Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 2

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.

September 2

WW2 bombings of cities

When debating WW2 an argument often comes up that US and GB bombed civilian cities and USSR didn't. I am interested in why that is. I know Russian troops used artillery fire on Berlin and probably on a bunch of other civilian targets, but why did the Soviet airforce restrain from bombing cities? If that's not true, I want examples and sources. The interpretation you'll usually get from modern Russians is that it's because Soviets didn't participate in terrorism. I am looking for a more down to earth explanation. Did the Soviets have the resources to bomb German cities? Thanks for replies. Sfairat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.168.251 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It probably came down to the realization that, given the choice, the Germans would much rather surrender to the West, which they thought, correctly, would go far easier on them. The goal of carpet bombing was to demoralize the enemy and make them surrender earlier than they otherwise would. The West wanted this, but the Russians did not, since this likely would mean the Germans would surrender to the West, wherever possible. So, the Soviet Union focused on capturing ground, instead, which they had no intention of ever giving back. Early on there was also the possibility of something less than unconditional surrender, where Germany would remain largely intact, and the Soviet Union wanted nothing to do with that. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a quite unusual interpretation of history to me. The Soviet Union was very much hanging on by the skin of its teeth. They did not have the resources to fight the war on the ground, to fight the tactical air war, and to also build large fleets of bombers. The Western Allies, on the other hand, were desperately looking for ways to bring their force to bear against Germany and the Axis. The bombing campaign was one such way (as was Operation Torch, and later the Normandy landings). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

USSR conducted multiple air raids against civilian cities, namely Berlin, Königsberg, Danzig, using the Petlyakov_Pe-8 heavy bomber. Anonymous.translator (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

According to our article, only 93 Pe-8s were ever built - the simple fact is that the Soviet Union never had sufficient long-range heavy bombers to have engaged in the types of raids that the western Allies did. The Soviet air force had always operated more closely with ground troops than as an independent force, and as such strategic bombing wasn't part of military doctrine. I think I read somewhere that they asked for heavy bombers under the lend-lease scheme, but that these were refused. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

But just saying they didn't have long-range bombers isn't the full story, the next question is why they didn't. Being refused them under Lend-Lease (no doubt out of fear they would use them on the Allies next) is one reason, but why didn't they build them themselves ? They were certainly capable, so they must have put a lower priority on this than other war equipment. And why was that ? StuRat (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Because during most of the war, they were in desperate need of weapons directly and immediately useful for front-line fighting, and didn't have a lot to spare for other things. Before the war, the TB-3 was pretty much an early-1930s type of airplane; in the mid-1930s Stalin doesn't seem to have been much interested in strategic bombers, and purged most of the forward-thinking military strategists... AnonMoos (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They did try, in Helsinki in February 1944, but with unimpressive results. Of 2,600 tons of bombs, 95 per cent missed the city altogether. It seems they just weren't very good at it.--Rallette (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably just due to lack of practice. Other Allies' first attempts were rather unimpressive, too. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Soviet air force was equipped with small tactical bombers which were unsuitable for strategic operations such as attacks on cities. The USSR did seek Liberator bombers through Lend Lease to set up a strategic bombing force, but this request was turned down. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A few historical thoughts from an historian:

1. I have to admit I've never seen this particular argument come up. While one can certainly take issue with strategic bombing, there are really no grounds by which to claim that the Soviets fought a more morally superior war. They were notoriously awful in their conduct against the enemy while they were winning, and awful against their own men while they were losing.
2. The question itself seems to consider the use of strategic bombing the "natural" case and the lack of such use as the exception to be explained. This is quite the reverse of the usual historical explanation, whereby strategic bombing of the sort practiced by the UK and the US was actually the unusual case. Heavy firebombing of cities was a late development and a controversial one. It was not even considered to be terribly effective as a means of waging war. The "normal" state of bombing was to send a few bombers to take out specific targets, a much harder task but one that did not require as much air superiority or as many planes.
3. The Soviets did have long-range bombers that were adequate for the European theatre. The Ilyushin DB-3 was their primary bomber, and with a range of 2,280 miles. That's plenty for the Eastern Front (keep in mind that American pushes for very long range bombers had to do with the requirements of the Pacific War). They later got the Yermolaev Yer-2 and the Petlyakov Pe-8. The latter had the combat capability around the same level as an American B-17. They didn't develop strategic bombers, though, as their priorities went towards fighter and ground-attack aircraft, which makes military sense given their situation (they were not, like the UK and the US, fighting the enemy from "afar").
4. The US did provide the USSR with some bombers under lend-lease — nearly 3000 Douglas A-20s, nearly a thousand B-25s, and one B-24. B-17s and B-29s were not supplied tto the USSR, but they got their hands on a few of them by chance in 1944, and from those produced their postwar clone, the Tupolev Tu-4.[1]
5. It should be remembered that very long-range strategic bombers of the sort produced en masse by the USA during WWII were no easy technical feat. A little-known but significant fact is that the program to develop the B-29 cost more (~$3B in 1945USD) than the program to develop the atomic bomb (~$2B).

