Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 October 1

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 1

Reminiscing the dictatorships

I met many Romanians who think Ceauşescu time was nicer then today. In Russia Stalin is again celebrated, even, to some extent, by state officials. I recently spoke with some older Germans who lived in Nazi Germany and they were talking about those days with great pride. Also if you talk to other eastern Europe countries older residents, many will tell you that they lived better in those days. In Italy even Berlusconi once talked about his great early childhood under Mussolini...

Is it that people really lived better lives under dictatorships, or are they simply reminiscing their youth and they simply miss it? Is there any other explanation for this truly remarkable phenomenom?

--92.244.159.130 (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

We all like to imagine that living under a dictatorship is an ugly, grueling experience. However, most people do not notice much of a difference - their lives go on pretty much as usual. In fact, sometimes their lives improve (dictatorships can be quite efficient about certain kinds of political and economic changes). The problem with dictatorships is the utterly brutal way in which they deal with those suspected as being 'state enemies', the irrationality of many of their foreign and domestic policies, and the the fact that the populace has no control over the government (meaning that many policies of the regime are against the populace itself). put in concrete terms, if you are a baker you can live a nice, quiet, comfortable life regardless of what regime you live under; everyone wants bread, so you'll always be able to make a living, and it's not something that's likely to bring you any unpleasant notice. If you decide to hold a book-reading club in your shop after hours however, nothing much will happen to you in a society with constitutional rights, but in a dictatorship that could land you in some 'very serious' hot water if the government became suspicious about the activity (and by 'hot water' I mean long-term imprisonment, loss of property, torture, or death). Most Germans under the Nazi regime, for instance, had no idea about the Nazis excesses, and were actually quite proud of the German war success and the increased standard of living that the Nazis brought to the nation. Most Russians lived comfortable, productive lives from the time of the revolution to the fall of the Soviet Union. In short, politics is nowhere near as significant in most people's daily lives as it might seem in hindsight. --Ludwigs2 02:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In the 1930's the US government interviewed elderly African-Americans who had been slaves, and they often said very positive things about how good their life was as slaves. They were young then rather than elderly, and they remembered a time of relative prosperity rather than the Great Depression. (A third factor, of course might be that they were afraid to say how horrible it all was.) As for Stalin or Ceauşescu, the first two factors might apply. People who were being imprisoned and tortured might not have such fond recollections of the two dictators. People who were slackers enjoying the "to each according to his needs" might recall fondly a time when socialism handed out low priced subsidized food to those of limited ability who did not work hard. Edison (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to "afraid to say how horrible it was": an elderly relative who fought in the First World War never mentioned it to anyone I know of while he was alive, except to make lighthearted jokes, but after his death we found a letter written not long after his medical discharge, detailing some of the worst. A not so elderly relative suddenly, out of the blue, reacted to a comedy sketch about the Blitz with "It wasn't like that! Don't believe them, we didn't just carry on like nothing happened. People were dying, and we were terrified. It wasn't like that." At the time, being a teenager, I was puzzled because it was clearly a comedy sketch. Now, I understand that she had lived with this for decades, never talking about how bad it was, surrounded by propaganda. Still, the propaganda of the Blitz lives on, because parents hid the truth from their children rather than talk about how bad it was, and those children tell their own children. Don't believe them. It wasn't like that. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a question of psychology, not history. Old people always recall their youth with exaggerated fondness, and the present with exaggerated dismay, even if objective improvements have occurred. This is not to say they're senile fools, merely that they're conflating (or at least strongly associating) the inherent qualities of youth with the incidental circumstances that marked theirs. It feels better to be young than to be old, therefore the world feels better to young people, therefore old people remember a world that felt better than it does today. Quite a few old people are perfectly capable of rising above this reflex and acknowledging, intellectually, that yes, society has manifestly advanced, we've become less sexist and racist, wonderful new technologies have appeared, etc. etc. Others are unwilling or unable to make this leap. LANTZY^TALK 04:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A couple of the cognitive biases involved would seem to be, then, Rosy retrospection and the Reminiscence bump. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For concrete examples, see Ostalgie and Jugonostalgija. Both of these articles are pretty short, but it's a start, I suppose. TomorrowTime (talk) 07:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Jugonostalgija" has some pretty solid factual basis, but the last ten years of Ceauşescu's reign were a very dark period with many major problems in Romania (especially if you lived in Bucharest), so I'm not sure what there is to be really nostalgic about... AnonMoos (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean - considering the violence that accompanied Ceausescu's overthrow, you'd figure a return to those times would be the last thing people might want. On the other hand, while not all was peachy in Yugoslavia, it still managed to maintain a semblance of the "socialism with a human face" ideal, and your average Janez, Ante or Mujo were pretty well off. Of course, if you'd listen to some politicians from the ex-Yugoslav area, you'd think the country was even worse off and more grimly oppressive than Romania, so it's all in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. TomorrowTime (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"you'd figure a return to those times would be the last thing people might want" - and yet... Rimush (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I've known plenty of people from Eastern Europe, and none of them speak highly of the Communist days. We're talking about a time when the consumer products (e.g., women's sanitary products, clothing) where terrible, you couldn't even get bananas at the grocery store, few people had cars, TV and radio were lousy -- not to mention the risk that you could wind up destitute -- or working in a uranium mine -- because you happened to say the wrong thing when the wrong person was listening. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Those who are nostalgic will point out that in exchange there was virtually no unemployment, less crime, and a clear sense of law and order and that "things were not so bad if you simply avoided political issues". Don't forget that "back in the good old days" there was no war, a very important factor when you read about the First Chechen War, Yugoslav Wars, 2010 South Kyrgyzstan riots, Nagorno-Karabakh War, 2008 South Ossetia war, etc. Flamarande (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, you had the Soviet war in Afghanistan. And with the Cold War over, most former Soviet Bloc countries have been able to reduce or eliminate conscription. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proof of identity in antiquity

