Humanities desk
< December 25	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 27 >

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.

December 26

Mecca, California Muslim populated place before

Is this true that Mecca, California used to have Arab-speaking Muslims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United States is a diverse country, and Southern California is among the most diverse of areas. I would not be surprised to find at least one Arabic-speaking Muslim in any community there. I have no data one way or the other, but it would not be a surprising thing either. --Jayron32 00:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like it from the article, unless Hi Jolly wandered through... AnonMoos (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mahomet, Illinois is indirectly named for Muhammed, but it was never a Muslim community. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrawise, Arabs and Arab-Americans are the largest single ethnic group in Dearborn, Michigan, though the person it was named for has no connection to Islam or Arabs in any way that I know. --Jayron32 01:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked that because one Muslim scholar said that Mecca, California was founded by Arab Muslims and made relics in that city and still today the relics still there. [video clip]. --Donmust90 (talk) 20:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

In the past, a lot of small towns in the United States were given "exotic" names from ancient or medieval history, or from news reports or traveller's accounts of far-distant regions (Troy, New York; Memphis, Tennessee; Pekin, Illinois etc. etc.), and some of these inevitably touched on Arab/Islamic history (Cairo, Illinois; Elkader, Iowa etc.), but generally without any actual Arab or Muslim presence on the scene involved or implied. I hope this scholar is not one of the same ones who claims that many pre-Columbian Indians were Muslims!... -- AnonMoos (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relationships in society

Why has society evolved to make relationships almost compulsory? I.e. single men and women are often asked why they are? This seems to be especially true in the younger generations. 176.27.208.210 (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because societies that encourage controlled breeding are beyond "more likely" to survive than those that do not. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is arguably less true than it was in the past, when not just "relationships" but marriage and raising a family was the overwhelming norm. But while I wouldn't entirely disagree with Ian Thomson's suggestion, I would put the answer at a more fundamental biological level than a societal level: we are evolved to breed, and to form emotional attachments in order to breed, so those who don't are strange. --ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I don't see how we can really answer this except with loads of speculation, but one thing I would suggest is that very few single people have had no desire in their lives, perhaps none. The implication is that they have had the same longings as others, but something hasn't quite worked out for them. That doesn't answer the fundamental question of the existence of these desires, but the answers above seem to suffice. I would agree with Colin, except that "strange" is too strong - it's more that they are not strange, hence perhaps just unlucky. As a single person myself, I can assure you sometimes it is just as much about time and energy. Reading a book or watching tv gives more certain reward than trying to meet someone. IBE (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because of an underemphasis on vocations and discerning which one is right for you personally... ;) 86.129.14.69 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing Middle East oil

I was discussing with someone on the recent problems with Middle Eastern terrorism, and we contemplated this: Say that the Western countries (i.e. the Americas) refuse to buy Middle Eastern oil in protest of Islamic extremism, terrorism, human rights violations, etc. (and perhaps some European countries join in).

Two questions:

Would this act of protest cause any harm (financial, civil unrest) among the , that may perhaps "threaten to change their ways?"
Could the West (and Europe?) survive on the oil available in the Americas?

Thanks! 174.93.61.139 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much what we're doing now, in the case of Iran. To answer your Q's:

1) Yes, it would cause massive harm to Middle-East economies.

2) Yes, it would cause massive harm to Western economies.

Unfortunately, one of the nations in the Americas which produces the most oil is Venezuela, and their current leader, Hugo Chavez, is an ally of Iran and any other oppressive dictatorship he can find. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use the Reference Desk for soapboxing. --ColinFine (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

It doesn't seem like soapboxing to me, just a statement of facts.

The reason the embargo on Iran is reasonably successful is that the US is threatening to impose sanctions on any country that trades with Iran. It would be difficult to do this with the entire Middle East. Probably they'd sell much of the excess to China, who continues to trade with Iran (it is difficult to impose sanctions on a nation to whom you are in serious debt).--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being indebted with someone doesn't mean he has power over you, quite in contrary, you have power upon him. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Defaulting on debt for political reasons wouldn't increase confidence in the dollar or US government bonds.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian and Kuwait produce lots of oil consumed on the West. Not buying it anymore would be a huge disruption towards all. However, if you decide to buy elsewhere, Canada, and the UK also have lots of oil. Australia is relatively independent. And Libya (that's not Middle East, right?) also has oil. The same applies to Angola.

