Humanities desk
< October 26	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 27

King Henry VIII

Did King Henry the VIII have control over the legal system of England? Nick 00:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)nicholassayshi[reply]

Hi Nick - our article on Henry VIII doesn't talk much about his relationship with Parliament, Parliament of England notes that it was under Elizabeth I the Parliaments began to become uppity (so before that point the Monarch, e.g. Henry, would have been in strong control). List_of_Acts_of_Parliament_of_the_English_Parliament_to_1601#1509_.281_Hen._VIII.29 is very thorough, but most of the acts themselves don't have articles, so knowing the King's position on them is impossible from this perspective.

Possibly the most important act passed in his reign was the Statute in Restraint of Appeals, which removed Papal authority, making the King the final point of appeal (i.e. cementing his control) - the most important interactions to consider would be those between Parliament, Monarch, Privy Council, and Church - Henry removed the Church from the equation, in theory controlled the Privy Council, and had to deal with the Parliament - an assessment of the success of his control of those would go towards his control of the legal system. You may also want to consider the view that at this time the monarch was not merely above the law, the monarch was the law. You'll probably find writings by Geoffrey Elton very interesting in this regard, his two main focuses were Henry VIII and political history. --Mnem e son 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have little to add to the above answer, intelligent and well-informed. However, I would question the contention that Henry removed the church from the general political nexus. He ended Papal supremacy, yes, but that is a quite different thing. Churchmen were still powerful players in Henry's court. I would also urge some caution over the contention that the English monarch was the law, which would make him the political equivalent of some oriental despot. Tudor absolutism always had a firm constitutional basis, and there were some things even the king could not do. Henry's Reformation would have been inconceivable without the active co-operation of Parliament. Clio the Muse 08:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little hazy on this ("it's not my period") but I would guess that Henry ultimately (theoretically) appointed the Justices of the Peace. I think that magnates still had the right to be judged by their peers and again, Henry had powers of appointment and removal. Church courts were also under his jurisdiction after his break from Rome. His own legal/religious wrangles were usually conveniently turned so that he was in the right, such as the thorny subjects of could he marry Catherine of Aragon and later could he divorce her. The only problem was that the Pope disagreed and Henry couldn't control the Papal court. So I'd guess the answer is yes, he pretty much did control England's legal system. Historians with better knowledge of Tudor England (ie most people) pls feel free to correct me!--Dweller 19:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry himself did not appoint JPs, the responsibility for whom lay with the Lord Chancellor, the chief legal officer of the realm. He, in turn, would depend upon local recommendations. The marriage to Catherine proceeded with full papal dispensation. Later papal resistence to the divorce was the occasion of Henry's break with Rome. It is important to remember that Parliament is the high court of England, and Henry, mindful of this, was always careful to secure full Parliamentary co-operation. There had long been an active anti-clerical mood in England, and deep resentment over some of the extra-territorial papal powers; so Henry's move against separate church courts, for example, was widely supported. The English constitution, I stress again, was always based on the active co-operation of Parliament and Crown. It was when this broke down that the problems started; and Parliaments both before and after the reign of Henry VIII showed no reluctance in curbing and removing unpopular monarchs. Clio the Muse 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Who appointed the Lord Chancellor? (that was what I meant by "ultimately"). --Dweller 09:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hey

What is the meaning of life it self?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.91.91 (talk • contribs)

Mu. Ziggurat 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe, The Justified Ancients Of Mu Mu?? 惑乱分からん 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Meaning of life. —Keenan Pepper 04:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

42 -B00P 05:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That we need a FAQ.--Shantavira 06:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which we have. DirkvdM 09:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

42... that one is getting revoltingly cliched. -- Chris 17:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stick it in there then!--Light current 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people stop asking the question, we will stop giving the answer. :) DirkvdM 19:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoof splurge?