If a Roman slave were to have somehow escaped his master, what could have prevented him from going off to some other place and living as a free peasant/sailor/thief/whatever? Assuming the slave was fluent in the language, and not visibly of a non-Roman race, how would anyone have been able to tell? How would anyone be able to prove that so-and-so was or wasn't a slave? To frame the question more broadly, what means existed in that time to prove one's identity to a stranger? A letter could easily be forged or stolen. Unless I'm overlooking something obvious, I imagine that impostors must have been incredibly common in that time. LANTZY^TALK 03:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I expect the Romans had slave catchers as skilled as those in the antebellum US South. Physical characteristics or accents could be a clue. The locations of friends or relatives could be a clue. Finks or "spotters" could be useful. Edison (talk) 04:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Communities prior to modern times were much closer knit than today; even in urban areas, neighborhoods tended to all know each other. If a slave escapes from Rome, and three days later a stranger shows up in a village three days walk from Rome, well, it doesn't take a genius to at least detain the stranger until someone who could identify whether or not he was the escaped slave showed up. According to Slavery in ancient Rome, harboring an escaped slave was a crime, and professional slave catchers were used to find the escaped slaves. --Jayron32 05:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And as to the OP's "thief" suggestion, I suppose that a life of crime, be it thievery, banditry, prostitution or piracy, would indeed have been the most viable option, in most cases. There are exceptional individuals and exceptional situations, but they are exceptions. How much, I wonder, do we really know about the Roman underworld?--Rallette (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Human branding--Aspro (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

