Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 April 6

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.

April 6

How wide were the sandy beaches when Columbus, etc. came?

A recent vacation and walk along the beach prompted the question in my mind. How wide (that is, distance from sea to vegetation/dirt roads/etc.) were the beaches in the New World when Columbus, Ponce De Leon, and other explorers landed in the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, etc., and the islands like Cuba, Hispaniola, etc.?

The widest beach I have seen has been about 550 feet in parts of Florida on the Gulf Coast, but I'm sure there are longer beaches than that now. Indeed, as I think about it, the beaches during the invasion of Normandy during D Day may have been wider. But, I'm sure they weren't a mile, like I'm thinkking some of these beaches could have been before development.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: Strange, i see now I clicked on the wrong one. I think I wanted Miscellaneous...well, someone can move it, I suspect deleting it might cause more confusion. Sorry.209.244.187.155 (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The beach at Blackpool in the UK can be miles 'deep' at high-tide. The beaches at Southport similarly are very deep. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Beaches shift so much even within a few short years and are affected by such local factors (waves, rivers, wind and weather, relative sea level changes) that it may be very difficult if not impossible to make a statement about beaches generally then as opposed to now. (Besides those articles, see also Beach evolution, Coastal erosion and Coastal geography). However, it could be possible to get an idea of what the explorers saw by reading their diaries or maps. Try this page for diaries and this page for some maps as well as the Wikipedia pages List of cartographers and Category:Old_maps_of_the_world. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Beaches, on average, are probably about the same now as then, although specific beaches may be wider or narrower. We don't know exactly where Columbus first landed, so we can't say much about that beach. Also note that I wouldn't expect any dirt roads back then. The Humanities Desk is a reasonable place for this Q, as historical records from Columbus' day would be relevant. StuRat (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Tengu

I've been interested in the Tengu for some time now. The Tengu article has some dated and or non-English sources. Are there any good current research papers on the subject? Something that covers their origins as the tiangou up to their perceptions in modern Japanese culture? Perhaps one appears in a book with other research papers? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm out of time for a detailed search, but as a quick first response, have you tried Google Book search and Google Scholar search? If you click on "advanced", both let you specify a date range (for example, this book search specified the last ten years and so did this scholar search). If you see an article that looks good but don't have access to a particular journal, you can request what you need from the fab folks at the Wikipedia Resource Request page. Hope this helps for now WikiJedits (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheikh Hasina and Benazir Bhutto

By any chance did Sheikh Hasina meet Benazir Bhutto in the 1980s or 1990s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.16.10 (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

why do religious groups have the right to associate etc etc but we don't have the right to ostracize them.

I don't get how come religious groups are allowed to associate with each other, meet on the appropriate day of the week at the appropriate place of religious worship where they can make deals with each other, meet important contacts, and in other ways build networks that outsiders can't get into BUT the outsiders are not allowed to turn around and "punish" them for keeping them out of these private networks by keeping them out of theirs? It seems very asymmetric! I don't understand why religion, which is a choice, is lumped in a group with race, ethnicity, gender, etc, which no one can help or abuse to a wrongful gain.

Or is there something wrong with my logic?

Note: I am not talking about any religious group in particular (though I am vaguely inspired by something I heard in a small town) but am just asking for the philosophical arguments! 94.27.194.165 (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what is this mystery religion that refuses to allow anyone who is not currently a member to become a member. Every religion that I know of eagerly allows new members to join. -- kainaw™ 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hindus, Druzes, Zoroastrians, any number of Jewish groups, and no doubt a number of Christian sects (I'd count the Mennonites but I think they will let you join but will make it very rough on you); just off the top of my head. --Gwern (contribs) 21:00 8 April 2009 (GMT)

And it is not exclusive to religions. Lots of other non-religious groups, like fraternities, the Lions Club, country clubs, Daughters of the American Revolution, the Jaycees, etc. etc. have all of the characteristics you describe. The reason people join those groups is for social networking, and there are advantages to members of those groups, in terms of contacts, preferences for business relationships, etc. etc., which are not availible to non-members. Certainly, belonging to a religious congregation is somewhat like this; you become more familiar with people you see on a regular basis. If someone I see at my church or synagogue every week, and whom I have known for years, is looking for a job, well, I am likely to work a little harder to get my friend a job where I work than perhaps a total stranger. But it is no different than a fraternity or civic club or softball team or any other voluntary association.

