Humanities desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

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 15

How did Albert Battel escape punishment?

I'm watching a documentary about the Holocaust and discovered the amazing story of Albert Battel, a lieutenant in the Wehrmacht who helped save a hundred Jews under SS control. What makes the story especially amazing is that the Jews were already in a Jewish ghetto under SS guard. Battel threatened to send his troops in and force entry unless the SS freed about a hundreds Jews. (I don't think he saved all the Jews, just the ones who worded for him.) The SS guards backed down and released them. Battel then sheltered some of them to basement of the army headquarters. According to our article on him, Battel also ordered the bridge over the River San, the only access into the Jewish ghetto, to be blocked. As the SS commando attempted to cross to the other side, the sergeant-major in charge of the bridge threatened to open fire unless they withdrew. The SS opened a secret investigation and recommended that Battel be arrested after the war. My question is why did the SS want to wait until after the war to arrest Battel? I thought the SS had more power than that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia goes into a bit more detail:

Battels Intervention für die „Wehrmachtsjuden“ konnte als logistische Notwendigkeit hingestellt werden. Offenbar kamen Battel wie auch Liedtke mit geringfügigen disziplinarischen Strafen davon: Stubenarrest, Rücknahme des Kriegsverdienstkreuzes und der Versetzung an anderen Einsatzort.[2] Möglicherweise besteht ein ursächlicher Zusammenhang zu einem später erlassenen Befehl des Oberkommandos des Heeres vom 31. Oktober 1942, in dem Offizieren eine „kompromisslose Haltung“ gegenüber dem Judentum abverlangt wird; andernfalls sei ein Offizier untragbar.

Norbert Haase stellt heraus, dass eine Versetzung an die Front oder schärfere Sanktionen ausblieben. Vorgefundene situative Möglichkeiten, ein Gruppenzusammenhalt in der Wehrmacht wie auch biografische Dispositionen hätten zum erfolgreichen Rettungshandeln geführt.

Unfortunately, I don't speak German, and the Google translation is unclear. Perhaps a German-speaking reader can translate? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very good question. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Google translation of the German page has this line:

"Norbert Haase turns out that a dislocation, the front or stayed away from tougher sanctions. Corpus situational opportunities, a group cohesion in the Wehrmacht as well as biographical dispositions that led to the successful rescue action."

which sounds like it might be something like an answer (unsourced though), whatever it is it's trying to say. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try. (My German is a bit rusty but I think I get the gist of that.)

Battel's intervention in favour of the "Wehrmacht Jews" could be put down as dictated by logistical needs. Clearly Battel as well as Liedtke were let off with only insignificant disciplinary measures: barracks arrest [don't know the English term], forfeiture of the Kriegsverdienstkreuz and a transfer. A possible extenuating circumstance may have been the fact that the order from the High Command requiring officers to assume an "uncompromising attitude" towards Jews had been issued only after the incident, on 31 October 1942

Norbert Haase points out that no one was transferred to the front or given any harsher punishment. The success of the rescue may have been the result of opportunity, group cohesion in the Wehrmacht as well as personal dispositions.

Or something. Haase is a historian who specializes in German resistance to Nazi rule.--Rallette (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as to the original question: from what I read in the German article, Battel was technically within his rights to block the SS from crossing the river, since the area had been shut off and the Wehrmacht was in charge. And the people he saved were working for the Wehrmacht, so he could indeed claim he needed them.--Rallette (talk) 09:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your Italian is stronger than your German, you might be able to pick up a few extra details (such as the year Battel joined the NSDAP, 1933) from the Italian version, it:Albert Battel. (There's also a version in Russian-language Wikipedia.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most evil female in history

I know we had a similar question a while back regarding the most evil human being of all time. I am curious as to which female (with the exception of biblical personages) is regarded as the most cruel-and yes, evil- in recorded history? Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this 'source' Elizabeth Bathory could be the one you're looking for..Sealedinskin (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhhh, she was the person I had in mind for the number 1 place. I was curious as to whether there were any others who outdid her in sheer barbarity, which is why I posted the question. In the 20th century alone Ilse Koch, Jeanne Weber, and Myra Hindley would surely fit the bill.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to run for the post and want to check out the competition? ;-) Anyways, here are some candidates (I'll leave of 20th and 21st century for now to avoid derailing this into a political debate):

Julia Agrippina, mother of Nero, who, according to some sources "poisoned everybody" to ensure "proper" succession. Of course, we don't know if these speculations are right.
Caterina Sforza (who allegedly said "I can bear more" when her hostage children where threatened with death - of course, a man would probably be lauded for putting the interest of the state before his own children).
Madame de Brinvilliers, serial poisoner.