But what can you do when you have arrived to where you wanted to escape to? You are very conspicuous: a stanger with no land, no money, no shop, basically no income or no friend: wherever you turn up, people will have suspicions that you are running away from something. If you tried to be employed in a city, maybe you stand a little chance. But then you need skills, which, if you were born a slave, would be pretty hard to acquire. --Lgriot (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In Roman times, elementary-school teachers were often slaves... AnonMoos (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Slaves who worked as teachers were exceptions and conspicuous. They were almost always ethnic Greeks, who would have stood out in most parts of ancient Italy. Also, their learning and refinement would have set them apart, and they probably lacked the strength and/or skill needed for the manual labor that might have been available for vagrants. As for the bulk of slaves, who were agricultural laborers, options would have been limited. Purchasing a piece of land to farm as a free peasant somewhere would not have been an option, as 1) it would have involved dealing with a magistrate who would inquire into one's origins if one were not known in the area, and 2) it would have required more money than a rural slave was likely to accumulate. Farm labor on an estate was not an option in most places unless a person was already a slave on that estate. Slaveowners presumably had enough solidarity not to "poach" one another's slaves. Even if a farmworking slave were within a day's walk of Rome or another big city (and there weren't many big cities), he would probably not have skills that were in demand in the urban economy. Much of the menial labor was already done by urban slaves. Travel through the countryside would not have been an option for most escaped slaves because of the expense of paying for food and accommodation, or the risk of being caught stealing food to eat or sleeping rough. Again, even if they did try to travel, where would they find a livelihood? Urban, artisanal slaves might be able to hide some of their earnings from their masters and build up enough money to move and set up shop in another city, but their trade would make them easy to find, and slave hunters would probably have little trouble tracking them down. For all of these reasons, probably most slaves did not bother to try to escape. Those who might have been successful might fall into two categories: 1) Urban slaves who worked on the side and were somehow able to save enough money to pay for passage to their foreign homeland, where they could adopt a disguised public identity and survive with the help of family members and neighbors. The expense to an Italian slaveowner of pursuing a slave outside Italy would probably not have been worthwhile. 2) As Rallette says, a life of crime might have been an option for escaped slaves, particularly prostitution for female slaves. Marco polo (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how often this would have happened in reality, but in Roman law there were extensive provisions for becoming a freedman, and the kind of rights and duties a freedman would have. Slaveowners apparently often freed their slaves in their wills. It wasn't as good as being born free, of course (but you could be born free even if one of your parents was a slave). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They did have some identity documents in Roman times. For example, see Roman military diploma and Libellus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent answers, everybody. But as for human branding, I doubt that it was ever widely employed in Rome, except perhaps for gladiators and certain classes of criminals. Edward Gibbon writes that the Romans were careful not to acquaint the slaves with their own numbers, so consciously avoided dressing them distinctively or otherwise making their status conspicuous to the eye. It was this fact that inspired my original question, since, if slaves were unable to recognize one another, how could anyone hope to recognize them? But y'all's answers have more than penetrated that mystery. LANTZY^TALK 01:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Proof of identity came from the census. For an actual example of a Roman citizen who had to prove his identity in a court of law, see Pro Archia Poeta. To count as a Roman Citizen, you needed to be entered on the rolls. Many slaves did escape their masters and raised armies to fight them. Spartacus is the most famous of these slaves. There were three Roman Servile Wars during the Republic. Each lasted several years demonstrating the number of slaves who not only escaped but openly fought their former masters. Gx872op (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Kingdom

This section on the British Protocol is a little unclear to me. Does the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU not apply in the UK? --CGPGrey (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RUNNING HORSES WITH RAINBOW IN THE SKY

I have posted on my flickr account a painting that's been in my family's possession for years, but it has no name nor I.D. of the artist. It's an art print, which means it was copied off of already established painting, but I don't know how to look it up or to go to find any answer to it's identity. Here is the link: www.flickr.com/photos/53676559@N07/?saved=1 If anyone knows more about it, I'd really appreciate some info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.70.73.208 (talk) 07:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you took another photo square on to the painting, you could see if Tineye comes up with anything.

Strangely, this seems to be a popular subject matter for paintings/prints. There was a similar question a few months ago and my search for asn answer to that question revealed something odd going on with Google, which prompted me to ask this other ref desk question. Astronaut (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethics in Law

May a lawyer write threatening letters to an organization and then single out one member of the organization? This is the example: A lawyer where I live was being asked to comply with the CCRs of our HOA and he wrote a letter very short " Leave us alone, I'm a lawyer and I will sue you." One person on the HOA has asked for further investigation and the lawyer sends that person the same type of letter to his personal email but used the word "backoff" or I'll sue you.