Above all, it should be emphasized that while the Soviets did not carpet bomb German cities, they certainly didn't treat the inhabitants with any greater respect or mercy than the Allies did — mass rape and pillaging was extremely common amongst the invaded cities of the Red Army. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Point 2 touches on a key issue here, I think - geography. Soviet aviation lost most of their forward bases very early in the war - Smolensk, which is twice as far from Berlin as Frankfurt is from East Anglia, was captured within the first three weeks of fighting - and after that any strategic air offensive would have to be based deep inside Soviet territory. From there, most of the accessible targets would be in occupied Polish or Soviet territory; you would have to go a very long way to hit the "high value" industrial targets that the Western Allies could reach easily from England. (Note that the only major example noted above was Helsinki - a city that was close to Soviet-held territory.) Once the front line started rolling forward again, you would in theory be in a better position to reach Germany proper, but you would have to use bases on recently recaptured territory, where the infrastructure had been almost completely destroyed... and by the time those obstacles had been overcome, the Western Allied bombing campaign would have stepped up to even higher levels, and your own front line would be beginning to reach Germany itself. Shimgray | talk | 20:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, if the Soviets needed anything to be bombed, they could ask us to do it; an example is (allegedly) Dresden. The Western Allies were desperate to prove to Stalin that they were doing their bit. Alansplodge (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Paper Chase

As I understand it, they form a study group with 6 members, each of whom will develop an outline for a different area of the law. They then intend to copy the outlines for each other, and use them as study tools. These outlines are each dozens of pages long, for a total hundreds of pages long.

Now, my questions:

A) Were the textbooks so useless that they don't contain such outlines, already ?

B) Are such outlines not available from any other source ?

C) The book was written in 1970, so, has this situation improved any since, or must law students basically still write their own books each term to compensate for lousy textbooks ? StuRat (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Textbooks are not the only way to learn, nor are they necessarily the best. Even if information has been pre-processed and chopped up into text books, there is real value in learning by doing research yourself. Students could learn a lot more by going to the source material and developing their own understanding than by simply getting superficial knowledge from any textbook. I took a history class in Grad School on Witchcraft in New England, where the final project was to research, from the original source documents (court transcripts, property documents, birth and marriage certificates, stuff like that) from the late 1600's, a specific witch and to develop a narrative based on those source documents. I tell you, I learned more from that one activity than I ever would have reading what some other historian may have developed and written in some text book. Even if there were really awesome textbooks availible, the actual act of doing the work themselves has pedagogical value. --Jayron32 02:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That project sounds like a real Goody. :-) I agree in the value of "do-it-yourself", but don't think that excuses the textbook authors for failing to provide material good enough to study from. In the case of The Paper Chase, the students only did 1/6th of the work, themselves, anyway, apparently because there would be nowhere near enough time for each of them to research it all. StuRat (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In the film — and in many real-life schools — textbooks are actually just a supplement to the classroom instruction, where teachers use the Socratic method of teaching. The interactive method is sometimes considered to be more effective for intangible subjects such as law. — Michael J 03:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The study group described would be excellent preparation for a would be lawyer. The method of study echos how legal research is done in the real world. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My understanding about that particular era of Harvard Law (which, from what I hear, is only somewhat past at the moment) is that the textbooks are not the entirety of what is meant to be known by the student. The outline is not just the textbooks, but various articles, other books, and notes from the lectures, with the goal of condensing what is likely to be specifically on the exam that the course offers at the end of the semester (because the entire grade is based on that exam). So they are gigantic study guides for specific tests, rather than textbooks.

