Humanities desk
< July 8	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 10 >

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.

July 9

Nazi food and oil pre-Barbarossa

Was the Third Reich self sufficient in food and petroleum immediately before it invaded the Soviet Union?--Wikimedes (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is complex, but seems to be "no" for oil. This essay discusses it to some extent: Oil. Short story: Germany was making lots of synthetic oil, but its facilities were very vulnerable to bombing and, in any case, it was till importing a large part of its need (that even increased later) from Romania and USSR. That's part of the reason why, upon declaring war on USSR, Germans chose to attach towards Caucasus and its oil fields, instead of just focusing the attach on Moscow.No longer a penguin (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On which territories? It wasn't self-sufficient in oil within the 1937 boundaries (excluding Ploesti, etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Economist John Maynard Keynes had argued for Germany to pay World War I reparations "..it was the policy of France to set the clock back and undo what, since 1870, the progress of Germany had accomplished. By loss of territory and other measures her population was to be curtailed; but chiefly the economic system, upon which she depended for her new strength, the vast fabric built upon iron, coal, and transport must be destroyed." In 1928 Germany called for a new payment plan, resulting in the Young Plan that established the German reparation requirements at 112 billion marks (US$26.3 billion) and created a schedule of payments that would see Germany complete payments by 1988. With the collapse of the German economy in 1931, reparations were suspended for a year (see Hoover Moratorium) and in 1932 during the Lausanne Conference they were cancelled altogether. Between 1919 and 1932, Germany paid less than 21 billion marks in reparations, about one eighth of the sum required under the ill-fated Treaty of Versailles.

Albert Speer, the German Minister for Armaments and War Production, later said in his post-war interrogation, "the need for oil certainly was a prime motive" in the decision[ Operation Barbarossa ] to invade". In 1918 U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had declared "The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy." 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on the Nazi oil situation is Hitler's Quest for Oil: the Impact of Economic Considerations on Military Strategy, 1941-42 by Joel Hayward, from The Journal of Strategic Studies. It confirms User:No longer a penguin's findings above. Alansplodge (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As regards food self sufficiency, War, Economy, and Society, 1939-1945 By Alan S. Milwar (pp. 261-263) says that grain imports to Germany (from other European countries including some from the Soviet Union) had reached nearly double pre-war levels by 1943/44 "because of the enormous number of foreign workers and prisoners of war". Germany had been self sufficient in meat before the war, but crops tended to replace livestock on German farms resulting in a fall in meat production by almost a half in 1942/43. However, he says that there were no serious problems in the domestic food supply until 1944/45. In the occupied territories however, "acute problems developed". Alansplodge (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references. From Hayward I get a rough estimate of oil production vs. needs as follows: Assuming a German prewar need of 7.5M tons of oil, German production of 2.5M tons, and 1941 imports from Rumania of 2M tons, Germany only had replenishable supplies amounting to 60% of its needs. There was no data on supplies vs. needs for occupied territories. Italy is described as having essentially no production and being a huge drain on oil after the naval blockade following the invasion of France stopped imports.

The picture from Milward is a bit more muddled, but it seems to indicate that although the plans were for Soviet and especially Ukrainian agriculture to feed the empire, in reality, most of Germany's food imports came from SE Europe (Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Yugoslavia), Denmark, Italy, and later France, with about 10% coming from the USSR (data is in food cost rather than calories or tons). There's also a prewar study indicating that North African as well as Soviet food would be needed to feed the planned empire.

@AnonMoos: I was interested in the full territory of the Third Reich immediately before the Soviet invasion, and perhaps dependable and dependent continental allies as well. Basically wondering if Germany could have consolidated it's gains rather than launching an invasion that ultimately destroyed it.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Manor titles

I was recently reading up about people losing money on buying (fake) Lord of the Manor titles and am intrigued. What is it people would have to actually purchase in order for such a title to be valid? Obviously many of these titles are almost a thousand years old, so one couldn't possibly purchase the original "deed" or whatever.

Plus according to the changes in Manorial Incorporeal Law 2010 "A full set of correctly worded and correctly executed and consecutive deeds are required from when the lordship was first granted or Time Immemorial (1189). A statutory declaration stating ownership or partial deeds will not prove legal rights of ownership to a Manorial Lordship title."