Indeed, religious groups are almost universally MORE inclusive than any of these; with the exception of some really out there cults, which are statstically insignificant, all variations of ALL of the major religions allow non-members to attend and participate in worship services. There may be certain restrictions for people who are not members of a congregation, such as not being allowed to vote on church business or not having access to certain aspects of the worship experience (Catholics, for example, do not allow non-catholics to participate in Communion). But no religion is like the OP describes. It sounds like he has gotten some serious misinformation on how religions work. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Religions are crucially different than the groups you cite, in that a person can really have only one religion, but can belong to multiple clubs. You can be an Elk, an Oddfellow, a Jaycee, a Lion, and a country-club doyenne if you have the time, money, and inclination, but you can't really be a Catholic and a Protestant and a Jew and a Muslim.

That said, the reason that religion is included in some places and some systems of law as a protected category is that such places place a high value on freedom of conscience. - Nunh-huh 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, and there is also the issue (based on the OPs other part of the question) that the notion of ostracizing anyone for any reason is generally kind of a dickish attitude to have. In general, in a free society, the ideal standard of behavior is to only disallow behaviors which prevent other people from free exercise of their own lives. Insofar as what I do does not stop you from doing what you want to do, and visa versa, we should provide no impedance to each other... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You can usually discriminate against Lion's Club members if you want. Discrimination on grounds of religion is illegal in many countries. I think that is the point the OP is making. --Tango (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In its founding "charter" document, Hamas has declared eternal jihad on the Lion's Club and Rotary (no joke!). AnonMoos (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In most Western jurisdictions the 'discrimination' you claim is going on would be just as illegal as the reverse kind. It is as illegal to hire an employee because of their religion as it is to not hire them because of their religion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's not illegal to hire someone because you know them, even if the reason you know them is that you go to the same church. --Tango (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that private clubs, like the Boy Scouts or the Freemasons or are free to discriminate against anyone they want, because they are allowed to determine their makeup without any government interference. Businesses and other public organizations do not have the same leeway. So if you want to make the Anonymous Wikipedia Editors He-Man Woman Haters Club and wish to exclude anyone of any particular religion, it is well within your rights. Livewireo (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not actually true, at least for the Boy Scouts, as recent lawsuits have shown. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What lawsuits did you have in mind? Has something overturned Boy Scouts v. Dale? - Nunh-huh 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A suit in which a muslim scout wanted equal rights to be part of the troop with his Christian neighbours. Upheld. Don't have time to hunt for the reference right now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If you do get the time, I'd love to have further information. Since there are Cub Scout packs and Boy Scout troops operated by Islamic organizations in major cities throughout the United States - indeed, since it is possible for Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts to earn Islamic religious badges to wear on their uniforms [1] - I imagine there's something more involved here than the "right" of private organizations to discriminate. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that this "our religion is right, there is only one true religion and it's ours" thought pattern is purely Western (or more precisely, Abrahamic). In Japan and China, it is perfectly possible to think yourself to be a Buddhist, Confucian and Christian all at the same time. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but utterly irrelevant to the discussion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this is unique to religion. Most of the anti-discrimination laws, at least as applied, are one-sided. So, while we have laws against discrimination based on race, age, gender, and sometimes sexual orientation, the result is that those protections don't apply if you happen to be a white, young, straight, male. So, if The Alliance of Elderly Lesbians of Color decides not to hire you as their receptionist, they don't have to. StuRat (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That depends very much on where you live. Here in the UK, the only anti-discrimination law which is one-sided is the one relating marriage - you can legally be discriminated against for being unmarried, but not for being married. The rest are framed in an even-handed way, and are generally applied as such. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Then that means you can't have any minority companies, such as one with an all black work-force ? StuRat (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that is the case, and I have seen lawsuits addressing exactly this issue. In the US the constitutionality of "affirmative action" was tested and kept, but in other places the law says conclusively that discriminating against you because you are white, or male, is just as illegal as because you are black or female. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence to the contrary, but, since I believe you, I don't really need any evidence, do I ? I'm glad to see that other countries have a more uniform application of anti-discrimination laws. StuRat (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's basically it, yes. I recall that it's allowable in UK law to offer training specifically for disadvantaged groups, but not employment opportunities. There are also specific provisions for jobs in fields such as community health work, where being from a particular group (and of a particular sex/gender) may be essential to working effectively with the target audience, but those exceptions are very narrowly defined. UK authorities speak in general about six strands - race, sex, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation and disability. In all of these cases, all examples are equally protected, including majority positions such as 'not disabled' or 'cisgendered'. There are a few special cases such as those mentioned about, and the right of disabled individuals to a guaranteed interview for any job for which they meet the basic qualifications. The law on this subject is currently spread over a good dozen or more acts of parliament, but is shortly to be brought together in what is described as a Single Equality Bill, which will make all the provisions strictly equivalent, except in highly specific cases. The usual areas where equality law particularly applies are employment, and the provision of goods and services, and extensive secondary legislation exists to set out exactly what this means. There's obviously nothing to stop you running a service which will primarily appeal to only one group, of course - traditional Indian matchmaking, transgender club nights, Jewish bakeries, etc. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And in answer to the original question - nothing gives any group the right to punish any other group. If you think a job has been recruited to in an unfair fashion, if you believe you have been the victim of discrimination, your recourse is to the civil authorities. I'm mildly appalled that you think 'outsiders' should be able to 'punish' members of religious groups just because they suspect them of talking privately. Please specify what you're really talking about. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

