Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 4

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.

March 4

Book Help

I'm writing a book about a kid who runs away form his home. Should I do like a journal,or should I do it as first person book, or should I do it 3rd person? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.136.156 (talk) 04:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What matters most is how you utilize the perspective that you choose. In general if the focus of the book is the character's internal struggles(more like a confessional, or soul searching book) then you would want to use first person, if it is with external forces(more like an adventure into the world) then you would want to use third person. But mostly you want to determine the tone and feel for your work, and what you want to convey to he reader; after you have a more specific idea of what you want the reader to come away with the decision for first or third person should be more clear to you.AerobicFox (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit out of scope for the ref desk. You should write in whatever manner you feel inspired to write. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would tend to favor a journal, which can be a powerful way to convey both the events of the day and the growing maturity of the kid, as in Flowers for Algernon, where the varying intelligence of the subject was apparent from his writing style. StuRat (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Third person narrative gives you a lot more scope for descriptive prose - The Lord of the Flies and Grapes of Wrath are examples - but you lose the personal touch. Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What I did when faced with the same situation was write out two copies of the same story in different styles and read through to see which was best. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It could be a good read if you used both styles - description, interleaved with diary-style chapters describing the characters' inner feelings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Who says you can't do all three at the same time? Schyler! (one language) 14:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Book written in the first person have greater realism and allow the reader to experience the thoughts and feelings of the protagonist more directly and with immediacy. As a reader I hate books that swap between two or more stories or viewpoints, as you find one of them more interesting and the others will become drudgery to read through to get to the more interesting part.

If you had a story where the protagonist was for example Julius Caesar, then it would be much more dramatic and emotionally charged to experience his life from the first person rather than objectively and distantly in the third person. "Show not tell" means use first person rather than third-person. Robert Graves' book I, Claudius was written in the first person: if written in the third person it would be a dull mediocre novel. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Any competent novelist can "show, not tell" using any point of view. First-person novels are in my opinion more likely to suffer from exposition overload, if only because the narrator's internal monologue often drifts into infodumping and "as you know, Bob"isms. It's also unsuited to novels containing multiple story lines, such as the works of Allende and Pratchett.

Choosing a point of view is nothing more than deciding which limitations you're willing to impose on yourself. First person restricts you to not just the narrator's point of view but also his or her presence - the only way to handle situations the narrator doesn't witness is through infodumping of some sort. (Graves handles this adroitly by allowing Claudius to assume the role of historical writer.) Second person carries the same restrictions as first person but readers (and writers!) often find it disconcerting. Third person is freer but that freedom is itself a challenge - do you want a limited or omniscient narrator? A subjective or objective one?

Keep in mind, too, that first-person helps the reader identify with the narrator. Graves was battling Claudius' reputation as a cruel tyrant; using first person humanized him and made the novels more plausible. You might not want to put your narrator in the same position. Robert Randisi also uses first person to humanize his Vegas pit boss, Eddie Giannelli, in his Rat Pack novels, but Lawrence Block uses third person to create an atmosphere of detachment in his "Hit Man" series of short stories.

A great resource is our article on narrative mode, by the way. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Defined Benefit Pension Schemes

I have to give a presentation on 'the effects of an ageing population on defined benefit pension schemes and their stakeholders' but have absolutely no prior knowledge (and, hence, understanding) of economic theory. Could someone please either explain to me in not overly technical language what the effects are or point me to somewhere that I can look into this independently? [I don't know if this is relevant but I'm a Brit and will be giving this presentation to fellow Englishmen, so perhaps it needs to be that way oriented?]

I have already googled this, and have not treated the reference desk as an easy way out of doing the work myself, but I have found it very hard to find something that simultaneously addresses solely the issue that concerns me and is easy for a noivce to understand. Thanks. 131.111.55.73 (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Defined benefit pension plan, especially the section on advantages and drawbacks. As it says there, it costs more to fund the pension for older employees than for younger ones. Hence, if the population is ageing, there is a greater cost to the public purse from defined benefit schemes. --Viennese Waltz 14:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There are basically two approaches to pension/retirement funds:

1) You save for your own benefits. That is, they take some of your earnings and save them until you retire. Some of these plans also have employer matching and tax deductions. One potential disadvantage here is if you need to take early retirement, perhaps due to poor health, but don't have much saved up yet. Low wage employees may also not have the money to spare to save for retirement.