It seems against some sort of ethics to write letters like that with no explanation of what sort of violation the organization or person has caused. I called the ABA and the person flippantly said he has a right to free speech and then asked I should ask a lawyer. But how can a lawyer just write a letter telling someone they will sue them any time that lawyer doesn't get his way?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeowMix16 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea what HOA or CCR means, or what country or indeed what continent you live in - but in general the best person to talk to would be a lawyer or your local bar association/council or law society - basically whoever is in charge of regulating that brand of lawyers in your jurisdiction. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that ABA stands for American Bar Association? Googlemeister (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

HOA = Home Owners Association, CCR = covenants, conditions & restrictions. Anyone can write a letter saying they will sue - whether it is a serious possibility is another question. Sounds like this has reached the stage where you need to get some professional advice on how to enforce your CC&Rs. Collecting random opinions from strangers on the internet is not going to help you. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And some terms of HOA are unconstitutional and would not be upheld in a court, so the threat of a lawsuit may not be baseless. In any case, professional advise might be worth consideration. Googlemeister (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a strange use of unconstitutional. I assume you refer to the US Constitution, which mainly affects the actions of the federal government. An HOA may try to have restrictions that don't match national law, state law or local by-laws and that would not be upheld in court, but that does not make them unconstitutional. The HOA isn't the federal government, and isn't acting on its behalf. It's merely a private organization trying to enforce restrictions it doesn't have the right to./Coffeeshivers (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree the usage is strange, it may be possible that some terms are in fact unconstitutional. Actually I was specifically reminded of this guy Kiwi Camara and the controversy he got himself into surrounding his description of this Shelley v. Kraemer case. In that case in 1948, it was decided that racially-based restrictive covenants aren't in fact unconstitutional (but they can't be enforced in court since that would be unconsititutional), however it was a specific issue before the court which suggests the people trying it didn't think it completely impossible that the it could be unconstitutional. And I also wonder if the same case nowadays would come to the same conclusion. (Definitely I suspect there are some countries outside the US where HOA terms could be unconstitutional even if it isn't possible in the US.) Of course even if these cases of unconstitutional HOA terms do exist they would only be a small minority of problems with HOA terms. Nil Einne (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the words 'ethics' and 'law' in the same sentence jarred with me a bit. Now that I have recovered a little... There is a blog of legal eagles that are dedicated to fair play (in the law world) called Groklaw. They don't sort problems out for anyone, but they are quick to comment on injustices. Post your questions there. You are more likely to get better opinions than here. --Aspro (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Who started WWI?

Serbia assassinated the heir to the Austrian throne, but Austria-Hungary acted like a complete jerk in response by invading Serbia instead of trying to resolve the conflict through peaceful means. --70.245.189.11 (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