It would be a huge blow, but similar to any war, governments should be prepared to this. OsmanRF34 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article Petroleum, of the top 15 oil exporters (who account for the vast bulk of exports), exporters outside of the Middle East and North Africa export about 18.2 million barrels per day. Meanwhile, according to the US Energy Information Administration, North America and Europe alone import 21.5 million barrels per day. That's not even including Japan or South Korea, both of which are big oil importers, or other oil-importing countries. So, the answer is, no there is not enough oil being produced outside the Middle East, broadly defined, to meet the needs of the West. The result of cutting oil consumption to the level of available supplies (outside the Middle East) would be to ration those supplies, either by government fiat or through a price for non-Middle Eastern oil significantly higher than that for Middle Eastern oil. Either way, both production and consumption of all products in the West would have to fall, as would the GDPs and living standards of Western countries. Middle Eastern countries would see a drop in the price of their oil, with some harm to their economies, but at the resulting lower price, demand from importers such as China would probably rise, and the price of Chinese products would fall, further damaging the economies of the West, as Western products would lose competitiveness against products from countries with a lower energy price. Marco polo (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on what happened last time the Arabian oil supply was stopped: 1970s energy crisis. -- 20:24, 26 December 2012‎ TammyMoet

Many who were around during that time remember it as the first time that Saudi Arabia stabbed the U.S. in the back. In any case, for a variety of reasons, the effects of a mid-east oil stoppage would be rather different now than in 1973... AnonMoos (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-German Jewish violence

Was there shortly after the end of WWII any violence from Jewish against Germans? OsmanRF34 (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some examples see Nakam. Gandalf61 (talk) 05:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a young Jewish assassin prior to World War II?

What's the name of that boy who assassinated a top Nazi official and from there on, the persecution of Jews got even worse.? Ukboyy (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about Herschel Grynszpan, right?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly mucked things up, eh? It's like the countless terrorist acts committed by Palestinian extremists which make it difficult for law-abiding Palestinians to gain credibility. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever facile similarities may appear valid to User:Baseball_Bugs, a Ref Desk Regular, in this specious, gratuitous and invidious comparison, it has a fundamental flaw. The latter-day Palestinian Arabs have been and are subjected by the sovereign Israeli administrations (governmental and military) to serious, en masse restrictions of their civil and human rights, due to a perceived security threat based on many terrorist (i.e. targeting civilians) attacks by Palestinian Arab militants, their organizations' as well as elected Palestinian Arab leaders' oft-repeated threats to destroy Israel and its people, and denying the Jews a right to national identity (ignoring two-thousand continuous years of Jewish Diaspora institutions) and hegemony (granted by world powers in the manner accepted at the time). Now compare this to the Nazi regime's restrictions of Jews' civil and human rights, even prior to the assassination of Ernst vom Rath, based on the Nazi doctrine alleging that the Jews were an economic and racial threat to the German people. The Nazis' response to the particular assassination is arguably the Kristallnacht pogroms, while the Holocaust is more likely attributable to comprehensive policies such as the Final Solution. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's premise was that the presumably well-intentioned assassination by this one Jew only made things worse for the Jews. And the presumably well-intentioned terrorist acts of a number of Palestinian extremists have only made things worse for the Palestinians, as per the examples you've provided above. That's not to compare Nazi Germany with Israel, by any means - only to point out the actions of extremists can result in large-scale restrictions, and worse, against the people associated with those extremists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Thank you! Ukboyy (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queer nationalism