2) Somebody else pays for your benefits. This is often done by using contributions for current workers and using them to pay the benefits to retired workers. The problem with this set-up is that you get into trouble when the number of retired workers becomes large relative to the current worker base, which tends to happen in mature industries, especially those which have downsized. Ultimately, it can become impossible to pay for the benefits of retirees from the small pool of current workers. Most government funded pension schemes also fall into this category, as currently working taxpayers pay for retirees (an exception is the US Social Security system, which is funded by each employee's contributions).

Under either method, the money saved can either be put into safe investments, which earn low returns, or in risky investments, with higher average returns. In the case of risky investments, some thought has to be given to the backup plan, in case the money is lost. This is true both in the individual case and at a government level, as a stock market crash could cause millions of homeless elderly pensioners. StuRat (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The difference between the two schemes isn't actually so big on the level of society. At the first glance, saving for your own retirement seems to be "safer" - actually, its your own money. But money has no intrinsic value nowadays. It's only worth what it can buy. If large generation X saves huge amounts for their own retirement, they want to spend it when small generation X+1 provides the goods and services. Since these are limited by the people who provide them, prices will go up, driving inflation. As a result, the huge savings of generation X effectively shrink back down to the level of value that generation X+1 can provide. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Except that, in a world economy, you can always have your goods made cheaply someplace else, where they do have lots of workers, still. Certain services, though, do require workers to be nearby, but they can always be imported, as part of a "guest worker program". StuRat (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I very much dispute "always". Shifting this from a national to an international level helps to smooth out the effect, but does not change the fundamental analysis. You might want to take a look at Hot, Flat, and Crowded. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow. Are you saying that a lack of workers is also likely to be an issue on an international scale ? Lacking a major disaster, like nuclear war or a plague, I don't see that happening (and even then, presumably retirees would die off at least in proportion). Perhaps a recurrence of some disease that older folks have an immunity to, like the 1918 flu pandemic, might kill off many workers and leave retirees unscathed. StuRat (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, overall, an increased demand will raise prices worldwide. That's the "flat" part. The "crowded" part means that no region on Earth can maintain population growth for a long time. And the "hot" part means that we better start conscious efforts to reign in resource usage before the shit hits the fan. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So you think that the population increase will one day stop ? I'm not sure about that. I expect that, due to technology, we can continue to increase the human population indefinitely (at some point colonizing space). It's possible that the rate of increase may go down, I suppose, but that alone won't cause retirement systems to collapse. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It will be a long time before we're colonising space to the extent necessary to make a dent on world population. The solution to the problem of an ageing population is very simple: if people are living longer, they have to work for longer. That is why lots of countries are increasing their state pension ages at the moment. --Tango (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It will also be a long time before the Earth reaches maximum human capacity (although we may already be well past the maximum wise human capacity). I do agree with people working longer, though. StuRat (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A good survey (perhaps too long for your purpose) of pension systems is given in the article The gains from pension reform by Lindbeck and Persson. The replies above are good, but might not address directly the defined benefit / defined contribution separation - at least the paper I link here define "funded vs. unfunded" (that StuRat discusses) as another dimension of pension systems, separate from "defined benefit"/"defined contribution". Have a look at the paper and see if it teaches you anything. (There is also a version published by the Journal of Economic Literature, but that is behind a paywall.) Jørgen (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much with an ageing population, but with life expectancies increasing faster than expected. When you have a DB scheme, the actuary calculates something call the "future service cost". That is, the amount of money to scheme needs to put aside in order to cover the costs of pensions being accrued in the future. Once you've calculated that, you work out what percentage of salary needs to be contributed in order pay for the pension (the employee may pay a fixed percentage, or nothing at all, the employer then has to make up the difference). If you underestimate longevity when calculating the future service cost, you will underestimate the require contributions. That means the pension scheme won't have enough money to pay the pensions it is required to pay (so the company will be forced to make extra contributions, but it may not be able to afford that, in which case the members may not get everything they were promised).

From the company's point of view, even correctly estimating life expectancies now may not be enough if they are greater than was expected when the scheme was set up. The company will have decided at the start how much it wanted to contribute and would have worked out how generous the benefits could be. If the assumptions were wrong then, the benefits could be unaffordably generous. (I work in the pensions industry and I've seen schemes where the company is paying 30-40% of salary in pension contributions because the benefits have turned out to be far more generous than there were first thought to be.)