A friend keeps emailing me pps files with (admittedly) pretty pictures, accompanied by a few gut wrenching platitudes, and usually ending with a story about a brave little disabled boy. I don't want to hurt her feelings by asking her not to send me this crap. It struck me that there must be some excellent spoofs of this sort of material that I could send her in return. Does anyone know where I can find same?--Shantavira 07:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to parody a disabled child ? If you don't want to offend her,just tell her that the files take up too much space or something.You don't need to make fun of disabled people to get your point across.Serenaacw 09:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, why so touchy? Spoofs of "this sort of material" don't have to mean parodying a disabled child. Even if it did, anything involving Timmy from South Park would work for me!Snorgle 11:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just remembered the following which someone sent me recently:

BILLY CONNOLLY’S CHAIN LETTER

Hello, my name is Billy and I suffer from guilt for not forwarding 50 billion f**king chain letters sent to me by people who actually believe if you send them on, a poor six year old girl in Scotland with a breast on her forehead will be able to raise enough money to have it removed before her redneck parents sell her to a travelling freak show.

And, do you honestly believe that Bill Gates is going to give you, and everyone to whom you send “his” email, a $1000? How stupid are we?

Ooooh, looky here! If I scroll down this page and make a wish, I’ll get

laid by a model I just happen to run into the next day! What a bunch of bullsh!t!

Maybe the evil chain letter leprechauns will come into my house and s*domize me in my sleep for not continuing a chain letter that was started by St Peter in 5AD and brought to this country by midget pilgrim stowaways on the Endeavour. f**k ‘em!!

If you’re going to forward something at least send me something mildly amusing. I’ve seen all the “send this to 10 of your closest friends, and this poor, wretched excuse for a human being will somehow receive a nickel from some omniscient being” forwards about 90 times. I don’t f**king care.

Show a little intelligence and think about what you’re actually contributing to by sending out these forwards. Chances are, it’s your own unpopularity.

The point being, if you get some chain letter that’s threatening to leave you shagless or luckless for the rest of your life, Delete it. If it’s funny, send it on. Don’t piss people off by making them feel guilty about a leper in Botswana with no teeth who has been tied to the arse of a dead elephant for 27 years and whose only salvation is the 5 cents per letter he’ll receive if you forward this email. Now forward this to everyone you know. Otherwise, tomorrow morning your underwear will turn carnivorous and will consume your genitals. Have a nice day.

Billy Connolly

PS: Send me 15 bucks and then f**k off!

(Formatting wikified --Anonymous, 23:10 UTC, October 27)

Snorgle 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, that one is quite funny. Not subtle, but certainly funny. I was thinking more of a Power Point presentation in the style of the ones I keep getting. Perhaps I could even turn that into one. I shall have to scout around a bit more.--Shantavira 11:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw something similar as that on a Swedish art show once, with catch-and-response parodies: -"Are you poor?" -"Don't be lazy! Work harder!", -"Earning too little?" -"Get a sex-change!" etc... with the underlying notion that you always had yourself to blame... =S 惑乱分からん 13:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to being forwarded your email if you do create it! Oh, and I must comment that I'm sure Billy Connolly didn't *really* write that email, especially given the use of the term "rednecks" in it. It is funny to think of him saying it, though.Snorgle 12:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at each entry, but here's a list of stuff like that: [1] Anchoress 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I came over as 'too touchy',make fun of whatever you want,but not people who can't stick up for themselves.Serenaacw 11:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

religion

hey, i just wanted to find out what the fastest growing religion in the west is and why.

alot of people say its islam despite whats going on around the world but im not so sure.

