Humanities desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 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.

April 26

Living people associated with Nazi Germany

I saw the article Otto Carius and he is living. Is there other people who is still living and was associated with organizations in Nazi Germany? --Yoglti (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My neighbor Otto Carius (photo) is believed to be the eldest still active pharmacist in Germany. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI was in the Hitler Youth, though apparently unenthusiastically so. Many such German residents of his age would have been, and so there are probably many living people who were. --Jayron32 04:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some: Rochus Misch. Erich Priebke. Rudolf von Ribbentrop. Oskar Gröning. Søren Kam. Gerhard Sommer. Heinrich Boere. Eberhard Heder. Joachim Boosfeld. Friedrich Buck. Karl-Heinz Euling. Hans Hoffmann. Klaus Dylewski. Gerda Warko. Margot Wölk. --Viennese Waltz 04:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, ultimately it comes down to "Is there anyone still alive today who also lived in 1930s-1940s Germany". While not every resident of Germany was formally involved in Nazi organizations, enough were that there are probably quite a few alive today. --Jayron32 05:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like former chancellor Helmut Schmidt or Nobel-prize winner Günter Grass. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "organizations in Nazi Germany"? Does a firefighter or teacher employed by the state count? If so, any country is going to have a large group of civil servants. I don't think it's particularly interesting to track down who all these civil servants were. --140.180.249.226 (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting side note: when Nobel Prize laureate François Jacob died earlier this week, French newspapers pointed out that there were only 16 Compagnon de la Libération left alive (out of over 1000 recipients). The ranks of persons who played a significant role around World War II are thinning out around the world. --Xuxl (talk) 07:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My next door neighbour was in the Hitler Youth. Now I'm simply an Aussie of mature years. A bit of simple maths - you could be in the Hitler Youth at age 10. It operated until 1945. A ten year old joining in 1945 would be 78 this year. Plenty of 78 year olds around. HiLo48 (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many joined in 1945. By then it should have been apparent to all that Nazi Germany was on it's last legs. StuRat (talk) 08:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that it was on its last legs led to every living person in Berlin being required and expected to work in the final defence against the Soviet attack. Some generals were so appalled by this, that when they asked what weapons they were to supply the population with, and were told Panzerfausts (which is a one-shot, disposable weapon), they retorted 'And what do we do when they have been fired?", and the reply from one General was "Well, we can use the tubes as clubs." Everyone was expected to fight - pensioners, women, and children. And most of them did, because they didn't know what would happen to them if they didn't. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 year-old boys joined the Deutsches Jungvolk until the age of 14; it was the junior section of the Hitler Jugend. According to our article, membership of the Jungvolk was compulsory "in some areas". The boys that were fighting in Berlin were, as far as I know, in the HJ proper; i.e. 14 and over. I'll try to find a reference. I've never read of Jungvolk being used in a combat role, but I suppose that it's possible. They certainly helped the authorities during air-raids, but becoming a Flakhelfer ("anti-aircraft helper"), was a role normally filled by teenagers - our article says that the last call-up was for those born in 1928 (16 in 1945). Note that in the UK, 14 year-olds who were members of certain youth organisations could join the ARP Messenger Service, which also put them into the line of fire. Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@KageTora: Or rather, they were told that the Soviets would murder, rape, and pillage. With some degree of accuracy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dead-ender Nazis went around hanging "defeatists" like mayors of small towns who did not enthusiastically join in the suicidal last ditch defense against the Soviets, or who did not fly the Nazi flag in the town square when Russki tanks were approaching. Anyone who tried to sit out the end of the war was at rist of being summarily executed by the diehard Nazis as an example to the others. There are many photos of civilians who were hanged for hanging a white flag from a window of their home, for instance. Edison (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just today, the New York Post published an article about Hitler's last living food taster, Margot Woelk, age 95. [1] (whom I now see was mentioned above by Viennese Waltz, as Margot Wölk. - Nunh-huh 02:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There might be some with articles in Category:Nazis.—Wavelength (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abolition of slavery in Illinois