--Tango (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

FAMOUS LAST WORDS

What biographical work lists the last words of famous personalities? I have not been able to find oneWinston Williams (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Googleing 'Famous Last Words' lists a number of books, including this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.162.13 (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) If memory serves, there are brief sections on last words in the The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and the Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations, certainly in recent editions. However, these tend to focus on quotations, misquotations and alleged quotations which became famous ("Kiss me, Hardy") and are not exhaustive. Our article, Last words, has some external links and links to Wikiquotes which may be useful. --Kateshortforbob _talk 15:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

OR here, but I think last words compilations are probably the most unreliable form of quotation, probably, comparable to Einsteins's quotations. 212.169.191.238 (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Another source (just as unreliable) is wikiquote.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that most of the quotes in these compilations were made up long after the fact, usually by someone hoping to get their invention into a "Famous Last Words" compilation. The notable example of Lou Costello is only one. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 20:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Really astonishing is how cool and appropriate for being memorable word all these "last" words are. It seems that people knew they'd die after saying the words. 212.169.188.172 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

For those that were said just before execution, like "Such is life" from Australian bushranger Ned Kelly, that would be the case. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all last words were so edifying, for example those attributed to Stonewall Jackson, which went something like, "Don't be absurd! They couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at this unhhh." But from my understanding, the most common last words are "Oh shit.". Looie496 (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That quote (with "elephant" substituted to "broad side of a barn") is usually attributed to general John Sedgwick. Stonewall Jackson was shot by friendly fire; his last words (a few days later - he did not die immediately) were supposedly "Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of those trees". --Xuxl (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Many "last words" are some profound philosophical statement that the family and friends remember and report, while the forget or ignore the later "Bring me the bedpan!" Edison (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

From The Parliament of Dreams:

Londo (talking about an massacred race from Centauri Prime): Do you know what the last Xon said just before he died?

Vir: No, what?

Londo (clutching chest): "Aaaarrrrggghh..."

71.141.88.54 (talk) 12:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

And your source for that claim is?--TammyMoet (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

According to NASA's transcript, the last thing recorded on the black-box was the pilot saying, "Uh-oh." The IP is either misinformed or misinforming. WikiDao ☯ 17:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

My favourite alternative endings are William Pitt the Younger who was supposed to have said "Oh, my country! How I love my country." but more likely it was "I think I could manage one of Bellamy's veal pies". King George V was reported to have said "How goes the Empire?" but has been quoted as saying (when told he would have to recuperate by the sea) "Bugger Bognor!" or he might have "God damn you!" when being given an injection. Alansplodge (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has a list, but a lot of it seems apocryphal. Here's a very old edition: [1]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Typesetting

approx how many characters is used per page in a pocket-sized book? --Soman (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You'd need to know the dimensions of the pages, margins used, and type size to determine that. Or, if you have the book handy, you could just count the number of lines and characters in one line (are you including spaces ?) and then multiply. For comparison, a normal sized page with a typical type size has up to about 60 lines of text at 80 characters per line, so 4800 characters, max, including spaces. StuRat (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Stu, could you better define what you mean by "normal sized page"? Dismas|^(talk) 01:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

8.5 inch by 11 inch. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The OP specifically asked about pocket books, by which he probably means Format A paperback books, which are roughly 4 1/3 x 7 inches. The number of characters on an average page of this size varies wildly depending upon typeface, character size, margin width and depth, line spacing, and kerning. One book could have twice as many characters per page as another. There is no standard. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems a little big to fit in a pocket. StuRat (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, many typesetters/editors prefer 80 characters per line (or less), regardless of font size, paper size, etc. for reason of providing greater readability. See e.g. [2]. Each publisher will have their own specification, but many pocketbooks will be in this range. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Books generally have about 425 words per page, give or take, and the average number of characters (including punctuation and spaces) per word is about 4.75 -- so 2000 characters per page is a good approximation. (If you don't believe me, do some counting of words on book pages; and make a word doc out of a thousand words from some source and get the word program to report how many characters are used.)63.17.88.47 (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You must have really big books in your country, the average in my experience is around 320 words per page. These are indeed usually slightly over 4"x7", and do fit in the pocket of my wedding trousers, though they are rather large pockets. For a normal sized pocket, though, A6 seems to fit perfectly, 4"x6". However, tehn you need to ask, how large is the text? Also, some letters and symbols are larger than others, compare a page of Is and a page of Ws. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits against WK