I'm gay and would like to know if there has ever been a proposal or something like that to create a safe country for gay people. And I mean it seriously, not like the Kingdom in Northeastern Australia. Thank you. Ukboyy (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That general idea has certainly been kicked around by right-wing types, as recently as this past election season. The problem likely would be to find a large, usable yet uninhabited land. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not of a right-wing. However, I'd support a Nation for the gay people, it would help thousands of gays suffering from government persecution. Let's say, all Iranian gays could travel there and settle down. Ukboyy (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How much land area would be needed? Assuming you're starting with nothing, what would you all do to build up an economy? What would you do for a living? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much land, but as for the jobs we can borrow money and create jobs. Ukboyy (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First you have to convince someone to lend you money. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, we lend our land to U.S. military bases, and the first factory we open up would be related to military weapons, and all related to that stuff, so we have Israel in as well. Ukboyy (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a funny kind of country, in that the majority of children of gays would presumably not be gay, so it's not entirely clear what the long-term basis would be. Past attempts to create new countries for ethnic/religious/ideological groups with a widely dispersed population (i.e. without a concentrated territorial core) have not been too successful (to start with, there are no "large, usable yet uninhabited lands"); you can see the failure of past attempts to found libertarian islands at Micronation#History during 1960 to 1980 and Micronation#New-country projects. In fact, the only such attempt which has produced a formal nation with flags, military, embassies, United Nations membership etc. is Israel. While Israel is rather successful in its own way, I doubt that it offers a very useful model for gay nationhood. AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are gay villages, but I doubt a gay country would be possible, for the reasons explained above. I also doubt that gays want to cut any tight to the non-gay world or that modern western societies are dangerous to them. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gay families don't spontaneously get children, so you could adopt people 18+ who are definitely gay. What would be interesting with this scheme is then everyone who enters the country could literally sign a social contract (they are old enough and wouldn't have been born into it) - the social contract would be real, signed by people who are of age to sign a contract. It wouldn't be this philosophical thing. In that country state tyranny would literally be impossible to keep up for more than a generation; the only way to get into the country is to vote for it. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of issues, but economics trumps everything else, so you have to have a "business plan". The OP has the start of one, but it would have to be studied and discussed a great deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Kinsey Reports estimate that about 8% of the population is mainly homosexual (averaging their findings for males and females). Assuming that this holds true cross-culturally, then there about 560 million homosexuals or children who will become homosexual in the world, of whom let's say 350 million are adults. Let's say only one quarter of these people want to migrate to the gay nation. That's still 87.5 million people, more people than live in Germany. So you'd need an area of land able to support close to 100 million people. As Baseball Bugs says, something like a business plan would be crucial. I think most gay people in Western countries are probably content to stay put where they are. There is still discrimination, but it is steadily declining, and it is not so difficult to live a happy and successful life as an open homosexual in much of North America, Western and Central Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Conditions are also steadily improving in much of China (which counts for so much of the world's population). So the population of a gay nation would be likely to come largely from South Asia and Africa (due to those regions' large populations and repressive societies), with smaller percentages coming from other parts of Asia and Latin America. The more skilled a person is, probably the more successful and established that person already is in his or her home country and therefore less likely to want to migrate. So you are likely to end up with a population of poor, relatively unskilled people, or people whose skills mainly have to do with manual labor or agriculture. Such a country would be likely to have a relatively low standard of living, and a relatively large part of the population would need to be engaged in agriculture due to the lack of capital and technological skills. That means you'd need lots of land to support maybe 50 million peasant farmers. You'd need a country midway in size between Myanmar and Pakistan, with a corresponding level of development. Can you think of any area of the world that size that has fertile agricultural land and whose population would be willing to evacuate that land to make room for a gay nation? Marco polo (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinsey report "10%" figure has been highly disputed continuously for almost the last 65 years. To