Humanities desk
< May 7	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 9 >

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.

May 8

Why has the Battle of Moscow recently taken the spotlight as the turning point of WWII's Eastern front when Battle of Stalingrad has enjoyed that title for years? What changed?

I thought the conventional wisdom was that Stalingrad has broken the Wehrmacht and German blitzkrieg. And now suddenly, my lecturer is claiming that Stalingrad was largely irrelevant and that Moscow and to the much lesser extent Leningrad turned the course of WWII Eastern front. In his 6 hour long analysis of European WWII, he mentioned Stalingrad exactly twice. What gives?

In other words, why was the Battle of Stalingrad long considered a turning point in the war on the Eastern Front and why has the Battle of Moscow since been regarded as having greater significance?--Melmann^(talk) 04:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You think the Battle of Moscow is now regarded as having greater significance simply because your lecturer happens to think so? Is your lecturer even a historian? If he is, how do you know there's even 1 other historian who agrees with him? --140.180.5.49 (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he holds a Ph.D in history and is a published academic and a fulltime history lecturer. I was simply not given a chance to ask him about it so I'm turning to you for some help. I am not taking his claim at face value, but to be honest I don't think there is anyone who's opinions on history I hold in higher regard than him.--Melmann^(talk) 06:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak from experience that having a Ph.D., a publication record, and being a history lecturer does not make one reflective of all thinking in the historical discipline. It's a big discipline. This sounds like a rather idiosyncratic opinion. Maybe a very good one! (I don't do the Eastern Front, so I don't know.) But it doesn't sound like something one should assume is common. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's really a question of interpretation. No war has a single turning point at which an army goes from invincible victors to hopeless losers. The Battle of Moscow was the first time the Soviets really stopped a German army, so it had symbolic importance as well as preventing the fall of Moscow which would have been a major blow to the USSR. The Stalingrad was much more decisive in that huge numbers of German troops were captured and the German war machine was greatly weakened and it began to seem that Germany would lose the war. On the other hand, some call the Battle of Kursk the really decisive one as it was the last time Germany mounted a major offensive on the Eastern Front, and it was completely turned around, paving the way for the total defeat of Germany. We have good articles on all of those which explain their significance. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I might argue that the turning point was when the Germans first decided to attack Russia, without having taken Britain out first. This two-front war (three, if you count North Africa) was ultimately unwinnable, although it took some time for this to become apparent to them. Similarly, I would argue that Japan was guaranteed to lose WW2 as of Pearl Harbor, they just didn't know it yet. StuRat (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those, in my mind, somewhat misunderstand what is meant by "turning point". Victories are not turning points. They may be Pyrrhic, but neither of those were Pyrrhic. They were just choices (victories, at that) which many years later proved to be bad gambles. But they were not "turning points." A good "turning point" is, generally speaking, a climax. Midway was the Pacific turning point, Pearl Harbor was not. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here we disagree. A decision may inevitably lead to defeat, even if not, at the time, obvious to all. I call the point at which such a decision is implemented the "turning point", not the point at which the disasterous results of that decision become apparent to all. StuRat (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Turning points" are, as the dictionary will alert you, climaxes. They are when the "tide turns," when the victor becomes the loser. They are pivotal moments. Pearl Harbor was not a pivotal moment — the Japanese were still on top in the Pacific until Midway, many months later. If one counts "all decisions that turned out badly" as "turning point," then you might as well say the Reichstag fire was a "turning point", or Hitler's taking power a "turning point", or any of the millions of technical antecedents to events as "turning points." Which so dilutes the phrase that it loses all useful meaning. In any case, the US was already on the path to war by the time of Pearl Harbor — that just made it an easy sell to the public. Even without Pearl Harbor it is inconceivable that the US would not have entered the war soon anyway; they'd have just found another excuse. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The diff is that Hitler might have remained Führer for decades, following those other events, but once he attacked the Soviet Union without first securing the Western Front, he was doomed. Similarly, Japan could have held onto their gains, if only they didn't attack Pearl Harbor. In both cases, a negotiated peace would have secured their possessions, if only they didn't get greedy (or Germany could have taken out the British Isles and then attacked Russia). StuRat (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medical education in Russia

