. Poland was the largest Catholic country to come under Communist rule. Cuba must have switched recognition after the 1959 revolution if not before. Ireland's position was ambiguous after it joined the UN in 1955; formal diplomatic relations with Warsaw came in 1976, but recognition might have been in the 1960s.
 * jnestorius(talk) 13:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry jnestorius I have really not seen any reason why the USA and UK stopped being "friend of Poland"... And about the other Countries there is no information in the Text only that Vatican has stopped the recognition..--Ip80.123 (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The non-Soviet allies made a "deal with the devil" with the Soviet Union that they would withdraw recognition in exchange for the Soviet Union allowing free elections in those nations. The Soviet Union then betrayed the Allies by not holding free elections and instead maintaining puppet states in Eastern Europe.  However, by that point the Soviet Union had executed the leaders of the Polish Resistance, and had nuclear weapons, so there was no way to force them out, therefore recognition of the government in exile wouldn't have accomplished much.  (Might have still been a good propaganda move, though.)  StuRat (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not possible to recognise two competing governments of the same country at the same time (which is why every country which eventually recognised communist China had to end recognition of Taiwan). When one government is actually running the country, and the other has no control at all within the country it claims to govern, there are many practical and economic reasons for recognising the government in power - whether or not you actually like its politics. You can only afford to recognise the government in exile if you have no significant political or economic ties with the country concerned. The western allies' agreements with Stalin may well appear unsavoury today - but we see the with the benefit of hindsight. During the war the choice was not between communism and liberal democracy - it was between communism and Nazism, and the Nazis were seen as the greatest danger, which had to be defeated at any cost. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * In the case of the two Chinas, I should think Taiwan could be recognized as the legit government of the islands of the Free area of the Republic of China only, while communist China was recognized as the government of the mainland only. StuRat (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's called a two-China policy, and yes, from a western perspective, it seems like an attractive solution. However, the PRC would never agree to it; never having controlled Taiwan for even a single day ever, they nevertheless regard it as their territory.
 * Whether the ROC would agree might depend on who's in charge at the time; the Kuomintang is theoretically just as opposed to it as the Communists, whereas the Pan-Green Coalition might be expected to be more open to it. But it's hard to really know in either case, because it doesn't depend on them. --Trovatore (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Taiwan and Political status of Taiwan has some background, but basically, Taiwan, for practical purposes, is treated as a de facto independent state. If you look at how most corporations, foreign governments, and even at times the PRC, deals with them, they behave like an independent state; though the language used in such relations is always carefully parsed so as to maintain the legal fiction that Taiwan is a part of a single Chinese state.  On paper, and in discourse, we say "no one recognizes Taiwan as independent" which is technically true, if we ignore the fact that almost everyone acts that way in their dealings with Taiwan.  They basically ignore the issue, and then go on behaving as though it is.  The U.S. even openly supports the state, since the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 and renewed 35 years later with the Taiwan Relations Act Affirmation and Naval Vessel Transfer Act of 2014, though the PRC has been openly upset about this, they've done dick about it.  Which is how it probably will continue: people will publicly claim one thing or another, then everyone goes on and does what they will.  -- Jayron 32 11:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From the perspective of maintaining the status quo and the formal position that they are two governments competing to represent the one country, it suits the PRC government to allow the ROC government to function to some degree. This is the best situation for the PRC given that the prospects of actually absorbing Taiwan by force or by consent is either unpalatable or extremely unlikely. If for example the PRC eliminated the last 20-odd countries that recognise the ROC as the government of China, that would surely be a major boost to the pro-independent cause in Taiwan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is also worth noting that the PRC position essentially allows that Taiwan would continue its separate institutions and economic system, i.e. as is done with Hong Kong and Macau. The text of the Anti-Secession Law codifies the One country, two systems concept as it relates to Taiwan, should Taiwan ever formally recognize the authority of the PRC. -- Jayron 32 20:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Much as the Soviet Union promised to allow free elections in Eastern Europe, China promised the same for Hong Kong, and also seem to have violated that promise, by only allowing voting between candidates that they choose (see 2010 Hong Kong electoral reform). Presumably, if they had the ability to do so in Taiwan, they would do so there, too. StuRat (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The PRC's offer on the table for post-reunification Taiwan (stated some time ago, as for the last few years the PRC has avoided provoking Taiwan by talking about plans for reunification), is better than for Hong Kong and Macau: Taiwan would even keep its own armed forces, basically maintaining the status quo other than in diplomacy and acknowledging the formal sovereignty of the PRC government. But if anyone had ever been taken in by such promises, no doubt recent events in Hong Kong would have helped to disillusion them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * China might as well just wait until they can take Taiwan over militarily, without much fear of a credible deterrent from the rest of the world. Then they might move on to take over anything else they want, like all the islands disputed with other Asian nations.  The bigger their economy gets the more threatening they become. StuRat (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Part of understanding why the original Government-in-Exile never returned to formal power comes in the Provisional Government of National Unity, when some of the leaders of the Government-in-Exile agreed to form a coalition government for the reconstruction of the Polish State after the war. The Government-in-Exile members were eventually pushed out by the Polish legislative election, 1947, paving the way for a Soviet-friendly state.  -- Jayron 32 13:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Calling that an election is a joke, as Polish_legislative_election,_1947 makes quite clear. The Western betrayal of only token protests is difficult to understand.  After all, the US had the atom bomb then, and the Soviet Union did not, so that would seem to be enough leverage to force them to honor their promise of free and fair elections.  (The USSR was only a couple years away from their own atomic bomb, but the US didn't know that.) StuRat (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I remember clearly from my international law lectures forty years ago that recognition is significantly different between the UK and the US. The US regards recognising a government as a political act, the UK regards it as a practical one (and explicitly repudiates any suggestion that recognising a government grants it legitimacy). Our article Diplomatic recognition doesn't explain this, but its discussion of de facto vs. de jure recognition is relevant. --ColinFine (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Which Satellite?
Can you tell me which Satellite has flight over the world for Apple Maps, Nokia Maps, Yahoo Maps, Bing Maps? It looks like they have not used the same satellite which has used Google for Goolge Maps.--Ip80.123 (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Apple Maps has a little bit of info, saying "The main provider of map data is TomTom, but data is also supplied by Automotive Navigation Data, Hexagon AB, Intermap Technologies, OpenStreetMap, and Waze." And according to this, "Google gets its data directly from its own satellite images and Street Maps data (more on that later), while Apple has struck up a partnership with the fledgling GPS maker TomTom to fill out their online archive of everyone’s houses, businesses, and street names." Dismas |(talk) 14:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, it looks like AM gets its map data from TomTom who acquired Tele Atlas to get their imagery. Dismas |(talk) 14:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems rather weird for a source to call TomTom a fledgling GPS maker in 2013 or later. Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you mentioned satellites, it sounds like you may be referring to photographic view rather than maps per se. If so, bear in mind that the imagery particularly high resolution ones aren't necessarily taken by satellite. They may be aerial photography. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

What about Nokia, Yahoo and bing?--Ip80.123 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, what I said applies to all. Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Most large-scale online satellite photos actually use the same satellite source: Landsat 7. The reason that they look different is that they are processed by different companies (Google uses TruEarth, Bing uses TerraColor) which means that the colours will be different and some images may have been taken at different times or stitched together differently. Yahoo and Google also use satellite images from DigitalGlobe, who have quite a few different satellites. Smurrayinchester 08:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah - but landsat 7's resolution is about one pixel for every 15 meters in some kind of false-color and only every 25 meters in visible color. If you're zoomed in to where you can see individual houses - then you're looking at photography from an airplane, not a satellite.  SteveBaker (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)