See fastest growing religion (seems to need work) and [[2]]. Why? Possibly a difficult question to answer. BenC7 10:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: some people have a choice which religion to join. Some religions allow people to change to another religion.--Shantavira 14:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "fastest growing" is a rather silly concept. Let's say I start The Church of Kainaw. I'm the only member. I get one recruit. I've doubled in size in one day. Did Islam, any sect of Christianity, Hindi, or Buddhism double in size? I doubt it. So, the Church of Kainaw is the fastest growing religion! Woohoo! --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for this reason, "fastest growing" usually means "tiny". Now, if the growth is measured in the absolute number of converts, as opposed to percentage growth, then you might have a useful measure. StuRat 18:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this produces the opposite bias; popular religions like Christianity and Islam can gain millions of followers per year simply due to births outnumbering deaths, whereas smaller religions would have to gain huge numbers of converts to match them. --ByeByeBaby 19:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a "percentage of market share" change would be the best measure, then. That is, if we go from 40% of all people believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 50%, view that as 10% growth, not 25%. StuRat 06:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt either Christianity or Islam is gaining followers in the West due to births outnumbering deaths - across the West, the only country with a naturally increasing population is Iceland, the others are either growing through immigration (e.g. US, UK), or shrinking despite it (Germany). Unless they have unusual demographic curves, all organisations will be similarly losing people on the birth/death ratio, and if they're growing, they're making them back through immigration. Religion in particular is losing people on the age curve - whilst 63% of over 54s in Europe believe in God, it's below 50% for younger than that [3]. Conversion of people who already believe in something, or immigration from people who are disproportionately more likely to believe than not believe would be the best bet for any religion seeking to increase, not the birth rate --Mnem e son 21:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism. Because people get ever better education. DirkvdM 20:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that belief in God is a sign of backwardness and ignorance? Are you saying that devout Jews, Christians and of course Muslims are basically backward and ignorant? You seem to be implying that the great prophet Muhammed was either lying or delusional, and that belief in the divinity of the Koran is based on nothing more than naive stupidity and lack of education. Is that true? :) Ok I'm obviously just shit-disturbing again, just to make a point. No need to take me too seriously. :) Loomis 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to say 'Yes, basically". But then you tell me not to take you seriously. Sure, can do. :) DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said no need to take me too seriously! So I take it that it's your opinion that (along with Abraham, Moses and Jesus of course), the prophet Muhammed either never existed in the first place (which is unlikely, even to secular historians) or if he did, he was basically either a lunatic who thought he was talking to Allah, or a sociopath who claimed he was? Don't worry, nobody knows your personal street address either. :) Loomis 12:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is atheism really a religion or just a lack thereof? Hyenaste ^(tell) 20:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you define "religion". Webster's seems to define it as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe...". In that sense I'd say Atheism is definitely a religion. But I'd disagree that it's the "fastest growing". Of course this is just an educated guess, but I'd say that the fastest growing religion has definitely got to be deism, or some variation thereof. Loomis 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I tell you that I don't know the cause, don't understand the nature and cannot figure out a purpose of the universe, does that count as a set of beliefs? If not, explain why that should be incompatible with being an atheist. --Lambiam ^Talk 00:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's truly the way you feel, then no, that doesn't count as a set of beliefs, rather, it counts as a set of unanswered questions. I'm sorry to tell you, but you're not an atheist at all, you're an agnostic. Put as simply as possible, the definition of an agnostic is one who says "I do not know". The definition of an atheist is one who says "I do know. And what I do know (believe) is that there is no God". Loomis 01:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis, we agree once again. This is getting to be scary. :) DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me atheism simply means the absence of a belief in an omnipotent entity that can be ascribed a personality. It does not imply that you have discovered an explanation for the cause of the universe or subscribe to some higher purpose. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that atheism is arguably the most absolute of all the 'religions.' To assert, with complete certainty, that God does not exist, is bold in the extreme. If in doubt the most logical position would have to be agnosis-no knowledge-, that the existence or non-existence of God is not subject to any acceptable set of proofs. Clio the Muse 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some people believe that the Universe is God. I think it's called pantheism. Well, how could you possibly logically exclude that? So then the only way to assert, with complete certainty, that God does not exist, is tantamount to asserting with complete certainty that the Universe does not exist. Which then implies that nothing exists, and in particular that atheism does not exist. So atheism denies its own existence. Therefore, clearly, an atheist cannot claim to be an atheist, because that would imply the existence of atheism, and therefore the existence of the Universe, and consequently the potential existence of God. Simple, isn't it? --Lambiam ^Talk 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But atheism isn't pantheism! When an atheist denies God, he doesn't adopt pantheistic believes for a moment and set God equal to the Universe. Atheism isn't dependent on pantheism or any other religion: the idea doesn't deny the existence of other religions, only of a supreme deity or more. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Your reasoning is somewhat circular, Lambiam. Loomis 01:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is not! Don't you see the difference between (a) not being to assert with complete certainty that it is impossible to define "God" as "the universe", and (b) embracing pantheism? Define a necessary difference of substance, rather than of choice of terminology, between the notions of "supreme deity" for a non-atheist and "laws of nature" for an atheist. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Intelligence". No, that wasn't a cheap shot. What I mean to say is that the difference between the two concepts you mention is "intelligence". A "supreme deity" for a non-atheist, be him or herself a traditional Monotheist, a Pantheist or a simple Deist, is the sense that this "supreme deity" is a force endowed with a certain intelligence and sentience. The "laws of nature" to an Atheist are no less random and lacking in sentience than necessary for the universe to operate in the smoothe fashion it does. The difference is the belief in a supreme "intelligence" or "sentience". Perhaps I'm not explaining myslef well enough. Loomis 13:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't possibly agree any more. Clio, have you been reading my previous posts? What you just said is exactly what I've been saying over and over and over (to no avail of course!) It's actually quite eerie. When it comes to a belief in the unprovable, atheism has got to be the ultimate. I've always maintained that I have enormous respect for agnostics, for having the courage to say quite simply: "I just don't know". Atheism, on the other hand, is the conviction, the steadfast belief based upon no proof whatsoever, that there is absolutely, positively, unquestionably, no God. If that's not a "religion" I don't know what is. Clio, this is eerie indeed! Loomis 23:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No mystery, Loomis: it's an argument with broad underpinnings in logic; and we have obviously reached the same logical conclusion. Clio the Muse 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sell yourself short, Clio. Wiki is filled with really bright people, yet no one has yet reached the same "logical" conclusion as we have (at least not in the year I've been here). Ok, now I feel like we're doing a bit too much mutual ego-stroking for a G-rated audience. :) Loomis 01:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, you should have paid more attention to what I say and you'd know that I am also of the same mind. :) DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying then, Dirk, that you're a devout Atheist? :) Loomis 13:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, no, agnostic. Sorry, I hadn't read the entire thread. Did I misunderstand something? DirkvdM 07:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your original statement just confused me as to your position. ("Atheism. Because people get ever better education".) From that I couldn't help but take it that you saw Atheism as the most enlightened position; the result of the conquest of "education" over ignorance. But now you say you're Agnostic. Though I'm far more impressed in you for having arrived at the Agnostic's conclusion that "you do not know", I'm still puzzled by your initial response. Are you saying, (in a rather uncharacteristically humble way :), that you don't consider yourself well educated enough to be a true Atheist? I'm still a bit confused as to your position. Loomis 15:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teehee. Wikipedia isn't censored for minors so stroke away. I'll get my video camera and we can... uh... nevermind. :D Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That of course is true for strong atheism, but not necessarily so for weak atheism (see weak and strong atheism), which happens to be very similar to agnosticism . Also note that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive (agnostic atheism no less!). Hyenaste ^(tell) 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information, Hyenaste. I've had a quick look at the pages you have highlighted, and I have to say that I find some of the argument a little difficult to follow. The suggestion that children might be considered 'weak atheists' seems to verge on the logically absurd. The same contention might be made for those suffering from profound mental incapacity or, for matter, all of the lower primates. It would seem to be that a 'weak atheist' is someone who either has not yet addressed the whole question of God, or for whom God forms no active part of their lives. Otherwise the boundries between a 'weak-atheist' and an agnostic seem to be so paper thin as not to be worth serious intellectual consideration. As for 'agnostic atheism' I can feel an infinite regression coming on! Clio the Muse 00:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is foolish to label children as inherent atheists. Antetheistic maybe? I sense bias in labeling atheism as a 'step' before theism, implying that theism is superior to atheism. As for weak atheism and agnosticism, it might take some more meditation to discover the big distinction (whatever it may be). Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - I find the article on agnostic atheism interesting, because that's the way I've always defined simple atheism - as the article begins, "atheism is generally defined as "a condition of being without theistic beliefs"". I'm atheist - I'm a theist, I have no theistic beliefs. I don't believe and affirm that God does not exist, because that's a theistic belief, and I don't have those -it also seems to be covered by Weak atheism, the central assertions of which are difficult to refute. Concepts of theism seem to be one of those interesting ways that language can be used to mean something, something else, or nothing at all depending on what you want it to. --Mnem e son 01:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are indeed reaching the limits of language as the net of meaning, if it might be so expressed. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, davon muss man schweigen. Clio the Muse 01:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that I claim there's another Earth inside each and every electron. I also claim that no scientific experiment can ever prove, or disprove, my theory. Would you believe me? Why not? There's no proof that I'm wrong! It would be "bold in the extreme" for you to say "Bowlhover, you are absolutely wrong", because you have no proof. If you flatly deny my theory, then your belief is not a belief; it's a conviction, a steadfast belief based on no proof whatsoever. I have enormous respect for the people who dare to say, "I don't know if Bowlhover is right; maybe there's another Earth inside every electron. We can't know for sure!"