Law textbooks, incidentally, are hugely dense, hugely detailed, hugely long compendiums of specific cases, rules, and discussions of said cases and rules. An outline would definitely be a useful precis. It doesn't mean that the textbook is not valuable. The real question for me is whether the outlines would be valuable to anyone other than the one who actually compiled them. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is still how it's done, although the level of dread and panic varies considerably by school. I don't know about the 70s, but I graduated law school in the past decade, and outlines are very much a part of studying for exams. Most of the assigned "textbooks" are actually casebooks which, to varying degrees, are long on questions and short on answers. Many casebooks have very little in terms of original content, many are just a collection of cases (arranged purposefully) with questions at the end, most of which invite discussion more than give answers.

Outlines are the answer to this. My outlines were usually 40-60 pages of exactly that, a microsoft word outline. There are outline banks online where you can trade or download for free other outlines. If you wanted to know how a particular part of the law works, it'd be a long road to pick up a casebook. Instead, you'd find either modern practice guides or materials, or their more academic cousins, treatises (the shortened versions are called hornbooks). Treatises are very detailed, well referenced, often incredibly expensive, and meticulously edited comprehensive guides to the law.

As for legal "textbooks" that are more like most other text books, the E&E (Examples and Explanations) series is quite good for law students, and there's no messing around when it comes to bar study. Bar review courses don't even pretend to care about how you think: they just give you answers. If you wanted or needed to look up the answer to a specific question, you go to these kind of sources, not casebooks. I'm a fan of the law school socratic method. I think it achieves its purpose in teaching future lawyers how to think rather than just answers. But mileage varies. Shadowjams (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, a few other specifics. I think the days of tight knit study groups like that are largely over, although I did know some classmates that did exactly what's described in that movie. I had study groups but they were for individual classes, not the whole body. The other thing that's changed is that most (I think) law schools now do semester exams, whereas back then at Harvard Law (not sure today) they did one exam for the whole year. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a friend who has just enrolled at HLS this year, and he said they still divide them into study groups, I believe. But apparently a phone call home to your mother costs more than a dime... --Mr.98 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar with the movie, the prof says "Here's a dime, call your mother and tell her there's serious doubt about you making it as a law student". I thought a good response would be "Thank you, this dime is probably the most valuable thing you've ever given a student, especially when compared with you lectures". (In other words "None of your lectures are worth a dime".) StuRat (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A friend who was in law school at the time the movie was made said that it is silly how in the movie the emphasis was on remembering and reciting in class the facts of the case. The interpretation of the law and the reasoning behind appeals court rulings was the material of classes, not the facts of the case. The dread of being called upon was accurately portrayed, and showing up in class unprepared and being called on was a living horror. Edison (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Libyans in support of US presence

Have there been any polls on whether the Libyan population support(ed) the US intervention? 74.15.138.178 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's rather to do polls in the midst of a civil war, but one could assume that pro-Qadaffi forces oppose US and NATO intervention, while most of the rebels support it. StuRat (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but were any poles polls conducted before the onset of war? 74.15.138.178 (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then Libya was under the control of Qadaffi, wouldn't wouldn't have allowed such a poll (or would just shoot anyone who said they were in favor). StuRat (talk) 03:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New poll: Qadaffi has 114% approval rating True, true. Thanks. 74.15.138.178 (talk) 04:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What US intervention? Isn't France doing most of the bombing? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Making a Profit From the 9-11 Attacks

Shortly after 9-11-01, I read several reports from reliable sources, that definite evidence existed that just before the attacks, that some or several individuals or entities, had bought short on airline stocks in massive amounts. These entities then made billions of dollars because of these purchases. Those who did this buying (and selling) obviously knew that the 9-11 attacks were coming.

The stories reported that the money was sent to numbered Swiss bank accounts, but because of international banking laws, the Swiss banks would not reveal the name(s) of those who owned these numbered bank accounts. The United States Government officials then accepted this explanation and did nothing further to find out this vital information to the U.S. national security.