So surely this means all subsequent owners of the title must be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.88.192.37 (talk) 08:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for the 'manorial incorporeal law'? The phrase has very few Google results, which all seem to relate to a business, or at most two businesses, claiming to carry on such a trade. One of them (the top hit, which has a horrible website) uses a clearly misleading business name to perpetuate its business. I'm not convinced that there is such a law. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yep that's where I got it from. But funnily enough the text seems to be in contrast with what they actually claim to be doing. Perhaps forget the latter part of my question, I don't really know why I added it anyway. Thanks,217.88.192.37 (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A manorial lordship is an interest in land, which means that it can be held freehold or leasehold, in accordance with the terms of the Law of Property Act 1925. That act drastically simplified property law in England and Wales, but did not abolish manorial lordships. As Lord_of_the_manor#Current_status relates, the land, the title and the rights are in fact separate interests in land, so you could buy the title 'Lord of the Manor of X' from its current holder just like buying land. I believe the recent ruling means that such transactions now have to be logged with the Land Registry. The deeds themselves aren't any kind of magic - they just record the fact of the sale of the appropriate part of the manor. More than that, I couldn't say without spending the rest of the morning reading law reports. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your answer. Yes, I got that bit. Only I still don't get what one is actually purchasing? A deed stating that you are lord of the manor? Well where's the proof this person selling a manorial lordship is the rightful lord of the manor in the first place? Surely the original documents (often very old, as I mentioned in my original post) are not available for purchase? And if it's just some kind of legal document transferring the title, then surely anyone could do this? I could have my lawyer draw up a document stating I am lord of the manor of 'somewhere' (preferable a manorial lordship I have found to exist) and ask someone to buy it off me. Who is going to prove that it is not mine to sell? Sorry, if I am being daft, but I still don't understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:60:D56:A301:98E7:8DE1:90D6:930C (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) If you sold a deed to a non-existent lordship, I believe that (since last year) the Land Registry would be able to catch you out, since they now have a record of all extant valid lordships; 2) If you produce a false deed to a genuine lordship, the real owner would have a clear legal case against you - you could expect them to produce their own deed, showing that they got it from a genuine earlier owner, and also (if they did as they were supposed to) evidence that they'd logged their claim at the Land Registry. It's no different to any other interest in land: if I sell you land I don't own, by means of a fictive instrument, I'm committing fraud. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

217.88.192.37 -- Manorial lordships are basically relics or remnants of feudal privileges connected with land which have become separable from ownership of the land itself. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the rural upper classes were often most concerned about such things in connection with hunting privileges. Nowadays, scam artists try to blur the line between manorial lordships and titles of nobility, and people who buy them for that reason are almost certainly wasting their money. But if you know exactly what you're buying, then lordships with certain specific privileges attached to them can sometimes be a sound investment like any other monetary investment... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks guys, that clarifies part of my question somewhat. However, I still don't quite get what exactly the original legitimate owner posseses that proves they are the rightful owner? 2003:60:D56:A301:488:511D:D287:EB4D (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said that it's just like any other interest in land. How do you prove you own a house, or a field? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neolithic Revolution: "Sedentary" farming??