List of lawsuits against Wikipedia does not exist. Is there an organized list of lawsuits against WK somewhere? (I know there are some lawsuits). 212.169.188.172 (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" is not a legal entity, so cannot be sued. There have been lawsuits against the Wikimedia Foundation, some local Wikimedia chapters and some individual Wikipedians (or, at least, some have been threatened against individual Wikimedians, I'm not sure if any have actually be filed). I'm not aware of a list anywhere, though. --Tango (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with the assertion that Wikipedia is not a legal entity. It could be legally classified as an association of anonymous editors. A court is not bound by what an organization or foundation says it is. This could be important if the US Attorney's office were to file RICO charges (organized crime) for dissemination of child pornography. Naming Wikipedia as an association (rather than just the foundation or the individual editors) and charging Wikipedia with the crime could give a court the power to shut down the site. It could also be important for jurisdictional purposes. The Foundation is centered in Florida, but an association is a citizen of each state in which its members reside. In this way, Wikipedia as an association could be made to answer in a greater number of jurisdictions other than Florida, perhaps every jurisdiction. 68.198.183.69 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation is in California now (wmf:FAQ/en). 71.141.88.54 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still registered in Florida. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a reference that the idea that a court can rule a group of people to be a legal entity and make them liable as such without that group actually registering as such? I know that isn't the case in the UK and I would be very surprised if it were the case in the US. I can't see how such a law would work. If the authorities want to shut down Wikipedia, they need to get a court to issue an order to the WMF, who run the servers. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Defection in WW2

This section of an article Night_fighter#World_War_II mentions two defections by German pilots landing their planes in Britain. How common was this, on both sides? Were they really defections or did the pilots just run out of fuel or get lost and think they were on the other side of the channel? 92.24.182.238 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an interesting thread on the subject including Martin James Monti. Seems only small numbers and difficult to know the true motivation, i'm sure a few of them were making the best out of bad mistakes. You may be interested in British Free Corps and other Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts meltBanana 01:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

More than one hundred Allied aircraft and their crews landed in Switzerland during the war, and their crews were interned. I'm sure most of them were damaged and unable to make it home, but it would have been a good option if you just wanted to opt out. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Bomber streams and firestorms

Why didnt the Nazis imitate the successful Allied tactic of 1000 bomber raids and firestorms in WW2, as described in Bombing of Cologne in World War II? Why didnt they deploy the same methods against Britain? Thanks 92.24.182.238 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

To do so you need total control of the skies. Otherwise, enemy fighters keep shooting down your bombers. The Nazis tried, but failed, to get total control of the skies over England, due largely to the development of RADAR by the English (with US help), which allowed them to deploy a small number of fighters effectively against the larger German force. The short ranges of aircraft of the time was also an issue, as German planes had a rather limited time over England, due to the need to return to base to refuel, while British planes could stay aloft longer. StuRat (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually its more true to say that the British helped the US develop their radar, as the Cavity magnetron was a top-secret British development taken over to the US during the war. Reading the History of radar suggests that Britain was the first country to have radar installed as working military equipment, even before WW2 had started. From what I read, the US didnt have working military radar until years later. StuRat seems to have a (false) image of inadequate ineffectual and unprepared Britain needing to be led by the hand by Uncle Sam. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Complete nonsense! If that were true then it would apply even more to Allied bombers who had to penetrate deep into hostile enemy territory. The Nazis just had to fly over the Channel. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Early on, Allied raids against Germany were minimal. Dramatic increases in airplane range were made during the course of the war, though, such that the situation had largely changed from 1939 to 1945. Also, Allied forces had airfields inside continental Europe, from which to attack, by the time of the final push. StuRat (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The first 1000 bomber raids took place in 1942, and that was years before D-day, so there were no Allied airfields in Continental Europe. I'm doubtful that British bombers did not have enough fuel to reach Germany in the early part of the war, as they could simply strap on an extra auxillary fuel-tank if it was needed. I think you're guessing. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