cut endless reams of discussion very short, if it has some validity, it would appear to be more inclusive of bisexual and opportunistically flexible males, rather than including only those males who are exclusively or predominantly gay... AnonMoos (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were only 1 percent globally, we're talking an order of magnitude of over 50 million, which is not small, and even a small fraction of that figure would present significant problems to be overcome, none of which has anything to do with sexual orientation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should narrow down your question, and that might provide your answer. Obviously many, by now I would honestly say most, people want the U.S. to be a safe country for gay people. Then again, we know there will always be crime, even crime motivated by hatred. But would your hypothetical country have no crime? You say that it would be a country for gay people, but would heterosexuals be allowed in? Would residents be allowed to participate in perverse heterosexual acts should the urge take them? Would there be a plan to crack down on heterosexuals to keep them from breeding like Albanians in Kosovo? Or would your country end up eventually with a heterosexual majority? Wnt (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...how can gay people engage in perverse heterosexual acts? Do you mean sex between the inhabitants and visiting women? --140.180.249.194 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a gay region within another nation might be more practical. Let's say a large nation which still discriminates against homosexuals wants to get rid of them, but aren't so brutal as to kill them. They might be willing to allocate a region and send them there. This could also work if they have an uninhabited land they want to develop. For example, if Denmark was less progressive, they might have shipped homosexuals to Greenland to help populate it. Or perhaps England could have shipped homosexuals to Australia. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need; we grow our own. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's always Birobidzhan... -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queerobidzhan for the gay enclave? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bugs, it would be helpful if you would actually name these right wing types you mention advocating gay homelands. Such a comment is absurd on the face of it, unless you mean Nazi's or people who troll the comments of news articles. Care to provide any sources? μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking specifically about the guy (a preacher, yet) who said we should build a big enclosure and put all the gays in it. But if you were to pose the idea of getting all the gays out of America and into their own country, I am sure you'd see a hip-hip-hurray on the part of America's bigots - as long as they didn't also have to pay for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs is talking about the Right Reverend Charles Worsley. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not specifically for gay people, but I propose Mars, specifically the Mars One expedition. They don't want astronauts having babies (not enough room or resources), but they also don't want astronauts to be sexually frustrated, so gays would be perfect. Also, literally all the land in the world is unused and unclaimed, and Mars' surface area is similar to Earth's land surface area. --140.180.249.194 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rev's the best you've got as a "right winger"? he wouldn't last two minutes under the Taliban, now woould he? Or are they left wing? I am confused... μηδείς (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the response of someone proven wrong by the facts. I suppose there's no true Scotsman... --140.180.249.194 (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO, when Bugs says "as recently as this past election season" then I am expecting him to be talking about some actual political candidate or office-holder, not some quack preacher who speaks for no one but himself. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea in general sounds like the way Liberia originated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be transparently obvious that the vast majority of those advocating such a strategy, not being gay themselves, are proposing it in order to make (the rest of) their own countries 'safe' from LGBT people, rather than for them. (I leave aside the declining numbers of actual radical queer separatists.) AnonMoos' reference to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is entirely justified: it is a textbook example of giving people 'their own land' in order to deport them. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Declining numbers was my first thought. I wonder if the number of inhabitants interested in adopting, or in either natural or artificial insemination (for women), would be capable of sustaining the (gay) population, especially since, I would guess that 90 percent of offspring would not be gay. I suppose you could use immigration and forced emigration to maintain the status quo, but I would imagine there would be a number of civil rights issues ...--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that respect it would be like polygamous Mormon communities, where they inevitably end up with an excess of men and lack of women, so must force most of the men to leave and perhaps entice more women to join. Then there are communities with no sex, like the Shakers, although that doesn't seem to have worked out so well for them. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to rent land out for wind farms