guys the poster way above gets it right -- my question is what the essential difference is between Lion's Club members and ____ religion's members, both have a choice about it, both are a kind of membership in a club, etc, but one is PROTECTED in a very special way in the eyes of the law (and I guess philosophy) like only gender and race and so forth are, and the other isn't. When I see during a job interview membership in a totally *beep* country club I can decide that I don't want this guy on my team, we're with another country club. But you CAN"T do the same thing for religion. So there is a special distinction, even though for me I don't see the big difference.

The reason I'm interested is because as someone else pointed out you can only belong to ONE religious club, and if another club discriminates against non-members (outsiders) in various ways then why cant you do the same with them, just because they are a "religion"?

I just don't get the philosophical basis for a very special protected status for religions (but not other club memberships) in the same way as non-choosable stuff like race, gender, etc etc etc.

to recap: the basis for my question is the DIFFERENCE in the eyes of the law and philsophically speaking between The Lions Club and a religious club. Thanks! 94.27.194.165 (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find you can't get away with not hiring someone solely because of the country club they belong to. If you try that, and let them know that's the reason, they would have every reason to sue you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry, sue you for what? I think you don't understand how protected statuses work. Here's another great example, personal handicap. No one would argue that someone in a wheelchair is HANDICAPPED, ie starting with a bit of a disadvantage, let's say a couple of percentage points of productivity. Too bad, you can't use that to choose the identically qualified candidate who is not in a wheelchair. It is a PROTECTED STATUS. But now look what happens if you have a candidate who would cost you a few percentage points of productivity because he's totally not in your club, it's not who you hang out with OUTSIDE of work, and so the team is that much less likely to stay a bit later (for free) a few times a month. Then you CAN choose this one, the club someone belongs to is not proected, you can use it to "guess" what the productivity will be that results.

The following point is a very hard one to understand so try not to strain your mind: let's say you are in construction, you're a new foreman, you need to hire someone with supervising experience and you get just two candidates with the SAME qualifications, but one is a man and one is a woman. For this example, assume that you KNOW that there a certain number of groups of men who just WILL NOT WORK HARD for a woman, let's say they work just 66% as much as for a man, and that EXACTLY 3% OF THE GROUPS IN YOUR AREA ARE LIKE THAT, but you're very very new as a foreman, you can't read the team you're the foreman over. You can't decide if they're that 3% who will just work 66% as hard!! (For the purposes of this example you are assuming this is the TRUTH, that there is really an area where a rotten apple 3% of teams would do only two thirds the work under a woman). So as a rational actor you could do this: multiply the expected loss in productivity (33%) * the percent chance that this will happen (3%) and arrive at 00.99%, ie almost a 1% expected (ie average) loss of productivity if you hire te woman. You say, you like diversity, you'll run that chance. You hire the woman to add some diversity to the workforce. There's no problem with this. THe problem happens with this OTHER rational actor who in your shoes, as a very new foreman, is a bit antsy about fuckign up. They're very risk averse. They don't want to risk that 33% loss, even if it has just a 1 in 33 chance of happening. Maybe the group is way way behind deadline and they will miss a million dollar contract if they don't give 100% for the next few weeks. Suddenly 3% of a million dollar contract (which they will lose completely) is a $30,000 loss. You're not going to run it. You go with the man, just because you know of the bad apple groups in your state. NOW is where the illegal discrimination happens, since gender is a protected status, and you aren't allowed to make these kinds of calculations. You aren't allowed to say "these two people are equal, but the fact that this candidate is a woman is one that I'm going to use to make my conclusions". You must be gender-blind. But if the calculation were about country club, then you COULD, it would be fine. You can't sue someone for making their team more productive by these means. Do you understand now how protected statuses work? Not EVERYTHING is a protected status, just a limited number of things like gender, race, handicap status, etc. What I don't understand is why religion, which is a voluntary choice of membership in a club, should be among these... (unlike country club membership or whether a candidate went to the same ivy league school as most of your team as opposed to the other one with which this one has a long-standing rivalry...) 94.27.194.165 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk isn't really meant for debates. It seems pretty clear from your posts that debate is what you're after. Friday (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