1942 was still 3 years into the war, and considerable progress had been made in aircraft design even by then. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So? 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Meaning greater range, obviously. You also can't just strap on an unlimited number of external fuel tanks to increase range indefinitely. To get off the ground, you then need to reduce payload (bombs), or reduce armor, leading to more losses, either of which similarly decreases the ability to create a firestorm.StuRat (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Even if that might be true, then it would not affect the Germans would it? They just had 30 miles of Channel to cross. They even used to bomb Britain during WW1, so they obviously had the range to do it. The Atlantic was flown non-stop back in 1919 in a primitive aircraft, so I do not think the range was an issue. During WW2 it was quite common for bombers to fly from Britain to Italy and back. Have you never seen a map of europe? 92.24.182.238 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But, of course, London isn't right on the English channel, and all of the German airfields weren't right on the other side, either, as that would make them bombing targets for the RAF, and wouldn't allow them to get up to proper altitude to avoid ground flak by the time they cleared the Channel. The Germans could obviously reach London, but did have less time in the air, once there, than the British did, having come a shorter distance and having a shorter return distance back to base. Those planes making trans-Atlantic flights were very much stripped down and overloaded with fuel, which isn't very useful in a bomber. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That dosnt make any sense at all, and sorry, but its complete nonsense. The Allies had to fly deep into Europe. The distance from enemy airfields to London was a fraction of that distance. You are obviously basing your opinions on fantasy. I suggest you read a few non-fiction accounts of what actually happened before opninionating further. Life's too short, and I'm too bored, to go over everything point by point. Edit: but see this map showing the positions of Nazi airfields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Britain_map.svg - they were just over the other side of the Channel. 92.15.24.116 (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't lack of air-control imply that you would like to put lots of bombers together - instead of going in small groups? 212.169.188.172 (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That's one strategy, but then you can expect a massive response from the defenders all attacking that formation. A decoy is another strategy, where you send a few planes to attack the expected target, hopefully luring the defenders there, while you then send the bulk of your planes at a secondary target. This might provide them with a few minutes unchallenged over the target, until the defenders can redeploy. StuRat (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, but I don't think you know what you are talking about. The 1000 bomber raids were all about putting 1000 bombers all together in one place on one route. There was a "massive responce" from the Germans, but even when throwing everything they had available into defense, it was still not enough to have much impact on 1000 boombers. Whereas the previous tactic of sending bombers over in dribs and drabs meant that the Germans has enough resiources to deal with them and were not overwhelmed by the shear numbers of them. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

You're getting rather rude here, are you here just to try to start an argument ? The decoy strategy only works a few times, then the enemy catches on. Thus they may be left with the "overwhelming with numbers" strategy, which may work, but does guarantee that large numbers of planes will be shot down. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to explain more than once the rationale for the 1000 bomber raids, but you will not or can not get it. Sorry but you are just speculating and guessing. Edkit: see Bomber stream 92.24.182.238 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand the rationale, but you seem to think that it's the only possible strategy, while there are many strategies, each with advantages and disadvantages, depending on the current situation. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the US had any significant hand in Chain Home. And while Germany had a somewhat higher number of aircraft, the difference was fairly small. Radar and advantage of fighting over friendly territory certainly helped win the Battle of Britain, though. But on the other hand, the Allied started bombing Germany long before they had "total" or even "near-total" control of the skies. They did this, at acceptable loss rates, by night bombing. Germany didn't retaliate (or pretaliate) in kind mostly for logistic reasons. They did not have the resources to build and deploy large numbers of heavy bombers while also fighting on the ground on several fronts. Britain, on the other hand, had no other way of effectively attacking Germany. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain a bit more, as far as I understand it. The point of the 1000 bomber raids was that by having so many bombers following the same route, they would overwhelm the German anti-aircraft systems and German fighters. There were just not enough German fighters or flack guns in that area to have much impact on the stream of 1000 or so bombers crossing overhead. The prior Allied tactic of sending boombers over indiviually on different routes mean that the Germans were not overwhelmed and resulted in higher Allied losses.

Another point is that Allied bombers had to fly a long way through hostile enemy territory before they got to their target, but the Germans just had to quickly nip over the Channel and back, so the advantage was with the Germans. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Towards the beginning of the war, yes, but by the final years, the situation had reversed. StuRat (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

So why didnt the Nazis do it prior to D-day? I'm not sure how many Nazi planes were involved in the London Blitz and the many bombing raids on other cities. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to not being able to gain total air superiority over Britain, there was another factor. Some in Germany considered the Brits to be "Aryans". As such, they wanted to incorporate them into Germany, like Austria, rather than just wipe them all out. Thus, they thought they could convince England to surrender, without destroying it. This might account for the failure of the Germans to totally annihilate the evacuees who escaped from Dunkirk, for example. They were hoping that England would surrender, intact, and that Germany would also gain it's colonies, such as India, at that time (this somewhat worked to acquire French colonies, when France surrendered). Later on, they gave up this hope and went for all-out war, but, by then, it was too late. StuRat (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Allies did not have air superiority over continental Europe when the Allied bombing raids started. The Nazis were still bombing Britain and fighting hard, so I'm doubtful they held back because they thought we were "Aryans". I'm sure thay would have foreseen that holding back as you suggest would have resulted in them losing the war. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