We have an article Causes of World War I which goes into this in great detail. You really can't meaingfully say "Serbia did" anything, because "Serbia" wasn't a country; much of the sadness of the 20th Century arises from whole populations being held responsible for the misdeeds of an unrepresentative few of their number. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read, much of the blame can be placed on those people, mostly Austrian, who persuaded their Emperor to start the war with Serbia, as well as with those few people in Serbia who acted in a provocative way. Personally I blame the politicians. The Austrians had been hoping to invade Serbia for some time, though, they wanted more land, for some reason, and Serbia was one of the last little countries left near them. Technically though, a country, as an area of land, cannot start a war by itself, and very rarely does the entire population of one country decide to do the same thing at the same time. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This article may shed some light on the matter: May Overthrow. There was a strong Pro- Slavic movement in the Habsburg Empire, which by 1914 was a cauldron of various nationalist movements within, all seeking independence.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that the consensus among historians is that Germany ultimately started it, by giving an ultimatum to Russia that Russia could not possibly accept. When Russia refused, Germany militarized, and from that point on every party had to act at maximum speed in order to avoid being put at a strategic disadvantage. Everything that happened before Germany militarized was containable, but after that, nobody was capable of turning back. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct a few statements that were made, there is no evidence that the Serbian government as an entity directed the assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne. The heir was assassinated outside the territory of Serbia by Gavrilo Princip, who was not a citizen of Serbia. There is evidence that Princip was linked to certain Serbian military officers, who might have had a hand in plotting the assassination, but it is not correct that the government of Serbia directed the assassination. It is also not correct to say that Serbia was not a country at the time. It was in fact an independent kingdom. Marco polo (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The Black Hand was behind the assassination.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to back-up Marco Polo; the Kingdom of Serbia was a fully autonomous country - the Principality of Serbia became independant of the Ottoman Empire in 1867, was given international recognition by the Treaty of Berlin (1878) and became a kingdom in 1882. 16.1% of its population were killed in the war, the highest rate of any participant nation. Alansplodge (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A significant share of the blame for escalating an Austro-Hungarian/Serbian diplomatic crisis into a general European war must be placed squarely on the shoulders of Kaiser Wilhelm II. In the fifteen preceding years he had strongly alienated Britain and driven it solidly into the French camp by building up the German surface navy (see Fleet Act, High Seas Fleet, Tirpitz Plan etc.) — even though for Germany and Wilhelm the surface navy was mainly a shiny militaristic toy without great practical (as opposed to prestige) value, while for Britain (which was not self-sufficient in food, and would starve without regular imports), having the biggest surface navy was an essential matter of basic grim survival, and the British were determined to spend whatever it took to match and exceed the German ship-building efforts, regardless of cost. The result of all this was that when the war came, the German surface navy didn't seriously challenge the British navy outside the North Sea, and didn't have any overwhelming superiority within the North Sea. If by not building up its surface navy, Germany could have kept Britain from taking the side of France, then Germany would have been a lot better off without Wilhelm's navy. Also, he must bear some responsibility for the rigid German mobilization plans, which called for aggressive pre-emptive attacks in response to military mobilizations by other powers, without allowing for flexibility or diplomatic finesse. And the man had some definite personal issues (such as hating his mother because she was English) which didn't improve his decision-making skills. AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No single individual or group of individuals started World War I. Gavrilo Princip fired the shot that killed the Austrian heir, but this need not have started a world war. The war was the result of the decisions of several leaders in a number of European countries motivated by the lust for power and grandiose ideas of personal and national glory. I agree with AnonMoos that Kaiser Wilhelm II was high on the list of individuals who share the blame, though recent research shows that he was encouraged to take the position that he did by the German officer corps. The German military elite perceived that Germany had overtaken Britain as an industrial power and were eager to defeat Britain, France, and Russia to prove once and for all Germany's mastery of Europe. If the German military elite had not taken this attitude, which led Germany to offer unconditional backing to Austria in its dispute with Serbia (and Russia), Austria probably would not have dared risk war with Russia by delivering an impossible ultimatum to Serbia. Marco polo (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Probably" as in OR? Flamarande (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice that the Austrian Empire was then the major ally of the German Empire and not to support it would leave Germany all but isolated in Europe (a very bad position). Fact is that the Russian Empire, British Empire were simply afraid from the strengthening German Empire and France was very interested in avenging itself from the Franco-Prussian War and regaining Alsace-Lorraine. So these three allied themselves in the Triple Entente against the German Empire and the Austrian Empire. All these alliances were made years before the war began. The German Empire on the other hand believed that it could win a quick short war against France and the Russian Empire at the same time. Everything was ready, all sides were armed to the teeth, really itching for a "short and glorious" fight, and just looking for a pretext to start the slaughter. Blaming mainly the Germans is unfair: all of them were responsible. Flamarande (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Flamarande, you are just as "guilty" as I am of offering your interpretation and reasoning (yes, OR), so spare me the dismissive accusation. Of course Germany and Austria were allies. That does not mean that Germany had to offer Austria a blank check. As I said, leaders from several countries were to blame. I do not blame Germany exclusively. Austria was partly to blame for its oppressive policy in the Balkans, which sparked the initial incident and which colored Austria's attitude toward Serbia. However, it is hard to imagine Austria taking such an inflammatory approach to Russian-backed Serbia if the Austrian leadership did not know that the Germans would back them no matter the consequences. It was Germany's carte blanche to Austria that drew Russia into the conflict, triggering the whole mechanism of opposing alliances. No, Germany was not solely to blame. Austria certainly shared in the blame, as did France, eager for revenge as it leapt to Russia's defense. However, without Germany's adventurism, Austria would have had little choice but to find a diplomatic solution with Serbia and perhaps to admit the failure of its Balkan policy. Marco polo (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The German-Austrian alliance didn't mean that Germany had to offer Austria a blank check, agreed. However you're forgetting that someone had just murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir-apparent to the Austrian throne on broad daylight. A diplomatic solution after that was all but impossible. War was the inevitable consequence, the only question was how many countries were going to get involved. Notice that the German Carte Blanche to Austria didn't somehow force Russia to stand behind Serbia. All sides stood by their alliances because everybody believed that their side could win. Flamarande (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely unsurprising that German and Austria would be so close. Prior to the German Empire, the two were integral parts of the (admitedly weakly organized) German Confederation. The German question over whether or not a German nation would include, or not include, Austria dominated central European politics for most of the years leading up to World War I. --Jayron32 04:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the German question was more or less resolved by 1871 (way before 1914). It seems to have re-appeared only after WWI (read:German Austria). Flamarande (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