I have several questions about this story.

1) Is it basically true, as I have related it? 2) Surely the U.S. Government could have forced the Swiss banks to give them the information described, through brute military force, if no other way. Why didn't they? The fact that they didn't lends credence to the various conspiracy theories, such as (a) George Bush and Dick Cheney, et all, engineered the 9-11 attacks (a theory long promulgated by Pat Buchanan, among many others); (b) Bush & Cheney (et all) knew the attacks were coming and chose not to stop them, so they could play their war games, etc., and they were the ones behind the stock buying and profits. 3) Why didn't the various media follow up on this story? 4) Was it the Saudi royal family that made the stock market profits described, and the U.S. government did not want to create the tension and bad blood with its main ally in the Mid East, so it did not pursue the matter?

from Stan daMann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan daMann (talk • contribs) 08:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article 9/11 conspiracy theories#Suspected insider trading suggests there was some suspicious trading, not only in airlines but in Morgan Stanley who let part of the WTC, and in defence firm Raytheon. That page carries some links, showing there was some media interest, e.g.[2]. However it seems hard to prove that something was going on other than normal speculative investments, and it seems surprising that there wasn't further investigation (some of the links suggest that Bin Laden did the purchasing to fund his terrorism, which would mean there was no wider conspiracy). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate has more info. It says the 9/11 Commission investigated and found legitimate reasons for the vast majority of the trades (the report is online), although this conclusion is open to criticism. Most of the trades were by Americans, not individuals with secretive Swiss bank accounts. That's evidence that the trading was investigated, at least. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One wonders just how realistic a US invasion of Switzerland might be...

As already noted transactions involving the Swiss industry were only a component of all of the transactions that may have warranted financial investigation

ALR (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

See also this article from Foreign Policy Journal (an online publication but the article is extensively referenced): it names many of the individuals and companies involved in trading but there's not much about Switzerland. It seems investigators have a good idea who was involved, and decided there was nothing suspicious involved. Your mileage may vary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading the "conspiracy theory" pages, one point leaps out: some people did know this coming. The bombers themselves, and one would assume a number of related people. Knowing it was coming might be a crime of huge significance for government; it would be considerable for a US citizen. But it's not inconceivable people in al-Qaeda (which has a few rich people backing in) thought it opportune to raise some funds for the group while they were at it. I'm surprised this theory isn't mentioned. Perhaps because there's no conspiracy. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The investigations referenced above found that none of the investors had any connection to Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda (a couple had connections to the Bin Laden family, but it's hard to do business in the Arabian peninsula without encountering a Bin Laden or two). There have been claims that Bin Laden used his foreknowledge of 9/11 make investments and finance his terrorism, but the 9/11 Commission didn't find any evidence. The 9/11 Commission is criticised by truthers for only researching connections between the suspicious investments and Al Qaeda, e.g. they didn't consider if someone in the US government was providing information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

So far, none of the references or comments have addressed the fact that the U.S. government did not pursue the identities of the profiteers, because of international banking laws. After 10 years, how quickly we forget. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan daMann (talk • contribs) 20:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Since people buy stocks and short sell all the time, can we assume an evil motive if some people happened to short sell airline stocks just prior to 9-11 ? That hardly seems like overwhelming evidence that they were in on it. However, I do have a basic problem with the concept of short sales, allowing someone to bet that a company will fail. There's an obvious incentive there for them to sabotage said company. Then again, naming yourself as the beneficiary on a life insurance policy on somebody else seems rather questionable, at least where you wouldn't suffer a proportional economic loss for their death. StuRat (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Then you'll really hate viatical settlements. As far as short selling goes, betting a stock price will fall isn't betting "to fail", it's perhaps betting to return to a more realistic price. It's a trap to moralize technical financial judgments (and a convenient rhetorical device too). More importantly, a healthy economy will have companies that fail, and an efficient market is one that transmits information the most efficiently, good or bad. Short selling's a vital part of this. There are other ways (often less efficient) to effectuate the same thing too. Unless you're talking about naked short selling that somehow overwhelms the stock's float (which for most major exchange funds requires an insane amount of capital), short selling can't "manipulate" the price of a stock any more than placing an overpriced order to buy can. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You're missing my point. If it's in somebody's interest that a company's stock price fall, they can sabotage the company to ensure that this happens. For example, they can inject bacteria into meats produced by a company to cause a recall. This would be easiest if they work at the company or have an "inside man" to do the dirty work. StuRat (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