While many of Hitler's generals were brilliant, he was a poor military leader, often making decisions that made professional soldiers cringe. Some of the internal opposition to Hitler (people plotting to kill him) was due more to his incompetence than based on moral objections. StuRat (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Sturat is right. The non-destruction of the BEF was down to cold feet from the German high command[3] and Goering's boastfulness. In a speech of 04/09/1940, Hitler promised to "raze their cities to the ground" to much applause following a tit-for-tat RAF raid on Berlin[4]. His most notable success was the almost complete destruction of the centre of Coventry by 449 bombers (nearly half way to a thousand) on 14-15/11/40. The main "Blitz" ended in May 1941 when Hitler needed his bombers for a trip to Russia. The centres of London, Portsmouth, Southampton, Plymouth, Exeter, Bristol, Bath, Cardiff, Birmingham, Coventry, Nottingham, Norwich, Ipswich, Sheffield, Manchester, Liverpool, Hull, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Newcastle, Glasgow and Belfast had been devastated. I think the main reason that Hitler didn't mount a thousand bomber raid was that he didn't actually have a thousand bombers. Also, the Luftwaffe never had a practical heavy bomber (the woeful He 177 was a failure on all counts). It had been built-up in a hurry with medium bombers to serve as a sort of heavy artillery for the army. The He 111 could carry 4,400 lbs of bombs as compared to 14,000 lbs of the Short Stirling or the Avro Lancaster. Actually the RAF struggled to find 1,000 bombers in 1942 - it had to borrow from training schools and from Coastal Command. The final consideration is that - with the exception of Japan in 1945 - bombing your enemy's cities does not win you the war, whether you have 500 bombers or a thousand. There's evidence to suggest that it didn't even affect industrial output much in either country.Alansplodge (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

One point nobody but Alansplodge has raised yet: the Germans didn't give much thought to heavy bombers until it was much too late. See History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)#A change of direction, 1936 - 1937 for a discussion. Lots of prototypes and plans, but nothing in Category:German World War II heavy bombers.

I think I mentioned it just now didn't I? Alansplodge (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

German bombers were required to be structurally reinforced enough for dive bombing, unlike Allied bombers, due to a dubious reliance on the early success of divebombing. A divebomber is relatively easy to shoot down so the tactic was less popular later in the war. This extra weight decreased the bomb payload they could carry for high altitude "normal " bombing. Perhaps for that reason, Germany did not have the 4 engine heavy bombers that the Allies had. Night time terrorist bombing of German cities did not really do that much to win the war. Edison (talk) 05:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that "terrorist bombing". Even if destroying the morale of the Germans was certainly an aim, it has also other advantages, which had nothing to do with terror. 212.169.187.224 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bombing of Mannheim on 16 Dec 1940 is described (by the Germans) as the "first deliberate terror raid" on Germany. Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Germans did a lot of "terror bombing" as well - The Blitz for example. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There's not really much of a what-if where firestorms are concerned. The Germans dropped large quantities of incendiaries on London and elsewhere during the Blitz and later. They may not have produced a firestorm - the height of the Blitz was largely in winter when weather conditions in the UK are not likely to help in the creation of a firestorm - but they certainly started lots of fires. See Second Great Fire of London for example.

The RAF's thousand bomber raids, starting with Operation Millennium, were largely propaganda stunts to boost home morale. As the article explains, the magic number was only reached by borrowing hundreds of aircraft from Coastal Command and training units. The German Air Force, as Luftwaffe serviceable aircraft strengths (1940–1945) shows, could, just, have managed a thousand bomber raid in 1940, but this would have required an even more extreme mobilisation than the RAF's efforts did. But what would the advantage be? German civilian morale wasn't in any need of a boost. And unlike the efficient Kammhuber Line of 1942, the British night air defence system was so rudimentary in 1940-1941 that the reduced losses to British forces might well be outweighed by more losses from collisions and the like. What would be the point? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the weather would make any difference regarding a firestorm. The incendaries were designed to punch through rooves to the dry roof- and floor-timbers below. In inner-city urban areas, most of the surface would be rooves. If it was raining so heavily as to have effect, then no aircraft would be flying anyway. And unlike the USA, there isnt much snow in England during the winter. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to dispute that the British air defense system was rudimentary, night or daylight. It is described even in Wikipedia as being "the most sophisticated air defense system in the world" and was up and running even before the start of WW2. See Dowding_system#The_Dowding_System - scroll down for a detailed description - and Chain Home. It mean that fighters could be "vectored" onto the targets by radio instructions. Fighters were trained and experienced in flying at night, and there were a lot of Ack-ack guns too. The kill-rate of ack-ack guns was very low at first, but I've never read anything suggesting that the German guns were any better. 92.15.18.16 (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Disappointment over Libya news coverage