One other issue that is a bit ancillary, but not often brought up, was the role of the Scramble for Africa, of which Germany was a late comer. While both France and England were trying to establish contiguous empires in Africa, Germany kept inserting itself smack-dab in the middle of their regions of expansion, carving territories right in the way of French and English expansion. After all, German East Africa is the main reason the Cape to Cairo Railway was never completed. This was not the only issue at hand, but inevitible tension over Africa was certainly a contributing factor towards the tension between Germany and the other Great Powers. See Agadir Crisis for a place where tensions in Africa flared up between Germany and France/England prior to WWI. --Jayron32 01:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article Causes of World War I seems to summarise the background quite nicely. Flamarande (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in reading Barbara Tuchman's books The Proud Tower and The Guns of August. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and may I also suggest C.L. Sulzberger's Fall of Eagles which offers proof of direct Black Hand involvement in the Sarajevo assassination, as the author personally interviewed members of the organisation. Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra discusses how the Russians were dragged into the conflict and paid the highest price of all for their participation in the war, not only by the incalculable number of deaths in combat, but as it also led to the complete overthrow of the government and wholsesale murder of the Romanovs (not to mention the countless others) by the Bolsheviks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

People often seem to forget, though, that kaiser Wilhelm II put a lot of personal time and effort into trying to prevent the war, in the preceding months, though he had given into the demands of his own politicians and military commanders over the preceding years. A popular theory seems to be that he was trying to postpone the war slightly, as Germany was not quite ready, but it is rather unfair to blame him for all of the conflict that resulted. His alienation of Britain, as well, was a diplomatic failure, he had wanted to simultanously ally with the British and build up an equally large navy to maintain his country's status as an important nation. This failed partly as the British at the time were very proud of their vast navy, so much bigger than any other and saw Germany as a potential threat.

As always, though, there were a few people within each country involved that pursued their own agendas without regard for others, and perhaps for the consequences of their actions. That has always been the case, and is still now. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Switzerland

Why is Switzerland always neutral? --70.245.189.11 (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The simple answer is because its neutrality was established in perpetuity by the Congress of Vienna. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea (and practice) do go back a bit further, though. There was the Defensionale of Wil in 1647, toward the end of the Thirty Years War, where the confederate states declared "permanent armed neutrality". ---Sluzzelin talk 16:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Or that in 1477 the Swiss discovered that the best offense is a strong defense. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't I read somewhere that it was declared neutral partly to stop them sending their mercenaries to fight in everyone else's wars? Switzerland has been involved in a few wars recently, they were, though not through choice, on the french side through most of the napoleonic wars, and have played host to a short civil war more recently. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

See, e.g., the article Neutralität in German, French and Italian in the online Historical Dictionary of Switzerland.. To summarize the salient points: Neutrality has been a maxim of Swiss foreign policy for so long that it has become part of the country's identity. Political science identifies five purposes of Swiss neutrality: (1) contributing to the integration of the Swiss cantons, (2) preserving Swiss independence, (3) maintaining free trade even in wartime, crucial for import-dependent Switzerland, (4) serving the geostrategic interests of the European powers by maintaining the power balance in the center of Europe, and (5) providing diplomatic and economic services to other countries in wartime. These purposes have shifted in importance throughout history:

Neutrality came about gradually after the Swiss defeat in the Battle of Marignano 1515 ended Swiss expansionism; the first official declaration of neutrality by the Swiss Diet dates to 1674. In the context of an Old Swiss Confederacy uncomfortably divided - like the rest of Europe - into Protestants and Catholics, the policy of neutrality had the dual aim of keeping Switzerland out of Europe's religious and dynastic wars, and preventing them from splitting up the Confederacy itself; it therefore served both an external, defensive and an internal, unifying purpose.