StuRat...just on that last point, here in the UK (and presumably elsewhere) you can only be a beneficiary if the person has an 'insurable interest' and you have a relationship to the insured individual (i.e. you would love out financial, even if just on potential future earnings). These rules get more strict above a certain threshold too. ny156uk (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice Freudian slip. We should all learn to substitute "love" for "lose". :-) StuRat (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Hate can be turned to love in at most 4 steps: HATE-HAVE-HOVE-LOVE. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 02:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

And you can change lust into love just as easily: LUST-LOST-LOSE-LOVE. StuRat (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Economics: a term for the point at which the overall market cap decreases

In an economics discussion with some friends we've described a value that seems like it could have a name, but I don't know what it is. It's the point at which the overall market cap for a given scarce good (as defined by the unit value times the number of units) stops increasing and starts decreasing. (It could reasonably be considered the end of the scarcity of that good, I suppose.)

Take, for example, gold. If I discover a new ounce of gold, the overall market for gold increases a little bit: it's one more ounce times just about the same price per ounce. But if I discover very very many ounces of gold, that decreases the scarcity of gold, and thus the price of each ounce. At a certain point, the value of an ounce of gold falls faster than the amount of gold is increasing.

Anybody know a name for that term?

ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 12:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the Hubbert curve? Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 13:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In classical economics the effect in question will never occur, and in real economics when it does occur it is a result of temporary irrationality or of the gradual onset of economies of scale. For example, when the price of farm goods falls, farmers may react not by producing less (as classical economics would predict; see supply and demand), but by producing more in an effort to maintain their incomes, thereby causing prices to crash. These sorts of effects depend on temporal dynamics, though, so there is really no well-defined "point" that can be identified. Looie496 (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide some references (or at least explanations) for your first sentence? I disagree with your statement about farmers. Classical supply and demand works quite well to describe what happens. You don't have individual farmers choosing to produce less, that's true, but that's not what supply and demand would predict anyway. What supply and demand predicts and what actually happens is that some farmers keep doing what they were always doing (those that were more profitable) and others stop producing at all (they may abandon farming altogether and sell their land to property developers, or they may start producing something different, like flowers). They are unlikely to produce more in order to maintain their income because if they were able to produce more they would already have been doing it (farmers tend not to earn so much, even in good times, as to become complacent and stop trying to earn more). With agriculture, it's a little skewed by the various subsidies farmers tend to get, but the principles still just about work. --Tango (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

States printing money of their enemies

Could a state print the currency of their enemies to topple their economies? I know that North Korea is said to have printed dollars, but this effort was apparently not very destructive. Considering that they have better means than any criminal organization, and these are almost printing perfect dollars and euros, it should be relatively easy to do that. Quest09 (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

They can try - see Operation Bernhard. An excellent BBC comedy drama, Private Schulz was made in 1981 based loosely on the story. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It's happened...see Super dollar though given that most currency exsists digitally and is fiat...it would take quite a bit of printing to have any effect. It's estimated that less than $1B exists in counterfeit currency. There are more effective methods in Economic warfare(which is a incomplete) than mere counterfeiting. Marketing poor assets(illiquid and junk) as collateral/insurance in CDOs and Credit default swap would probably be more effective.Smallman12q (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Some other problems with this method:

1) You have to deliver the cash to the target nation. During a war, this might not be so easy. And, if any is intercepted, the target nation will warn everyone to look out for counterfeits (assuming there is some method of telling the difference). "New looking" bills might be the most suspect.

2) Currency with serial numbers and dates means that, once the range of serial numbers and dates on the counterfeit bills is known, this could be used to identify them. This could be countered by changing those randomly.

3) The target nation can issue new currency, multiple times, if needed.