I expect to see daily maps of the moving front between rebel-held territories and Gaddafi-held territories, similar to WW2 battle maps, but I don't see any maps, or just ones with a gradual blend from the East (rebel) to the West (Gaddafi). Are the news orgs of the world incapable of determining the location of the front, or have I just been looking in the wrong places ? StuRat (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I got the impression that there is no clear front, not even for Libyans is it clear who is the enemy, but only groups which fight each other and change sides. Quest09 (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Libya is a huge empty country with towns or cities at great distances from each other. There is no moving front because there is nothing and nobody in the big empty spaces between the widely seperated cities. 92.24.182.238 (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a map showing which cities are rebel held and which are not. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Try here. --Tango (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I notice that every city is on the coast (they don't even bother showing the southern part of Libya). Are there no cities in the interior ? StuRat (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sabha is in the interior, but other than that most of the interior is unpopulated desert. --Daniel 23:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hence the problem of trying to extract ex-pat oil workers from isolated camps in the middle of nowhere. Alansplodge (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The situation is not entirely dissimilar if you look at illustrations of battles (not campaigns or starting positions) in the Western Desert Campaign of 1940-1942. Most of the fighting in the desert, especially once Rommel got involved, can best be described with vague illustrations that show that the 15th Panzer Division seems to have driven very roughly 100 miles in a very roughly north-westerly direction starting from very roughly some point in the desert south of some unremarkable point on the map, and then later drove back again, driving through the headquarters of some British Corps or other on the way; and not actually capturing any settlement on the way. Settlements that were significant in the fighting (Tobruk, Bardia) were all on the coast. In a popular revolution that doesn't (as far as I know) involve armoured divisions, the fighting tends to be confined to population centres, as others have said. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A large chunk of Libya (7,000 square miles) is occupied by the Qattara Depression, a huge salt marsh that is uninhabitable and almost uncrossable - if you've seen Ice-Cold in Alex you'll get the idea. Even Rommel had to go round it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Qattara Depression is mostly if not entirely in Egypt. It's in the Libyan Desert, but that desert isn't restricted to Libya. —Angr (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're quite right - I'll go and stand in the corner ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You are unhappy with the map being updated at 2011 Libyan uprising? WikiDao ☯ 19:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That's good, in that it shows the interior, as well. However, there are a couple shortcomings:

1) Does it list the date at which the map was last updated ? (I can find the date at which it was physically changed by looking into the history on the pic, but I'm more interested on the age of the data on which it is based.)

2) I'd also like to get a sense of the momentum of the revolution, by seeing how the map has changed over time. Are the rebels pushing ever further, or is the front stalled ? StuRat (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

StuRat, my own understanding of the situation, reinforced by the answers of several respondents above, is that there is no front, and the conflict mostly does not involve bodies of fighters moving long distances to gain control of areas of territory, in which context the concept of a 'front' would make sense.

Instead, Libya mostly consists of population centres ranging from cities through towns that are relatively distant and isolated from one another. All of these centres contain people who, where they are, are actively declaring or agitating or fighting for the Gaddafi regime, people who are actively declaring or agitating or fighting against it, and people who are 'neutral' in the sense that they are either trying to discourage any fighting or are just keeping their heads down. The relative numbers of these several elements is in flux, and any 'front' is present only in the collect[ive]ed minds [no gestalt entities implied!] of all these people as they start or stop fighting, and/or change sides.