Now imagine if I overthrow the government of my country, and set up a dictatorship. Every citizen is forced to learn, and accept, my theory; if they don't, I'll have them tortured/executed. After I'm dead, my children will continue my dirty work. If this goes on for many millenia, I'm sure that my theory will be at the same position as Christianity is at right now. --Bowlhover 01:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, have you heard about Russell's teapot? It's very similar to your example. Also notice that it is an entire universe in each electron, not earth. Hyenaste ^(tell) 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You heretic! Ten years in the dungeon for that anti-religious statement! What, what do you mean we don't have a dungeon? Yes, I've heard about Russell's teapot. I've also heard about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. But I wanted to come up with a different parody, because we all know about the more famous ones, and also because I wanted my arguments to closely parallel the ones made above by the other editors. --Bowlhover 02:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All religion is in the mind (ie just your musings) 8-) --Light current 01:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis you could say literally everything is in the mind, and the external world is no more than an ideal construct: Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius leaps to mind. Religion is an age-old attempt to make sense of the physical world and and the place within it of rational and mortal beings. It is both internal and external, present and transcendent. Clio the Muse 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting over-excited. It was just a joke. --Bowlhover 02:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bowlhover; the least thing excites me! Far too much intellectual stimulation. I don't see the joke, though. I thought Light current was making a serious point. But I'm happy to change direction-and tone-if you like. Clio the Muse 02:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light current has his own versions of emoticons, as explained on his user page. DirkvdM 09:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