When was the process of enslavement officially abolished in Illinois — was it with the passage of the 13th Amendment, or sooner? Everything I find on Google talks about the original constitution of 1818, which pretty much banned slavery but made an exception for whoever worked the Illinois Salines in Gallatin County (see Crenshaw House); the constitution apparently permitted the operator of the salines to obtain new slaves because free men couldn't be found to work the salines, and I'm basically trying to figure out when the exception for the salines was removed. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source (written for kids, but it seems to be from a valid historical society, so bear with the silly pretense) claims the exemption was repealed in 1825. This source reference the Crenshaw house, which wasn't built until 1834, but later says that Crenshaw's activities were illegal and he was eventually shut down. The first isn't the greatest source, but it does give you a date to check on in other sources, and the second doesn't give a date for when the exemption was repealed, but does imply that Crenshaw's activities weren't on the up-and-up. Just some leads to follow. --Jayron32 05:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't read it online, but this looks promising too: [2]. --Jayron32 05:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois didn't repeal its "black laws" until after the Civil War (around 1865 it seems) (Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, And Historical ..., Volume 2, 702) although it was a free state at the time. Illinois had indentured servitude though well after 1818. But it wasn't technically slavery by the legal understanding of the time (The Legal Understanding of Slavery: From the Historical to the Contemporary, edited by Jean Allain, p 138-39). As I understand it (and I could be wrong) the slavery in Illinois territory was largely slaves from the south (including Missouri) who were hired as indentured servants in Illinois territory. The legislature apparently banned the indenture system in 1817, but that was vetoed by governor Ninian Edwards. The 1818 constitution only had 2 caveats for slavery: 1) French were allowed to keep their slaves; 2) and indentured servant contracts remained in effect if they predated the constitution. (The Frontier Against Slavery: Western Anti-Negro Prejudice and the Slavery ... By Eugene H Berwanger, 14). They then tried for a constitutional convention in 1824 only to be rejected by a rough 5:7 margin.

I can't give a satisfying answer to your question, hopefully someone else can. But what I've gathered in my brief research, is that there wasn't formal slavery, but Illinois had a number of loopholes that made indentured servitude defacto slavery for many blacks. I don't know when that ended exactly. Shadowjams (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a CN to the sentence in the Crenshaw House article given some of the sources I found. Shadowjams (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ninian Edwards article has some further discussion on the defacto status of indentured servitude slavery at the time. Shadowjams (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't indentured servitude typically have an expiration date? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I don't know. Maybe as a contract, but as an institution, no. The 13th amendment wisely ended it though. Illinois might have done so sooner, I never found a good reference on that point though. It clearly was illegal after the 13th amendment. Shadowjams (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If indentured servitude was a contract, and voluntary, then the 13th amendment wouldn't apply. Of course, the south found a way around it, called peonage, which was actually worse than slavery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quite that simplistic Bugs. Our 13th amendment article explains some of the detail, but even some voluntarily entered into contracts are prohibited by the 13th Amendment. That's not the litmus test. Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the ways Northern states like Illinois got around the prohibition of chattel slavery was to call it "indentured service" and then set the expiration date for the service contract to some unreasonable time in the future. If you sign a 20 year old male, whose life expectancy would be 60 years old, to a "term" of 99 years, that's just slavery with a legalistic work-around. See This page, which states "Under indentured servitude, African Americans were “contracted” to work for a specific term of service for no pay, under the complete dominance and control of the contract owner, and with no rights as a citizen. In many instances these “contracts” were for as long as 99 years. It is unlikely that the servants knowingly or freely entered into those contracts. Most of the servants undoubtedly claimed they never signed the contract." In many cases, slaves from the south were "emancipated" in places like Illinois by converting their slavery status to that of a 99-year indentured service contract. This was done between their "master" from the Southern state (usually Missouri or Tennessee in the case of Gallatin County, from what my readings are showing here) and their new "employer" from Illinois. I'm not sure such a change of wording produced a functional difference for the person so indentured. My understanding is that this practice continued right into the 1860s. --Jayron32 15:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that the Northwest Ordinance prohibited slavery in the area that was to become Illinois in 1787. Apparently, existing residents, such as the French, were allowed to retain their slaves, and loopholes were made for "indentured servants" as reflected in the Illinois constitution, which seems to have maintained the status quo under the Northwest Ordinance. So slavery was unusual and exceptional in Illinois, but those exceptions probably weren't eliminated until the passage of the 13th Amendment. Marco polo (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole long article, History of slavery in Indiana, about a neighboring state. Dred Scott was held for a time in what later became Illinois when it was a territory. During 1857-1861, many northerners interpreted the Dred Scott decision as a nefarious scheme to allow slaveowners to bring slaves into northern states for indefinite "temporary" periods... AnonMoos (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the Illinois Historical Journal seems a good overview of the the state's handling of slaves and slavery. According to the 1818 constitution (Article VI, Section 2), the exception for the salt works you (Nyttend) refer to expired in 1825, as Jayron noted above; but it may well be that slaves were used (and even brought) there after that date with no legal action being taken. Deor (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

florence italy, San Miniato cemetery, Maria Grazia Colella and Mario Mazzone, died in 1944 and 1945 story