See Freedom of association. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No there is a very important distinction between asking for the arguments/philosophical basis for something (which NO ONE has done! no one is answering my question) and debating about it. The problem is people think I'm asking about why you shouldn't discriminate based on a person's membership in groups -- but this isn't my question. My question is: why are you ALLOWED, legally, to do this, what is the philosophical basis (or the arguments toward this) for certain voluntary associations (country clubs) but not religion, which is in my eyes the exact same kind of association. You see, I'm not trying to argue with any of the people above -- I want them to realize WHAT my question is so they can direct their attention to answering it. Actually there is one person above who gets my question ("You can usually discriminate against Lion's Club members if you want. Discrimination on grounds of religion is illegal in many countries. I think that is the point the OP is making.") but thinks I'm making a point, instead of asking a question. (He doesn't offer an answer).

So seriously guys -- what is the philosophical distinctino? I just don't understand it. 94.27.153.209 (talk) 08:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that you are asserting that such a distinction clearly exists, and most of us are denying it. That's why this is taking on the appearance of a debate - we don't accept your premises, so we're unwilling to answer a question directly that's based on them. You give the appearance of pursuing an agenda against a particular (as yet unnamed) religious group, and we're unwilling to help you do so. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to the possibility of what you're saying, but could you clarify exactly what you mean -- when you say "most of us are denying [...] that such a distinction clearly exists" do you mean most of the above respondents don't believe that it is legal to choose among two equal candidates based on their country club membership (ie the one that brings more synergy to the team) but that it is illegal to choose the right candidate based on their religion (ie the one that brings more synergy to the team)? Or, do you mean that the people above accept that one is legal and one is illegal, but believe it to be a "distinction without a difference" -- it doesn't make sense for me to ask what the philosophical distinction is, because there is none. Which do you mean? Thanks. 94.27.153.209 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think its that your scenario makes no sense. It is perfectly legal to hire someone because you know them personally, or because they carry recommendations by people you know and trust. This is true regardless of whether the reason for knowing that person (or having those recommendations) is because the person belongs to a religious congregation, club, or civic group. If you have friends who attend the same mosque/temple/church, you are not forbidden from taking those relationships into account any more than having friends from any other social organization. So your premise, that somehow friendships from religious organizations "don't count", seems flawed, which is why no one is able to answer it to your satisfaction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayron32 has basically hit the nail on the head. In short, if I hire someone because they say they follow the same faith as me, that's illegal discrimination (against the unsuccessful candidates) on the basis of religion, at least in UK law, and would be actionable. On the other hand, if I happen to know someone because we're members of the same congregation, and use knowledge of them gained in this way to make my decision, that's no different from the country-club example. It might be somewhat unfair, but it's a world away from the former version. Religious congregations are not legally privileged institutions in the way you're implying. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, the OP seems to be suggesting that members of religious organizations have some protection againt positive discrimination in favour of their co-religionists that members of other organizations do not have. This is backwards. Employment and hiring protections for members of designated groups are put in place to protect them from discrimination, not to allow them to discriminate. There are elements of positive discrimination in affirmative action programs, but these are typically based on redressing an imbalance arising from historic discrimination.