Hello, everyone. I have inherited some land which could be used to build a small to medium wind farm. According to wind maps of my region, the area is quite windy. I'd like to rent this land out to an utilities company for them to build the wind farm and pay me a monthly sum for it, but I have no idea what my next steps should be. Should I contact the utilities companies directly? Should I look for a middleman? What else should I keep in mind? Thank you very much for your help and a belated Merry Christmas to all! Peterinthepark (talk) 14:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the Refdesk can't give you advice, especially not legal advice. If you can ask a question about facts (i.e. what the terms are for most such deals) then people might answer you. Wnt (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind is that the neighbors may not appreciate those windmills. They can be noisy and an eyesore. And, depending on the zoning in the area, you may not be allowed to place them there. StuRat (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is this in the public domain - film "Cohen's Advertising Scheme" (1904). where can I watch it?

is this in the public domain - film "Cohen's Advertising Scheme" (1904). where can I watch it? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly in the public domain in the U.S., but it doesn't appear to be on "archive.org", so you may be out of luck viewing it on line. One company offers a DVD for $36... AnonMoos (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible that any company offers it for $36 as without legal protection if there were even a single buyer, someone would undercut the $36 company by selling it for $35 which is an instant $32 for free for the company (approximately $500/hr). You are basically saying "no one would work for $500/hr" but I think a lot of people would disagree. Naturally the $35 company could be undercut as well, but I am saying that it is a mathematical impossibility that what you say is true - that this is an actual price that is quoted. Just think about it. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection...are you sure they didn't acquire the copyrights in some foreign market like Chile or something where it is still under copyirght, and are selling the actual film? (i.e. ownership of it). Then the price would make sense. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only reported what I was able to find through a little Google searching. The $36 DVD company appears to be heavily oriented toward the educational market. IMDB doesn't show any DVD links, so I doubt it's available through Amazon... AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where 178.48 got these numbers. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overestimating the importance of Intellectual property laws and copyright in this case. In practice, the company AnonMoos found probably reason that customers aren't paying $36 for the right to see/own the film, as much as they're paying it so that they actually can see the film at all. Just because something is in the public domain, doesn't make it universally available, and perhaps $36 is a decent price to get hold of a copy of an otherwise difficult to find film (in the public domain or not). The OP, for example, doesn't have a copy of the film, and might be willing to pay for one. How would your (178) hypothetical undercut buyer/reseller organize their marketing, infrastructure, logistics etc? You may not be completely wrong, but to claim "mathematical impossibility" is a serious overstatement. For all we know, there could be 50 companies out there trying to sell it for $35, or $5, after having bought it from the $36 source, but since AnonMoos didn't find them, they are not selling any copies, making a total of $0./Coffeeshivers (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is apparently the one saying it's not possible to sell it at the price so I'm not sure the plan to buy it. If they do I guess they plan to release it. However I do agree they're overestimating the importance of IP here and how easy it will be for them to undercut the company selling it at $36. Sure people like the OP may buy it from the OP, but the company most likely isn't operating primarily to serve people like the OP. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the public domain. Interestingly, the copyright claimant was a certain Thomas A. Edison (see this, page 12]). Zoonoses (talk) 02:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did the USSR support any rightwing Anti-American governments or movements?

It seems like the USA had more diplomatic flexibility during the Cold War. It could support and make deals with everything from Feudal Arab Sheikdoms, to Fascist Spain and Chile, to Leninist Yugoslavia and China, to Social Democratic Western Europe. The USSR on the other hand seemed boxed into the ideological straightjacket of only supporting fellow Leninist movements, or Third World Left-Nationalists. It doesn't seem like the USSR had as much flexibility in maneuver. There was no phenomenom of anti-American capitalists as there was of anti-Soviet socialists.

So I was wondering if there was any exception to this rule. Of rightwing regimes, who out of realpolitik sided with the USSR against the USA?

--Gary123 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you would consider "rightwing" but India under the Congress party found itself loosely aligned with the Soviet Union without any intention of becoming communist itself. In the horn of Africa region, the Soviet and U.S. alliances with Ethiopia vs. Somalia switched back and forth at least once. AnonMoos (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Empire#Soviet involvement in the Third World lists some non-communist pro-Soviet governments. 81.98.43.107 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Soviet foreign policy was quite flexible, and Soviet official discourse was quite flexible with finding a progressive silver lining with any state having good relations with them. Also, do remember that the USSR was the first "Western" state to initiate formal bilateral relations with Saudi Arabia. Nepal in early 1960s is an another interesting case, not really "supported" by USSR but the Soviets did instruct the Nepalese communists to support the right-wing monarchy (which kept Nepal in the Indian sphere of influence, as opposed to being close to China). There were also dealings between the USSR and right-wing regimes in Argentina and Morocco, notably putting local communists in a odd position. --Soman (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely wrong to think the Soviet Union was purely ideological in its foreign policy during the Cold War. Like the democratic United States, the Communist Soviet Union also adopted a flexible and opportunistic foreign policy for the purpose of curbing opponent's influence. It supported and funded tons of far right movements throughout the Western world. For example, the Socialist Reich Party, a neo-Nazi political party in the West Germany, received financial help from the Soviet government. [1] Interestingly, the Soviets did not help their ideological allies, the Communist Party of Germany, because they had very limited influence compared to the Socialist Reich Party. After the Slánský trial, the neo-Nazi writer Francis Parker Yockey viewed Soviet Union as the potential leader of a possible anti-Semitic Europe. The National Renaissance Party (United States), for example, was allied with the Soviet Union due the antisemitism they both shared. [2] --PlanetEditor (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that the USSR initially supported Chiang Kai-shek in the Chinese Civil War. Chiang Kai-shek wasn't anti-American, but he wasn't left wing or Communist either. Futurist110 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]