politic lingo

what exactly does the term 'cash on hand' mean in political campaigns?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.154.88 (talk • contribs)

Can you give us some context please?--Shantavira 14:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"In the period ending July 2006, candidate x had raised $2.5m, and had $220,000 cash on hand". It means the money they have available to spend --Mnem e son 14:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Often, people pledge money to a campaign. So, if I am pledged $100, I can say that I've raised $100. However, I don't have any cash on hand until the people hand it over. Then, when I spend it, it was still raised, but it is not on hand anymore. --Kainaw ^(talk) 17:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual meaning is more like this: Cash on hand definition. It's an actual accounting term. They might have plent of money in the bank (checking account, etc.) available to spend, but it wouldn't be cash on hand. -THB 03:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Walter Bailey

i am trying to request an article on the above person. your request-an-article page is very muddled and exceedingly murky about how to enter such a request.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdhilliard (talk • contribs)

Well first off is he notable according to wikipedia standards? If so you can add the article yourself. Nowimnthing 15:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Bentley and Christopher Craig court case

I would like to know the date of which Bentley and Craig first appeared before the magistrate to discover what the future held in store for them i am assuming it was around January due to the date on which Bentley was executed would it be possible to be informed of the exact date of which the court case took place? thanks alot.

They were both arrested on 2 November 1952. The trial opened on 9 December, conviction following two days later. Bentley was hanged on 28 January 1953. It was that quick. Clio the Muse 22:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By British practice, that was at the longer end of the normal delay between conviction and execution - the minimum delay period was "three clear Sundays"; 4-6 weeks was fairly typical. -- Arwel (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that they would first have appeared in a magistrates' court to be remanded in custody a day or two after their arrest (well, perhaps not in Craigs' case as he broke several bones in jumping from the roof). -- Arwel (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Film title needed

My mother remembers an old B&W film, but since it was a while since she has seen it, details are sketchy. Plot points included:

A woman having a child with another man (she was married)

The boy being sent away (possibly war evacuation

The boy going on to a train and accidently going into a quarantined carriage with TB sufferers. He might have caught TB.

She also didn't see the end and would like to know how it turns out! Thanks in advance --Bearbear 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't TV a horribly infectious disease that causes your brain to rot away ? :-) StuRat 21:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its certainly succeeded in your (nut)case. Harr harr! 8-)--Light current 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:( --Bearbear 10:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's one of these: IMDB -THB 03:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look, thanks --Bearbear 10:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mood amoung soldiers towards the end of WW2

The 20. of April 1945 Hitler kills himself. At this time, were the Germans "expecting" to loose? The mood amound the soldiers the days before the scuicide, was it hopefull? Did they have the feeling they were loosing? Soldiers on the other side, what were they thinking, how long did they think they had left to fight? Did they know they were winning? What was the reaction on both sides on Hitler being killed? Was it expected? No, this is not an essay question :) I am analyzing a war poem, and since I know very little about the second world war I am hoping that some people could give me at least some answers to the questions above, so that I get a slight impression of what soldiers were thinking. Thanks. Clq 22:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly explore what was going through the heads of so many men at any given time? The best you can hope for is to look out some war diaries and recollections, which might provide a degree of insight. What I will say, though, is that any German expecting to win at that point in the war would have been taking optimism to quite inconceivable levels of absurdity; either that or they were simply clinically insane. I would say that the general reaction to Hitler's suicide was elation on one side and despair on the other, though there may have been many Germans who secretly shared the sense of elation, believing the war would quickly come to an end. As far as the fighting men are concerned-and the only really big battle going on at this time was in Berlin-I imagine they lived from moment to moment, not daring to think too far ahead. But they were no doubt pleased by the news Clio the Muse 23:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is strong evidence of the lack of morale in German troops by the time of Hitler's suicide. For example, they were surrendering in droves, not the type of thing they would do if they still thought they were winning. By contrast, the Japanese continued to fight up until the end, and may very well have thought they could still win, until the atomic bombs were dropped. StuRat 00:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point, though we are probabaly touching here on two quite different sets of cultural assumptions. In the west soldiers generally do not see the point in continued fighting when a battle is so clearly lost. I find it hard to accept that by the summer of 1945 even the Japanese retained any hope of victory; but in cultural terms death was, for a great many, still preferable to surrender, the ultimate disgrace for a soldier. Some were still holding out (refusing to surrender, that is) years after the war ended. Clio the Muse 00:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I heard (from eyewitnesses and other sources) was that most Germans were desparately hoping for the war to end. There's even a song describing this sentiment which somehow managed to pass censorship:

Wenn die Lichter wieder scheinen

und wir wieder unsern kleinen Abendbummel

durch die hellen Straßen machen

werden wir tanzen, werden wir singen,

babadubadabadubada

...

(and later:)

stör'n uns endlich mal keine Sirenen

...