The French invasion of 1798 ended Swiss neutrality as the Helvetic Republic, now a French puppet state, became an ally of Napoleonic France and a theater of the Napoleonic Wars. Neutrality was restored after Napoleon's defeat, when the European powers recognized Switzerland's "perpetual neutrality and territorial inviolability" at the 1815 Congress of Vienna. They probably did so with the purpose of maintaining balance and peace in Europe: as long as neutral Switzerland controlled the strategic Alpine passes, no Great Power could gain this key advantage.

The internal cohesion brought about by the continued policy of neutrality played an important part of the efforts to fully unify Switzerland in the 19th century, as the multicultural confederation had to resist the dividing pull of the nationalist movements in France, Germany and Italy. Neutrality was consequently enshrined in the 1847 federal constitution (although not as a goal in itself, but rather as a means towards preserving Swiss independence) and successfully maintained up until the present. Even during the World Wars it was not violated (except Swiss airspace in WWII), probably because the warring powers appreciated the benefits (trade, diplomacy, technology transfer etc.) of a neutral Switzerland; in addition to deterrence (of disputed value) by a Swiss Army committed to try to repel any invader.

During the Cold War, a very strict interpretation of neutrality became government doctrine, keeping Switzerland out of the UN, NATO and the precursors of the EU, even though the Eastern Bloc generally considered Switzerland to be on the side of the West. Swiss neutrality policy was loosened somewhat after the end of the Cold War, allowing for tacit participation in some international organizations, which however remains a very disputed subject in Swiss politics.  Sandstein  18:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not be neutral?
"You know what the fellow said — in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace — and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." Fron the 3rd man. Need I say more?--Aspro (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Einstein Swiss (among many other things)? I mean he lived in Zurich in 1905 when he came up with special relativity. Googlemeister (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If every country did the same and enshrined perpetual neutrality in their laws/constitutions, we could do away with war tomorrow. Of course, then we'd have a massive unemployment problem on our hands, but that might still be better. This message has been brought to you from Pie-in-the-Sky Land. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Pie-in-the-sky land hasn't met non-state actors apparently. Rmhermen (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

If all countries always avoided conflict, someone would surely come along soon to exploit that. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Handey said something about that... AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

lol, that's worth quoting here: "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world because they'd never expect it." :D WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This may be an impossibility, but surely that wouldn't work if all countries do indeed always avoid conflict as in the original premise. There is no need for appeasement if you know the other side isn't going to get into conflict with you. In other words, for someone to take advantage of the situation in the way you specify, that means the notion of everyone avoiding conflict has already failed. Nil Einne (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. My comments are further to the notion that such a situation would be "pie in the sky". WikiDao ☯ (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic summary. Could you clarify what you mean by the "except Swiss airspace in WWII"? My understanding was that they shot down Allied and Axis aircraft equally. My understanding was that that didn't violate neutrality because 1) the hostile aircraft were "invading" Swiss airspace, and 2) there wasn't bias to one side or the other. -- 174.31.192.131 (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Sandstein was mainly referring to the Federal Council and Henri Guisan's reaction to pressure from the Third Reich after Switzerland had shot down a number of German aircraft in air combat during the Battle of France. On 20 June 1940, Switzerland issued a ban on air combat, apologized to Germany, and even released and returned all German prisoners and confiscated aircraft to Germany, without asking for any compensation. This is seen as a breach of neutrality according to the Hague Convention of 1907 (Section V, Chapter II, Art. 11 [1]) which states that "A neutral Power which receives on its territory troops belonging to the belligerent armies shall intern them, as far as possible, at a distance from the theatre of war." Some of this is covered in our article on the Swiss Air Force in World War II. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

That is correct, but what I meant was that both sides violated Swiss neutrality by regularly overflying Swiss airspace. The air actions against Germany were incidentally also Switzerland's only armed engagement against foreign forces since the end of the Napoleonic Wars.  Sandstein  15:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sci-Fi story mystery