4) The target nation can then turn around and use the same method. So, this doesn't offer a unique advantage for one nation to defeat another. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

One can always spend the counterfeit cash in neutral countries. Anonymous.translator (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As stated, it would take a lot of counterfeit currency to have an effect. Then you have to get it in but to inject that much currency, you'd raise a lot of suspicion. You can't just send your agents over to spend a few billion at gas stations and other cash businesses where small amounts wouldn't be scrutinized. Dismas|^(talk) 02:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That's only going to work if the currency you are counterfeiting is one that is often used outside of its home country or in transactions not including someone from its home country. That's true for the US dollar and, to a lesser extent, the Euro. It's not really true for any other currencies, with a few exceptions where use is very localised (eg. the South African Rand). --Tango (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, the South African Rand is pegged 1:1 with the currencies of certain neighbouring countries, and there are relatively low barriers to crossborder travel and business, so traders in neighbouring countries are quite familiar with ZAR banknotes and may often (not always) accept it. Of course ZAR will not be accepted further afield. A tourist could have a pretty good week in Swaziland with nothing more than a passport and a fistful of ZAR. bobrayner (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Another option, if you have total air superiority, is to drop counterfeit bills from bombers. Of course, those on the ground will know they are counterfeit, but, human nature means many will pick them up and try to spend them anyway. And merchants, knowing there are many counterfeits out there, might refuse to accept any of that nation's currency, unless they can tell the real ones from the fake. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

MFN status

What is the advantage of having MFN status with otjer countries?what role does WTO has in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navneeth tn (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The article Most favoured nation has a section entitled "benefits", and it also talks about the MFN status with regards to the World Trade Organization. -- 174.24.197.132 (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does nationalist populism work?

The question in the heading pretty much says it all. I've thought of two reasons why nationalist populism works:

1) it tells you that, thanks to your nationality, you're the best in the world 2) it creates an external enemy to unite people around it.

Are there any other reasons nationalist populism works? Thanks. Leptictidium (mt) 15:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In the EU my view is that it works because the electorate in richer countries (rightfully) feel being robbed of their money by a supranational entity they didn't want in the first place. Joepnl (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

It marks boundaries along easily defined lines that are (generally) culturally well established and historically significant. That is to say nationalism makes more sense in a less connected world than a massively inter-connected one in my view, as nowadays boundaries of nations are increasingly blurred due to culture, international laws/cultures, communication networks, international trade etc. all being very much more integrated nowadays. Joepnl's comment (whilst I personally disagree with the notion) are accurate in such that there are many people that see cross-nation political groups like the EU as reducing their autonomy/national sovereignity. So yes, autonomy of choice would be another factor. ny156uk (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Restricting my argument to the European case where I think the rise of nationalist populism is most prominent (and I do know something about). Strange that you say nationalism makes more sense in a less connected world. In a totally unconnected world (no trade, Wikipedia, immigration, media, war etc between nations), the word nationalism wouldn't even exist because it would simply have no meaning. But it's Facebook nor trade that leads to nationalism, quite the opposite I'd say. It is forced "solidarity" between nations where the people of nation A see their pensions wasted on nation B. Not because of globalisation but indeed the opposite: politicians and the EU itself are telling people in nation A that they have a natural bonding with people in nation B. Which, in reality, is precisely what nationalism is: to say that you belong to a certain group and people in that group should stick with each other. The EU is telling us that the Germans and the Dutch are (using your words) culturally and historically connected to the Greeks. Also heard: the EU needs its own army "as a counterweight" to the US. That pretty much defines nationalism. The counter movement may be called "nationalists", but, in the European setting, I think you can well say that they are more "anti-continentioalists" and would applaud globalisation. Joepnl (talk) 02:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you listed all the benefits in your original posting Leptictidium. Most nations that have ever existed have promoted nationalism, I can't think of a nation that had the ability to monitor their borders that did not, but let people come and go. It is important to know that nationalism has many disadvantages too, especially when taken to an extreme such as North Korea. Nationalism is the reason why there have been hundreds of wars of independence, and many thousands of attempted wars of independence. Nationalism creates xenophobia, decreases culture movement(if we were more nationalist, I would not know of sushi or turkish delight), it makes international trade and cooperation with other nations difficult even to the point of war. There are an untold number of wars started due to one nation thinking they are the best such as WWII, the cold war, crimean war, and the napoleonic war. 99.235.194.16 (talk) 06:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

See this RSAnimate presentation of The Empathic Civilization. To put it simply, nationalism is a remnant of social evolution - tribalism. It functions in small groups by keeping people together for a common goal, regardless of the differences in individual opinion. People within a tribe may bicker within themselves, but they will unite against a common enemy simply because they wouldn't survive if they didn't.