That history of discrimination is important. Identifiable groups are designated for protection because they have a history of being discriminated against. Historically, in the Western world at least, people have been discriminated against for reasons of gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, etc. This discrimination endures in some forms and in some areas to this day - the OP himself demonstrated this with the erroneous claim that a person with a disability is less productive in the workplace than a person who is not. In contrast, I don't know of any cases where the members of a certain country club have faced or continue to face persistent and systemic discrimination because of that affiliation. - Eron^Talk 16:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Another Venetian question - the canals

Hi - having some trouble finding a list of the names of the Venetian canals - can anyone help? Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's got a map here, also see right in which those in the historic district are named. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry - don't know how I missed that. Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - one more question - I imagine 'R.' stands for 'rio' in the map, but what does 'E.' stand for, as in 'E. dei Barcarolle'?Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Italian for river is fiume, not rio. --Nricardo (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_(Venezia) --Nricardo (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the E? Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling mistake? I'm pretty sure that's the Rio dei Barcaroli. E and R are next to each other on the keyboard. pablo_hablo. 11:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's "Rio dei Barcaroli".--pma (talk) 15:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought E was next to E♭ and F on the keyboard.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Even the world famous seafaring and and mapmaking Venetians fail when making a map of their own city!--KageTora (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, that map was created recently, on a computer. And the Venetians have been less keen on going to sea recently, they are worried because the sea is coming to them! pablo_hablo. 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Port Arthur

How exactly did Port Aurthur, Soviet Union become Lüshunkou, China ? From our article I get that the Russia and Japan fought over it and it changed hands a few times, but that the Soviet Union had control of it after WW2 until 1953, when China took control. Why did the Soviet Union give it up ? (It seems to be a warm-water port, which are in short supply for the Russians, so I'd have expected them to fight tooth-and-nail to keep it.) StuRat (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Port Arthur was an occupied territory. Lushun was the principal base of the Imperial North Sea Fleet until its annihilation during the First Sino-Japanese War. Japan then occupied the port and massacred its populace after the war. After the war, the port and the Liaodong Peninsula on which it is situated were ceded to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. The intervention of Russia, along with other states, forced Japan to return the peninsula to China in return for monetary reparations.

Using this intervention as leverage, Russia obtained a lease over the territory in 1898, for 25 years. However, after the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905, Japan occupied the territory, and used it as a base to control Korea and later, invade China.

The Soviet Union's occupation of Lushun (Port Arthur) came about as a result of the Yalta Conference, which promised the port to Russia as part of the package under which the Allies agreed on their strategy, and in particular Soviet action against Japan, near the end of World War II.

The parts relating to China (including the independence of Outer Mongolia and the control of Lushun and Dalian) became effective upon the consent of Chiang Kai-shek.

Notice that, under the Yalta agreement, Soviet control of Lushun was phrased as a restoration of Russian privileges before the Russo-Japanese war - that is to say, it was a lease territory, not ceded to Russian sovereignty. Secondly, the same agreement also pledged the maintenance of the Republic of China's sovereignty over all Manchuria.

Chinese consent to those terms of the Yalta agreement were obtained in 1945 upon the signing of the Sino-Russian Treaty of 1945, which prescribed a 30-year term to the lease of the port.

As to the mechanisms of the early hand-over of the port to the People's Republic of China, I confess that that I've had to rely on internet sources, such as this.

According to that article, Mao Zedong raised the issue of Lushun in 1949 while visiting the Soviet Union. AFter numerous rounds of negotiations, it was agreed that the terms of the 1945 treaty would be revisited, and that the Soviet Union would withdraw from Lushun by the end of 1952; during the interim, the Soviet Union would maintain military authority in Lushun in consultation with the Chinese, but civilian administration would be handed over to the Chinese from 1950. However, if war were to break out with Japan or any other third nation, then both the Chinese and the Soviet navies could use Lushun as a base.

Of course, the 1950 agreements, including the handover of Lushun, came at a price to China: these "debts" were to be repaid over the next few decades in both cash payments and in kind, with mineral and food shipments to the Soviet Union. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Here [2] is the text of the original treaty between USSR and China on the transfer of Port Arthur, Dailan (Dairen) and the railway to China. --Dr Dima (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So, it seems that the Soviet Union essentially sold off their interests in Port Arthur. Was the Soviet Union particularly desperate for cash, food, and minerals, at the time ? StuRat (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A combination of things. Post-WWII, the USSR was in terrible shape (as was China) in terms of food, raw materials and working factories and transport systems. In addition, Stalin was a bit short of friends, and although he saw himself as the leader of the Communist movement worldwide (and Mao as a near ‘subject’), it wouldn’t be comradely to continue occupying a fraternal socialist brother’s territory on the basis of pre-liberation treaties. Nevermind that the ‘State’ should be withering away . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)