Is Russian medical education good? What is the best medical institute in Russia for a foreign student? I google search I found a new of corruption in russian education system. does it happen in all russian universities? what is the reception of russian degree among American medical community? I am planning to study medicine in Russia. Plz help!!! --Ghechang11 (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could email the American Medical Association, and ask: mss@ama-assn.org. They may have a list of accepted credentials.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russian universities have a general problem with corruption. E.g. bribing professors to get a passing grade is common in many universities, and student cheating is the norm, and expected by both students and professors. This may or may not affect individual student's learning, since it is possible to both learn well and graduate under these conditions, it depends on the student. AMA does not recognize medical degrees from Russia as automatically equivalent to MD, they require additional (possibly very hard) certifications (tests) to qualify someone with a Russian medical degree to practice in the US. If you want to practice in the US, and don't have a medical degree yet, I'd say it's not very practical to obtain a degree from Russia. Get one from the US or Canada. --216.239.45.4 (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Henry?

I know we don't do "what ifs" here, so can anyone point me at a site where the question of what Great Britain would have been like if Prince Henry, the firstborn son of King James I of England had lived and succeeded his father, instead of the second son who became King Charles I, is discussed? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main alternate history forum is http://www.alternatehistory.com. Try searching there or, if the question hasn't yet come up, ask it yourself. Dalliance (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Guess I'll be spending some time round there! --TammyMoet (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest searching soc.history.what-if in whatever your favourite long term USENET archival service is. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I leave such geeky stuff to my husband, who is an uber-geek and plays about on USENET for fun! Why keep a dog and bark yourself! --TammyMoet (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest getting your trained dog to poke around on shw-i. Most good allohistorical content was produced on shwi 2000 to 2006. In contrast alternatehistory.com is much more mixed. On alternatehistory.com I recommend Jared's "Lands of Red and Gold" as an example of the better kind of speculation. You may find that restoration what ifs tend to be fairly poor in quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An even more interesting speculation is what England would have been like if Prince Arthur hadn't died and went on to become king of England instead of Henry VIII (who was destined for the Church)?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's your opinion, Jeanne. I'd venture to say that it is more common knowledge that Henry VIII had an older brother who died, than that Charles I had an older brother who died. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or, what if Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany hadn't died, and he became King after his brother Richard the Lionhearted, instead of their younger brother, John of England. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would Great Britain have been like if William of Normandy had never been born? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who can say? Possibly there would never have been a 'Great Britain' at all. The Normans were largely responsible for the initial forced incorporation of Wales into the kingdom, for a start. The language would be rather different too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do "what ifs" here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But we do refer people to sources of discussion of what-ifs. The discussion of Normanness has wide traction in both historical and allohistorical writing. I'm pretty sure that "Non-Norman England" comes up so often that it is viewed in communites that discuss allohistory as relatively "boring," like the goddamned Sealion. See soc.history.what-if or alternatehistory.com for a wide variety of discussions of Normanising England. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hanukkah

Is there some religious reason given why Judaism does not include the Book of Judith or the books of the Maccabees in the Torah, and yet celebrates Hanukkah which is based around events in those books? I'm not interested in external reasons, but in reasons given within the religious Jewish context. 86.140.54.3 (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Development_of_the_Hebrew_Bible_canon#Criteria_for_inclusion_in_the_Jewish_canon, which mentions Judith explicitly. There are several references to the book of Maccabees in the rest of the article: its inclusion/exclusion appears to be contentious. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There are several things to consider:

Historically, Hanukkah was a minor Jewish festival, it is not counted among the High Holy Days, it is more of a cultural-historical rememberance; which is not to say that it doesn't have any religious significance. Most ancient religions, and Judaism especially, does not draw a clear distinction between the cultural, historical, and religious significance of such things. However, Hanukkah has never been a "big deal" in Judaism, though in modern times it has become a bigger deal because of the proximity of Hanukkah to Christmas on the calendar.
The fact that the books of Judith or Maccabees aren't included in the Tanakh doesn't mean that the Jewish people or the Jewish religion considers them to be untrue or insignificant, they just aren't considered canonical scripture. The article Development of the Hebrew Bible canon covers much of this, it is very complex and not as simple as "if it isn't in the canon, we ignore it". Many of the so-called "apocryphal" or "extracanonical" books like Judith or the Macabees books were at one time part of the canon, in various times and places. For example, among many Hellenized Jewish people of the late BC-early AD period, the canon was the Septuagint instead of the Masoretic Text, the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to indicate some acceptance of non-Masoretic texts as canonical among the Qumran.
It isn't, therefore, a contradiction for a people to celebrate a significant historical event in their culture, and to celebrate such an event with clear religious implications, even if the event is not described explicitly within the canon. The reason it is celebrated is that it was an important event in the history of Judaism. --Jayron32 14:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Lag BaOmer and Tisha B'Av for other Jewish holidays which have no biblical origin. --ColinFine (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Blossom Babies?