It's a primitive trait (also observable in other primates), useful perhaps in our hunter-gatherer days, but more often than not, its ill-adapted for anything larger (in nation-states it leads to totalitarianism, regardless of the ideology) and the modern human society. It's also more likely to create mutually destructive tensions (religious conflicts, xenophobia, racism and genocide) between groups rather than bring people together for survival like its original function in human adaptation was.

Tribalism dehumanizes other people other than those belonging to their 'tribe'. People who exhibit nationalistic tendencies can only extend empathy to a limited amount of people. Beyond that, they can not empathize anymore. So for them, only people immediately within their 'tribe' are 'real people' or 'true humans', everyone else are 'other people' who may or may not be friendly but must be assumed as hostile by default. Anyone who extends empathy to another group for them is also a 'traitor', and anyone who does not fit within their group is 'bullied' to fit in. It is still a very common trait, perhaps because human civilization (and globalization) developed far too quickly for it to be slowly eased off.

Also watch their other videos. They're all great.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, the reasons Leptictidium names (your country is the best in the world, uniting by creating an external enemy) are NOT why populism works in Europe. I have here De schijn-elite van de valse munters which is written be "the intellectual" of the Dutch Freedom Party, Martin Bosma. It DOES say that Western culture is better than Islam. Is does NOT say that The Netherlands is better than Belgium or Germany (our neighbours). It does not even discuss any nationality at all. Doing that would not get them any more votes. It might (might!) be valid to say that nationalist populism is based on hate against "the other" but it is definitely NOT based on nationality. If you'd rephrase "Nationalist populism" to "Religion based populism", you may have a point. The Dutch Freedom Party does make a big point about the "Islamization" of The Netherlands. Their message though is: hate the establishment for letting or even making (by subsidizing Mosques, having separate offices for male and female Muslims, allowing for mass immigration, etc) that happen. Hate the judges for their soft punishments for serious crimes. And -again- hate the establishment for giving up our sovereignty to the EU. Well, I agree with all those points. After centuries I thought we had decided churches should not be built with tax money but suddenly "they" tell us it is in our best interest to do so. That's at least odd. And the thing that's most profound: our "elite" keeps telling us that the EU brought us peace. Everyone can see the how a European war is starting, brought upon us by an organization that historians will only be able to describe by taking NSDAP or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as an example. Therefore, I do vote "populist", and I feel that the millions who do too do not hate people for the state they happen to born so I do doubt it's "nationalist populism". It's just populism.

An interesting thing here is the word "elite" because it's not the rich, and it's not ones with the most education, and it's not the ones with a family that have been "elite" for centuries. The "elite" is nowadays defined by people having the right opinion (the one the elite has (see Recursion)) and anyone can join provided they have the "elite's opinion". A week ago I saw an anchor man trying to ask a critical question to EU MEP Guy Verhofstadt but before asking a critical question he had to say "I'm all for Europe, I'm even for World Government". As in "I'm elite too, we're friends". Also as in "The great and benevolent leader never failed, but...". Maybe that was courageous. Maybe that was scary. Joepnl (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What sort of (Polish?) military hat is this?