Compare it to, say, a US election: as preponderances of votes go to the Republican or Democrat candidate(s) in each State, those states may stay Red or Blue as they were previously, or may change, and larger swathes of the country may do the same, but voters are not physically moving around, and there are no meaningful geographical fronts involved. What is happening in Libya is (a bit) like such an election, but without rules being observed to restrain violence up to and including lethal force from being used to support opposing viewpoints, and with recognition of preponderances of opinion (as in a parliamentary "Those in favour?" "Aye!" "Those against?" "NO!!" "I think the Noes have it.") replacing formally enumerated votes. Or am I totally off-beam? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But, unlike an election, a town can possibly be taken over by forces from the opposing side. I would suspect that small enclaves would eventually be captured, due to the occupants fleeing, being killed, or surrendering. In this manner, as enclaves are captured, shouldn't we eventually expect two distinct areas, with no enclaves remaining ? StuRat (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/middle_east/ is a good place for the latest news, or this http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/ 92.15.18.16 (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If there is no formal front, then perhaps the percentage of the population in rebel held areas versus government held areas is a better gauge. Do we have any info on how this has changed, over time ? StuRat (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Stu, you're not understanding the issue. This is not (yet) a war like WWII, where where major powers with defined territories and strong logistical, tactical, and strategic considerations. this is a conflict between (on one side) a rag-tag group of defecting soldiers and citizen insurgents with very little organization, (on the other side) a well-organized, well-equipped, but relatively under-manned body of pro-government troops, and (in the middle) a whole bunch of citizens, most of whom are anti-gaddafi but most of whom are too scared to jump either way. The only issue of 'control' here is whether the government has enough troops in a given city to intimidate and repress the population, and because the government has to be moving troops around to combat insurgents, that's an entirely fluid dynamic. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see flip flops - the government takes one city, but when it sends its troops to take another it loses the first. this will only be resolved when (a) the government pistol-whips the population into quiescence or (b) when gaddafi's head is on a stick; it is not a matter of military strategy, but rather of governmental oppression. --Ludwigs2 22:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how anything you just said invalidates the question I just asked. "Rebel-held areas" and "government-held areas" may very well be individual cities, or even portions of them. It certainly should be possible to give the percentage of people in each area. That info may not currently be available, but that doesn't make the question invalid. Note that the question of who controls the vast, empty portions of Libya is bypassed by the way I revised the Q, since it doesn't concern unpopulated areas. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Libya article says the country is 90% desert, but there is no map showing population density graphically. If the Libyan population distributed to a large extent across the rural areas,with a rural farming or stable herding workforce, or is it mostly unpopulated desert with a few nomads, and a few population centers? Those two scenarios make a difference in how areas of control might be delineated. A desert country with troops driving trucks or tanks from place to place to engage in raids and skirmishes is more like a sea war, where territory is not held so much as enemy forces and equipment are destroyed until they are no longer able to offer opposition against the other side, who can go where they wish and the seize and hold ports and population centers. Speaking of sea battles, what has the Libyan navy been doing? Along the seacost, they should be able to shell rebel held cities and land soldiers behing enemy lines at will, as well as the aforesaid capturing of ports. If the navy is sitting this conflict out, then the rebels should be able to purchase shiploads of old T72 tanks, trucks, machine guns, RPGs, food, medical supplies, and ammunition, all of which are difficult to supply by air for a major military campaign. Are the rebel ports open for business or blockaded, either by the government forces or international forces? Are ethe neighboring governments of Tunisia and Egypt, which overthrew their own dictators, staying neutral with respect to the dictatorship next door, or are they allowing military and humanitarian supplies to pass into rebel held areas? The rebels seem to be exproting some oil, which should let them purchase war materiel unless some international body prohibits it. Edison (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Is "exproting" a new word, meaning "expropriating, then exporting" ? :-) StuRat (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

If the information is unavailable, the question is unanswerable. That's your answer: we don't know. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, "nobody has that info" is a valid answer. Perhaps I should explain why I wanted it. I don't trust the media to make judgments for me, like that "Gaddafi is on his last legs" or "Libya appears to be headed into a protracted civil war" or "it looks like we will have two nations, eventually". I would rather judge that for myself, based on data like this. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, the media is going to be the most reliable source of information in this sort of situation. The rebels aren't exactly going to advertise where their strong/weak points are, and Ghadaffi's forces are just going to give the usual PR spin. Independent reporters on the ground are the only ones who can give you an idea of what it's like, but even then things are too chaotic to give specific numbers. Battle maps like the ones from WWII were put together after the war, when military reports were combined with eye witness accounts to estimate the size and location of forces at specific points in time. Even today, you're not going to get that kind of data on-the-fly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)