I have found the basics, but I would really like to know the full story. Were they married. Did he die in the US bombing of Hamm Germany? Was he a POW? What did she do and how did she die? Who commissioned the couples statue? Any additional info would be helpful. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.126.104 (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Columbus's second trip

Is there records of about how many men Christopher Columbus took on his second trip to the New World in 1493? LordGorval (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our article says 1,200. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Great, thanks! So according to the article it says ...a fleet of 17 ships carrying 1,200... would mean then about 70 men on "average", with some (perhaps flagships) carrying more than this "average" to make this average come out for the 17 ships involved. The smaller ships I would imagine carried perhaps 50-70. Any guesses on this? LordGorval (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you just do that? --Jayron32 15:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The flagships I would guess would carry, say 80-90. The smaller ships then I would guess would carry 50-60. Am I in the ballpark for fifteenth century ships that would go on long voyages? LordGorval (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the Columbus's_second_voyage there were 15 Carracks and 2 Caravels. The latter were much bigger, so, I suppose your guess is wrong, and there were less than 50-70 in each one. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Exploring Expedition today

Why is the United States Exploring Expedition less known or popularized as the Lewis and Clark today (outside of historians specialized in this period or regions explored)? I was talking to my college professors today and they never even heard of it.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because it came later, and people tend to find historical importance in primacy? I understand that the missions had different goals and different specific areas, but broadly speaking "Mapping and exploring all that land out west" was first done on a large scale by Lewis and Clark. Later groups which did the same thing aren't viewed as historically significant, regardless of how big, different, or worthwhile their work was. Now, finding references that definitively answer your question in a specific manner will be impossible to find, you're going to get what I just gave you from different people: speculation, because your question is seeking an answer for which no one has likely studied in a systematic way. --Jayron32 15:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another explanation is that it lies outside the main narratives of textbook U.S. history. The Lewis and Clark expedition are part of the narrative of westward movement, of settling and populating the American West. The USEE was more about mapping the Pacific Ocean and its periphery. The USEE could be cited as a very early case of US imperialism in the Pacific, but in textbook history, US action in the Pacific is usually presented as part of the narrative "the United States becomes a world power". The first event in that narrative is usually the Perry Expedition, followed by the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War. The USEE occurred before the United States could possibly be considered a world power, so it is hard to fit into the limited number of narratives that traditional textbooks (and state curriculum standards) can incorporate. Marco polo (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During that period, some natives as far away as Sakhalin had heard of "Boston" due to New England ships trading in a number of areas of the Pacific; what Wikipedia has is at Old China Trade (though confined to China). AnonMoos (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comparable would be the Pike expedition and John Wesley Powell's expeditions which are far less well-known than Lewis&Clark but at least touched on in some school curricula. These two explored U.S. territory and a one-armed man whitewater rafting down unexplored rivers in hostile Indian country is an easy subject to teach. Rmhermen (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for 3 books

My father when I was young had a 3 book collection of a "series" I remember the type of each of the books they were both separated by "Location" "thing(like a monster or a weird beast)" or I think the 3rd was "vehicles" but I am not for certain. each book was black cover and they were hard back. My father would never let me read them because he said they were scary but I read some of them anyway. I remember that in the "monster" book there was some sort of beast that may have been a worm or a mole like creature that lived the western united states that was in a desert. I hope this information was sort of useful please help me relive some lost childhood moments. I also do not know how old they were I read the books between 1994-2004. thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.47.115 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were they stories or non-fiction? If they were no-fiction, this isn't a perfect fit, but they remind me of this: Mysteries of the Unknown. The qualify as potentially scary for kids. Mingmingla (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now I can finally relive some lost memories from childhood and you were right about the mysteries of the unknown. thank you a million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.47.115 (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]