This is from Dad's Army and was supposedly worn by a Polish officer during WW2. I would like to know what the type of hat is called? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 19:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Rogatywka meltBanana 19:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A more elaborate version was worn by British lancers, copied from the Poles after their lancers gave us a pasting at the Battle of Waterloo. Afterwards, several British Light Dragoon regiments converted to lancers complete with Polish-style uniforms. In the British Army, this headgear was called a Czapka, which apparently is just Polish for "cap". Alansplodge (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A picture here of a British czapka of the style worn for ceremonial use from 1903 - 1914. They apparently weren't worn after WWI. Here are some modern Polish soldiers wearing their rogatywkas; they seem to wear berets for everyday use. Alansplodge (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You can also have a look at the Polish law regarding military uniforms. The text is in Polish, but on pages 149−155 (of the PDF document) you'll find detailed drawings of rogatywka caps with all the rank insignia. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercantilism vs protectionism

I have read the article on mercantilism many times but I still don't get what it's about. In particular, I don't understand the difference between mercantilism and protectionism. I'd appreciate if someone could explain this to me. --Belchman (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The key underlying aim of mercantilism is to create a net flow of precious metals toward a country. This was a common goal during the early modern period, when currencies were backed by precious metals, and when amassing reserves of precious metals augmented a state's ability to wage war. Protectionism is a feature of mercantilism, but mercantilism goes far beyond protectionism. Marco polo (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That clears things up a bit, thanks. --Belchman (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mercantilism was a bit broader than precious metals, however. The concept of mercantilism was the flow of raw materials to the home country. Mercantilist thought holds that wealth is generated by creating finished products from raw materials; so mercantilists are very concerned with vertical integration of supply chains. One of the major parts of mercantilism is actually the importance of colonialism; colonies are a way to secure exclusive control of raw materials; but one important part of mercantilism was that colonies do not manufacture goods. All raw materials produced in the mother country stay in the mother country, and all raw materials produced in the colonies are sent to the mother country for production of finished goods. The famed triangular trade is pure mercantilism: You ship slaves from Africa to the colonies to work mines, farms, and plantations to procure raw goods; you ship the raw goods to Europe for finished products; most of the finished products stay in Europe, but large amounts are sent to Africa to procure more slaves to send to the colonies to get raw materials. Its a closed system bent on concentrating wealth in the home country. As noted by Marco polo, protectionism is a key part of it; but the concepts of how to obtain raw materials and where manufacturing is to take place make mercantilism different. --Jayron32 23:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Stopped reading at your third misspelling of the words mercantilism and mercantilist. A quick CTRL+F search showed that you managed to misspell the "root" mercantili- a total of eight times. All I can say is lol. --Belchman (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoa... rude. And FYI, the root is not mercantili- but Latin merc- (nominative merx, plural mercēs - '[trade] goods', 'wages', 'commodity'); verb derivative mercor - 'to sell', 'to trade'; cf. Market, Commercial, Merchant, Mercantile, Mercenary, Mercury, Mercy, Merit. If the previous spelling you're mocking was 'merchantilism', that is actually a perfectly acceptable (if somewhat obsolete) variant of the word, as the English cognates came from Latin through French (Norman), specifically O.Fr. marcheant. Either way, [mis]spelling has nothing to do with content.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you should learn what inverted commas mean. Please, see this: Inverted_commas#Signaling_unusual_usage --Belchman (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

ensuing irrelevant bickering between editors
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Image removed. Franamax (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Um, how about... no? I'm actually horrified that a grammar nazi like you is using lol, though wikilinking it betrays awkwardness in using it. Is that a sign of weakening against the inescapable forces of linguistic evolution? þu hast broghte domesdai wið þee for þe Englis spæche! þer beo wepyng and wo and wryngyng of hondis! Repentesþu and clene oute thi mouthe wið saip! -- Obsidi♠n Soul 00:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC) How many times now has Belchman asked a question and then insulted the answerers? He's probably a troll, or just an asshole maybe. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC) I didn't insult anyone: I just pointed out a fact. The admin that wrote the utterly misinformed reply does that to a lot of people every day —with the aggravating factor that his victims usually didn't do anything stupid like he did here— and nobody seems to care. --Belchman (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Other than the misspelling I admitted to and corrected, what in my answer was incorrect? Or are you just here to insult me without cause or evidence to do so? Yes, there was a misspelling. Yes, I admit it. Yes, I corrected it. However, you seem to feel that my answer is wrong otherwise. Can you explain what parts of the answer, with the corrected spellings, is incorrect? --Jayron32 20:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC) Another way to reply is: Thank you for pointing out my mistake. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Fuck you for pointing out my mistake. --Jayron32 22:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)