I just read some examples of stereotypes on Asian women from a paper. In that paper, it states:

...."Lotus Blossom Babies" (a.k.a. China Doll, Geisha Girl, and shy Polynesian beauty)."

And then I noticed that this article has a similar statement. But as a non-American, I can't imagine what those characters are look like.

My main question is: who are "Lotus Blossom Babies"? 112.105.52.20 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand "what those characters are look alike". The stereotype is described in our article as "submissive, docile, obedient, reverential". I would add shy, and in traditional dress. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And there is a typo, it should be "like" instead of "alike". And I at first thought these terms, such as China Doll or Geisha Girl, are some names of movie characters. 112.105.52.20 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "what those characters are look like" still doesn't make sense. Do you mean "How do those stereotypes look" ? StuRat (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a grammatical mistake I often come across when talking to people who have an East- or South-East Asian language as mother tongue. It is a complication of the simple present tense, so the question should be 'What those characters look like', or, indeed, as you say, 'How do those stereotypes look?'. V85 (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The designation "Lotus Blossom Babes" was no doubt inspired by the geisha character Lotus Blossom in The Teahouse of the August Moon, who is a classic instance of the trope. Another example (also in a film featuring Marlon Brando) would be Maimiti in Mutiny on the Bounty. Deor (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is an MRS degree?

How does a person get a MRS degree from a 4-year college or university? What does MRS stand for, and what does it do? I was reading an article for nurses, and it recommended that the reader should not "snag up a doctor" and "get an MRS degree". Hope that context helps. Is MRS degree related to nursing in any way? Or is that Master's of Nursing Practice? 140.254.121.33 (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke, I say a joke, son. The stereotype is that a certain sort of female university student enrolls, not so much to get an education, as to get a husband. It's Mrs. rather than MRS. --18:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt they were referring to a Masters in Religious Studies. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this is the sort of question that can be answered with a simple search [1], [2], [3], [4] Nil Einne (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racism laws in South Africa

This is not a legal question, I don't even live in South Africa, just curious about how their laws compare to America's. Are you allowed to publicly be a racist in South Africa? Either racist against blacks or whites. Or have hate groups in South Africa? I'm mostly comparing their laws to the laws in the United States. I know in the US, you are allowed to be racist and have hate groups, these are protected under the 1st amendment. Like for example if a blogger in South Africa wrote anti-white or anti-black blogs would they get into trouble?

I'm assuming that after whites dismantled apartheid in South Africa, they took measures to ensure that they would not be oppressed by blacks. What, if any, measures did they take to prevent this? ScienceApe (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on South Africa, but I think there are some pretty racist groups openly operating there, such as in this link or this video. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000, section 12 prohibits dissemination, broadcasting, publication or display of information, advertisement, or notices "that could reasonably be construed or reasonably be understood to demonstrate a clear intention to unfairly discriminate against any person", section 11 prohibits "harassment", and section 10 prohibits "hate speech". Most of the South African court cases relevant to this act and with articles on Wikipedia are about discriminating against sexual orientation, but the law specifically lists "race" as well (see article). This pdf file has the exact wording. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decapitate

When this practice was made worldwide illegal? I read in Decapitation article but the info was not in there!Pendragon5 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Saudi Arabia, at least, it's apparently still in use. They don't mess around with evildoers in that country. Chop-chop, you gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must be confusing when the prison tries to take a head-count. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

[5] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last beheading in France was in 1977, see Hamida Djandoubi. The guillotine was abolished there in 1981, and in East Germany in 1987. --Jayron32 02:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Germany formally abolished the death penalty in 1987 (the last military death penalty was acted out in 1981 (Werner Teske), the last one in a civil case in 1972 (de:Erwin Hagedorn)), the guillotine was abolished in 1968. --::Slomox:: >< 07:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In short... the practice is not "illegal" worldwide... there are a few countries that still practice it. Most countries have banned it (in some cases substituting another form of death penalty) but they did so individually, and at different times. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be under the mistaken impression that there is some global organization that decides these kinds of issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would the United Nations Convention Against Torture have any bearing on the issue? 58.111.237.8 (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]