--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Catherine de Medici, who instigated the infamous St. Bartolomew's Massacre in which Huguenots of all ages were brutally murdered in the streets of Paris. And Catherine Monvoisin a contemporary of Madame de Brinvilliers.As for wishing to run for the post? No way, Jose, I don't have mean-looking eyes. Who would I be able to intimidate?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do rent Barbarella. Cute looks are no obstacle for absolute evil - they may even be an advantage (and no, I'm not referring to Jane Fonda, but to the man-eating dolls ;-). And our list misses "the Warden" from any WIP flick. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I do admire Jane Fonda, I much prefer Anita Pallenberg. She personified the 1960s!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ranavalona I. --151.51.28.10 (talk) 08:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More fun if you allow fictional characters. I vote for Nurse Ratched. The Marquise de Merteuil probably makes the list, as does Dolores Umbridge, but neither of them really comes close to the good nurse. --Trovatore (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Christian mythology Eve - without her none of the others would have been evil. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical, mythological and fictional personages do not count. I am referring to actual historical women. They need not be connected with politics.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think one can really rank such people, but if a list is to be compiled, there have been a number of baby-farmers who certainly deserve a place on it.--Rallette (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary West was fairly horrible. Then there was Beverley Allitt. --Viennese Waltz 09:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Griselda Blanco was pretty unpleasant, though I don't know about "most evil." She certainly demonstrated that men have no monopoly on sociopathic violence... --Mr.98 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher War monger and no friend to the working class Mo ainm~Talk 16:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the lack of a universal quantification of "evilness" this question can not really be fully answered. Though there have been some candidates put forth, it would be impossible to say which is the most evil. Googlemeister (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magda Goebbels who murdered her 6 children. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure killing your children puts you as "evil." Lots of parents kill their own children when they think that unspeakable horror would otherwise confront them. I don't have any children but if I thought they'd be beaten and raped by Soviet troops I might consider the morphine plus cyanide a better way out. Whether or not her fears were justified is an entirely separate matter, but it doesn't make her "evil". She certainly didn't kill them because she enjoyed killing children. It was probably a very hard thing for her to do. (None of which is any attempt to say that the Goebbels were victims or anything, but I don't think she ranks on the "evil" list at all.) --Mr.98 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killing your own children ranks you as evil in my book, whatever genitalia you happen to have. Killing them because you can't bear for them to live in a world without Nazism puts you pretty high up the list of evil. DuncanHill (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of people who kill their own children do so out of fear that worse is about to happen to them. Often these fears are unfounded or due to them being mentally ill or what have you. But they're doing it out of a "greater good" impulse. I can't say I find that "evil" — I generally just find it to be sad. Whether being a Nazi or being a fan of Nazism makes you evil or not is an entirely separate question. She was probably right that things wouldn't have worked out well for her and her kids in a postwar world. She's certainly not a contender for most evil woman in the world, though, however you slice it. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something worse than being murdered? You mean something like "not being murdered"? DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand a parent killing their own children as painlessly as possible when they've been kidnappen by a psychotic serial killer known for brutally raping and torturing his or her victims, inflicting as much pain as possible for as long as possible, perhaps even with the medical training and equipement to revive the victims when necessary. Since we're talking WW2, I could understand a parent killing their children rather then letting Josef Mengele get his hands on them if they knew what he might do. Obviously you don't see things the same as me or Mr.98 although I would note understanding doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Note of course in both these cases the children would eventually almost definitely be murdered, from your POV, it's better the parent let them suffer and then die rather then kill them quickly but no one said not being murdered had to be involved. Nil Einne (talk) 23:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More possibilities: Jiang Qing, Mao's wife and a figure in China's disastrous Cultural Revolution; Nazi war criminals Irma Grese, Juana Bormann, Elisabeth Volkenrath and Ilse Koch; Isabella I of Castile, supporter of the Inquisition and queen of Spain during the expulsion of Jews and Muslims; and quasi-fascist Argentine President Isabel Peron -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a slightly different tack, we have Hetty Green, who was fantastically rich but also fantastically miserly, so much so that her son was said to have lost his leg because she was unwilling to pay for proper treatment. After years of believing this story, I am devastated to now read that it was only partially true. But what the hell. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The heretic Elizabeth I.
Sleigh (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gloriana evil? Never! Bloody Mary on the other hand... DuncanHill (talk) 03:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought Sharon Osbourne seemed pretty nice, really, but she is married to the Prince of Darkness Himself, and it sounds like she can get a bit bitchy at times. Does that sort of thing count, or do you have to actually kill a lot of people? Catherine the Great killed a lot of people. But, then, so did Jeanne d'Arc, too. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean "evil" in the way that the archetype of Lilith represents a kind of "feminine evil", right? You're asking about women who have exhibited what is usually considered a more "masculine" variety of evil (which is what "politics" has traditionally been a realm of...)? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant evil in the sense of a female Adolf Hitler, Cesare Borgia, Vlad the Impaler. A woman whose ruthless actions and cruelty brought death, destruction and misery to many people. I personally nominate Catherine de Medici and Elizabeth Bathory to share pole position. There is also this lady: Helena Palaiologina who was pretty wicked (she poisoned her son-in-law, cut off the nose of her husband's mistress), but she was not quite in the Bathory-de Medici class.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. So I guess Karla LaVey just wouldn't cut it... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. I should also add Margaret of Anjou, whose actions during the War of the Roses were quite ruthless and bloody. After all she encouraged her Lancastrian troops to rape and plunder the villages they passed through, not to mention the crowned heads of her enemies placed upon York Gate at her order following the Battle of Wakefield. Queen Mary I of England wasn't a very nice lady either. The 20th century needs to include the horrible Sarah Louise Northcott.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just trying for a little humor to lighten a sad and serious subject - it;s still Friday night my time! ;)