I've often seen early prehistoric farmers referred to, as in the article linked, as "sedentary" as opposed to their hunter-gatherer predecessers. "Sedentary" is generally defined as " (of work or a way of life) characterized by much sitting and little physical exercise." This seems demeaning and misleading when applied to those who worked the soil, using their own backs rather than machinery or even draft animals. If a neolithic farmer did "much sitting and little physical exercise" his family would starve. A better term is needed to show that the farmer stayed in the same place year round. The casual reader of "sedentary farmer" is likely to visualize a fat stoneage farmer sitting all day with his feet up while the crops and animals tend themselves. Edison (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a gloss, then. To me it's clear that 'sedentary' is here being used as an antonym for 'nomadic' or 'peripatetic', rather than 'active'. More problematically, transhumance farming is not nomadic, but it's not fixed to a single location either. Presumably it is intended as part of the agriculture arising out of the Neolithic Revolution, but it's not sedentary in the way that, say, growing corn is. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I've now linked the first mention of 'sedentary' in the article to sedentism, which is the relevant article. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um... do you actually have a question here? This is a reference desk, not a forum. Take any concerns you have about a mainspace article to its assoiciated talk page, in this case presumably Talk:Neolithic Revolution 186.95.67.108 (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The implied Q is "What's a better term to use in place of 'sedentary' ?". I agree that that term is misleading, but the Language Desk might be a better place to ask. StuRat (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the work load of early farmers and herders, I believe they had to work harder than hunters and gatherers, as they had to not only harvest their food, but also tend to every aspect of it's life cycle. The advantage, of course, was a larger and more reliable source of food, and thus the ability to support a larger population. StuRat (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "settled farming" seems to have some use: [1]. --Jayron32 15:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original meaning of sedentary was "not migratory, having a permanent seat, or location", which is the sense meant in "sedentary farming". This meaning of the word is not obsolete. The use of sedentary to mean "inactive" is a more recent development having to do with the rise of clerical and office work in the late 19th century. There is nothing wrong with using the word sedentary to refer to settled farming. Everyone knows that farming involves hard work, and there is no reason to pander to people unaware of a word's range of meanings. Seeing the word in this context will help people to expand their vocabulary so that they can make sense of the word used in this sense in other academic writing. Marco polo (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the method I chose when I fixed it. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a less ambiguous term, then I'd suggest changing to that. However, if there isn't one, then keeping the ambiguous term in, with a link to explain which usage we mean, is the best we can do. (I don't agree with the concept of intentionally using "challenging" words in order to encourage people to expand their vocab.) StuRat (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) The use of the term sedentary to describe farms/farming systems was widely used in anthropology. It's somewhat poor usage because it implies that there might be farms that people haul around on their backs (i.e. mobile farming), but the usage is longstanding. In the textbooks I read something-something years ago, the term was meant to differentiate "proper" farming from less aggressive, less full-time planting techniques termed "horticulturalism", which has no article and may now be obsolete anyway. Matt Deres (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Deres -- the main term for the main form of non-sedentary agriculture is Slash-and-burn. I think "horticulturalism" would mean tending many different plants without any particular staple crop, a supplement to a basically non-agricultural way of life... AnonMoos (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way the terms were meant to be used in anthropology. The theory, at least at one time, was that humans probably did not make a single leap from hunting/gathering to farming. As gathering became more organized, people would have gradually introduced techniques to enhance their harvests both consciously (weeding) and unconsciously (manure, seed spreading). However, they were not sedentary in any sense of the word. That kind of proto-farming was referred to as "horticulturalism", at least in the old textbooks and that's what sedentary farming is meant to be distinguished from. The horticulturalists still very much had one foot in the hunter/gatherer camp. It was less intense, partly unconscious, and even more at the whims of nature than normal farming would be. Whether that theory is still in vogue or whether it's been named something else, I don't know. I've been out of school for something-something years now. :) Matt Deres (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "sedentary" means "remaining in one place" and is connected with words that mean "sitting". It's usage as "not exercising" has been around for about 350 years.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I agree that we shouldn't use challenging words for the sake of being challenging. When a word is the standard term used in the academic literature, though, as sedentary is in this case, I don't think we should shy away from it because it has another, more commonly used meaning. Marco polo (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear the OP wasn't aware of the "academic" use of it, and Tiefling explained its usage. That could have been the end of it, but then the IP attacked the OP, and things went downhill from there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the IP in question is the usual Venezuelan troll, so his intent was to cause trouble. Which he did. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the less common and academic usage of the term, but I was seeking phraseology which did not misinform the general reader. I know that old-time farming in the my father' and grandfather's day was exhausting and backbreaking work, and my father said that clearing "new land" or brush with hand tools in the 20th century was the hardest work he did in a lifetime of hard physical work. How much more labor would be needed when stone and wood tools had to be used rather than steel? I fear that many casual readers will assume that neolithic farmers spent a lot of time sitting around, in contrast to the supposedly harder working hunters/gatherers. I sought better terminology. In an anthropology class many years ago I was told that, based on actual observations, remaining hunter/gatherers in the 20th century worked fewer hours a day than did modern farmers, factory workers or office workers, such as Bushmen working 15 hours a week on average. I also doubt the the first generations of farmers were able to remain at one spot for generations,contrary to the "stay in one place" meaning, since primitive farming mines the soil. Even in the 18th and 19th centuries farmers in the US would "wear out" a farm and then move on to a new site an start "mining" the topsoil there. Replenishment of the land with manure (animal and/or human) and compost was not necessarily done from the beginning of agriculture, though it may well have been learned to be necessary in some traditional farming societies. Edison (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should write articles for a general audience, not an academic audience. Therefore, if there is a word we can use which will be better understood by a general audience, we should use that rather than a purely academic term. If not, as I've said before, then an academic term, with a link to explain it, is the next best choice. It would also be a good idea to include a disclaimer right in the article that this is not the normal meaning of the term, as many will think they know what it means and not follow the link. An academic term with no explanation should be avoided. (This was the original situation.) StuRat (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link Alex added to Sedentism in the Neolithic Revolution article is very helpful and fixes the misleading meaning. I posted this because of reference i saw elsewhere recently in Wikipedia to "sedentary farmers" and to hearing the term used this week on public radio without explanation. At least here readers will be less likely to be misled regarding the issue. Words used in other than the common sense benefit from explanation or Wikilinks. Edison (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I added a parenthetic mini definition, for those who think they know what it means and therefore don't click on the link. (It would actually be better to use a word with no common definition, so they would know they need to click on the link.) StuRat (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all. Edison (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hedge Funds

Can hedge funds clear their own trades? Madoff's company was able to do that at the time so that there was no third-party info. to diverge from the customer statements. Does this condition still exist? This question is not brought up in the Wikipedia page on "Hedge Funds". Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7FC0:4B:5DBF:1940:C884:572E (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A hedge fund could still clear its own trades if it were a registered broker-dealer. Madoff's organization (which was not actually a hedge fund) was a broker-dealer, but the large majority of hedge funds are not. John M Baker (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of the Bagrationi dynasty

What is the oldest known version of the Coat of arms of the Bagrationi dynasty?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why that article is illustrated with a monochrome low-relief whatever, instead of a color image like File:Gruzinski.jpg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]