I am looking for the name of a science fiction story in which the author describes the evolution of an alien race as it merges with technology so as to more easily explore the cosmos by eschewing the slavish necessities of biology. The beings then become machines entirely, then they are described as evolving into what (if I recall correctly) the author describes as "beings of pure energy" or "pure light". The passage that I am referring to is only a few sentences long. I do not recall if the story is part of a novel or a short story, could be either. I want to say it was an Asimov story but cannot remember that with any certainty either. Does anyone know what it might be? Much thanks for any help! 128.151.32.169 (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are looking for Spider Robinson's (with Jeanne) Stardance trilogy. Or, at least, it fits the general description here. → ROUX ₪ 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, from what I can glean of it, even though there is no text search, I don't think that's it - seems too cheesy. The story, if I'm remembering right was of the speculative hard SF genre, which makes me want to say it was Asimov, or maybe Heinlein. The only other detail of the story I can remember is that the aliens were described as being able to store their thoughts "in crystalline form" or some such, before evolving into their "pure light" form. Sorry I know this is incredibly cryptic! Arrrgh, so frustrating. 128.151.32.169 (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Stardance is explicitly not hard SF (and frankly was one of those books much better read as a teenager; rereading at 30 years old, well, it sucked.) And with what you're saying, I am convinced I have read the same story, which makes it almost certainly not Heinlein, as I find him objectionable at best. Asimov maybe, or Niven? → ROUX ₪ 20:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly suspect you are remembering an Asimov short story, I think it's called Let there be light. *checks link* Nope, The Last Question. I occasionally remember it and have to look it up again! 109.155.37.180 (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC) (2 edit conflicts!)

The Last Question is what I was about to suggest too. Looie496 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

*reading*128.151.32.169 (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope. It has a somewhat similar narrative but not the story I am looking for. It's only a paragraph or two, could've even been the opening paragraph, and describes what the aliens did in a very chronological form: "first they learned to do this, then they did this, then they left behind their bodies and evolved into this, finally they learned how to do this and became this". I would recognize it immediately if I saw it. It's at least a couple decades old and essentially describes the concept of transhumanism before the term was in any wide use and takes the idea to a kind of fantasy endpoint. Anyway, I doubt I'll ever find it again but thanks for everyone's suggestions so far. 128.151.32.169 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's in Arthur C. Clarke's novel 2001, A Space Odyssey. Hang on a moment and I'll find the exact passage. Antandrus (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Here it is -- Signet edition, 1968, Chapter 37, p. 185: "But the age of the Machine-entities swiftly passed. In their ceaseless experimenting, they had learned to store knowledge in the structure of space itself, and to preserve their thoughts for eternity in frozen lattices of light. They could become creatures of radiation, free at last from the tyranny of matter. -- Into pure energy, therefore, they presently transformed themselves; and on a thousand worlds, empty shells they had discarded twitched for a while in a mindless dance of death, then crumbled into rust ..." Antandrus (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

YEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!1!1!one! WIN!!! That's it!! Thank you so much!128.151.32.169 (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! This is why I (and probably many of the rest of you!) love the Reference desk. :) Antandrus (talk) 23:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally this theme ("we threw way our brains and began thinking only with light") is reminiscent of the end of Blood Music, and of the beginning of Consider Phlebas (where an injured AI grumbles to itself that it's reduced to thinking with mere real light, rather than fancy hyperspace light). -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 00:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

First thing I thought of was the Organians. Seems like a recurring theme in sf. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Flags at half-mast

Quite often (or at least more often than I think is reasonable) I'll see flags at half mast. It always makes me wonder why. Just now, a friend of mine posted some pictures on Facebook of the flooding in Richmond, VT. Because it's after 1800 on a Friday, I doubt emailing the town will get me a response until at least Monday. So, does anyone know of anywhere online where I might find national or statewide reasons for flags flying at half-mast? I'd prefer a listing for VT specifically as far as the statewide portion of my question. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 22:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Doing a bit of digging about this occurrence, I think it's due to the recent return of a National Guardsman's body to VT. [2] It would still be nice to have a listing somewhere though. Dismas|^(talk) 22:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Michigan flies at half-staff from the announcement of the death of any Michigan member of the armed forces until his burial.[3] I had thought it was just a workweek. Rmhermen (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have frequently observed county and municipal buildings, schools and other locations flying flags at half staff (not half mast, that is the term for on a ship) for a prominent local person. They do that, even though the U.S. Flag Code states that half staff is only for national mourning. I guess they figure incorrectly that lowereing the flag means they are mourning. — Michael J 14:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)