But all of the real "paragons" of Human Evil (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Napoleon, Benedict Arnold, the Medici Princes (m.)... etc etc etc) – all the "most evil of the evil" are males, aren't they? In that sense of "evil". I wonder why that might be...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they all hold positions of power, which women were essentially excluded from, for most of history. Yes, there have been occasional female rulers, but they have been so rare as to each be notable just for being female. Women don't orchestrate genocides because they are not in a position to do so. It may be very different had we had gender equality in government for the past so many centuries... --Jayron32 04:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinkin', too. (six comments up, counting yours) May I ask, Jeanne, if your list is to be used for some purpose (an article, perhaps?), or were you just interested in maybe hearing of possibilities you hadn't thought of before? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDao, your last question is correct. I was/am interested in learning about women of whom I had not been aware of before. I must reply to Jayron that when it comes to attaining and retaining power, history has shown us that the (lamentably) few female sovereigns throughout the centuries have been capable of displaying the same levels of ruthlessness as men. The previously-cited Catherine de Medici is one of the best wxamples; then we have Agrippina as has been mentioned already. In addition to these charmers, there have been a series of medieval Byzantine females who would make your skin crawl.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree fully with you there, it's why I implied that had women had equal access to power, we'd likely see more female genocidal leaders. Even so, its likely that as a percentage of total world leaders, the numbers of genocidal female leaders is roughly the same percent as found among the males. There's just such a smaller number of absolute examples. --Jayron32 05:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Agree" more-or-less pending hard stats. One wonders if perhaps the "ruthlessness" required to gain access to and then wield "power" (genocidally or not) in the first place is manifest on average more often in males than in females, for reasons involving the course of our evolutionary history, ie. in the balance of evolutionarily advantageous differences (hormonal, psycho-emotional, developmental, etc) between the sexes. To put it differently: if women are as "ruthless" as men when it comes to wielding worldly "power", then why haven't as many women as men in history gained and wielded that power (ruthlessly or not)? I think there are gender differences (on average) in the way "ruthlessness" is manifested and in the kind of "power" women tend to naturally possess, pursue, cultivate, and actually then wield. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 06:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the past, power was typically gained on the battlefield by force of arms. Few women excelled at combat, so that excluded them in that arena. Then you had the laws of primogeniture and the Salic Law, both of which favoured men. Today, we see more females in the political sphere. Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister of the UK from 1979 to 1990. Angela Merkel is Chancellor of one of the most powerful nations in Europe. Hilary Clinton is US Secretary of State.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Yes. There is a change underway in the social environment, making political leadership for women far more a viable possibility than in the past. "Power" in the past was, as you say, and with which I have been agreeing, determined more by typically male qualities.

I wonder if this shift towards more equitable political power-sharing between the genders might eventually also have some overall effect of shifting the level of "ruthlessness" (of the typically male-variety, eg. war-fighting and so on) of the wielding of political power down a notch or two...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[]63.17.76.14 (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These chicks are Rainbow Brite compared to Ann Coulter. LANTZY ^TALK 08:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Amen" to that, brother... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add the horrible Maria Mandel to the list. She killed over half a million people!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Empress Lü Zhi considering what she did to her rival Consort Qi and her son and Wu Zetian according to legend she strangled her own child (who was only a princess not the desired prince) so she could frame her rival. Also if you want to get legendary there is Daji who cut open a pregnant woman to see what it would look like.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can say is I'm surprised that no one has mentioned any ex-girlfriends/ex-wives, and thankful that no one has mentioned their mother. --Ludwigs2 05:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Are you sure that's what no one has done...? ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You dated Ann Coulter? Or is she your mother? Nil Einne (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)</small?>[reply]