Translation: When the lights will be shining again, and we will once again do our evening stroll through the brighly lit streets we will sing, we will dance ... (and later:) finally no sirens will disturb us for a change... — Sebastian (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, though it might bear a slightly different interpretation from the one you are making. It really only expresses a general, and rather sentimental, longing for the end of the war, which-by 1942-was probably not incompatible with official policy. The real issue, of course, was how the war ended. Now, for a real mood of-apparent-defeatism you could do no better than the song taken up by British Tommies in 1914, which contains the following wonderful line, You can send my mother, my sister and my brother, but for God's sake don't send me. Just imagine that being sung in the Third Reich!. Clio the Muse 03:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, this really helps. Greatly appreciated. Clq 07:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that some of the German military leaders hoped to fight on so they would be able to put up enough resistance against the US and Britain that those countries would make a separate peace, leaving out the Russians. There was a report this year or last showing that Churchill did have a representative negotiate with the Germans toward the possibility of such an armistice, so that the German Army (less the Nazi leadership) could fight with the West against Russia. It didn't pan out. If the Russians had moved slower against Germany, and if the Battle of the Bulge campaign had been more successful, this gambit would have had a better chance, although if the war had lasted a few more months the US Air Force would have had nukes available to use against Germany. As for fighting on when there is no hope of winning, consider the Confederacy in the last year of the American Civil War. After the fall of Vicksburg, no southern leader expected to win, and they were just delaying the inevitable, giving up land slowly, as in Joe Johnston's slow retreat in Tennessee and Georgia. After Vicksburg, they gave up even the hope that European nations such as Britain would enter the fray by using their sea power to break the blockade and resupply the Confederate Army by sea in exchange for cotton. Edison 15:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that Hitler, virtually to the end, hoped for a separate peace with the western allies, believing that they would join the struggle in the east. As far as I am aware, there is no convincing evidence that Churchill or anyone else took these proposals seriously, and peace feelers put out by people such as Himmler and Göring were quickly dismissed. That is not to say that the allies did not encourage anti-Nazi conspiracies in the German army. On your second point, Edison, I think there was still a reasonably high expectation in the Confederacy that the north might be fought to a standstill, even after the fall of Vicksburg. The hope was that the Union would lose the will to fight in the face of mounting casualties. By 1864 Confederate hopes focused on the possible victory of George McClellan over Abraham Lincoln in the presidential election, on the assumption that he would be willing to make peace. When this hope vanished all that was left was the war of attrition. Clio the Muse 23:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once read that 1942 was a turning point, a year in which the mood started to change and people in the occupied countries started to realise Germany and its allies weren't that invincible. (Am I correct about that?)Evilbu 19:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are right, though this probably came in stages. Possibly the first realization that the Germans in particular were looking at defeat came with the failure of the Moscow offensive in the winter of 1941. But the big turning points were Midway, Alamein and Stalingrad, all in 1942. Clio the Muse 23:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious Clio: Why would the Battle of Midway be of THAT much importance to German morale? Ok, so the Allies beat the Japanese in some battle way off in the Pacific. Those "racially inferiour Nips" were beaten by those "Aryan" or "near Aryan" Americans and Brits. But wouldn't that only prove Hitler's grand theory and embolden the Germans at least as much as discourage them? Okay, I could see how, if they thought it through, they'd realize that an Allied victory in the Pacific would only allow the Allies to focus more attention, effort and resources in Europe. Yet it must be remembered that the "Allied" Alliance and the "Axis" Alliance were two rather different creatures, excluding, of course, Stalin's very reluctant and completely self-serving participation with the Allies. Loomis 18:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was casting the net more widely to take in the general causes for the decline in German morale; and the end of Japan's runaway victories in the Pacific would seem to be one important factor. But you are right, I have no specific information on this. As far as the racial perceptions are concerned, though, I can say that the Nazis had defined the Japanese as 'honorary' Aryans fighting a 'mongrel' enemy. Clio the Muse 23:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That only begs a question that I'd thought I'd never have to ask: Were the swarthy Italians considered "honorary" Aryans as well? In the case the answer is yes, what then excludes one from being an "honorary" Aryan? Except of course being Jewish...but then again...even the Jews, were they actually considered "less Aryan" than the Japanese? No need to explain. It was madness so I suppose trying to derive any sort of sensibility to it is fruitless. Loomis 08:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]