Humanities desk
< September 13	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 15 >

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 14

Baby bottles - a teat at each end

You used to see baby bottles which were sort of banana-shaped, and had a teat at each end. What was the reason for having two teats, and why the switch to one? DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too many babies, and contraception, in that order? HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only one teat was usable at a time, so I don't think the number of babies would have anything to do with it. DuncanHill (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just found my answer - one end was actually a valve, not a teat. They were called "Allenbury Feeders" and made by Allen & Hanburys. See The Baby Bottle Museum. DuncanHill (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not all: The same site describes that upright feeders (bottles with one teat) already existed early in the 20th century, but due to their long thin necks, they were harder to clean than the banana bottles they were competing with at the time. "Wide neck upright bottles did not appear until the 1950's in the UK. However they had been around in the USA since the early part of the 20 century." The History of the Feeding Bottle. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fascinating site! DuncanHill (talk) 04:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German interrogator/torturer in the Second World War - Bonner

The Daily Telegraph obituary of the historian M. R. D. Foot mentions "a notorious German interrogator called Bonner who had tortured some of the French SAS after capture" - who was this Bonner and what happened to him? DuncanHill (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I searched a bit, but couldn't find a first name. In his Memories of an S.O.E. Historian, Foot only refers to him as "a subaltern in the Sicherheitsdienst called Bonner". The book's index lists him as "Bonner, Hauptsturmführer". ---Sluzzelin talk 06:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a start - all I've found in a quick google are some very strange conspiracy theory sites. DuncanHill (talk) 06:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Foot says that no-one ever found him, and supposes him to have got away to "Egypt, or South America, or Hell". DuncanHill (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that the UK will lose its nuclear weapons if Scotland goes independent?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. But this is interesting. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will lose its submarine base for submarines which launch Trident missiles. There are a number of possible ways in which this could be adjusted, but it seems pretty clear that England-Wales-and-Northern-Ireland will keep authority and control over the nuclear weapons... AnonMoos (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the Trident submarines are based at Faslane, on the Gareloch, part of HM Naval Base Clyde, while the missile warheads (leased from the US) are stored nearby at Coulport. The SNP has made clear that it will want them moved out of Scotland if it becomes independent which is a problem as it's reckoned it'll cost £2-3 billion to build a replacement base. One suggestion I've seen mentioned as a stopgap solution, is to base them with the US Trident submarines in Kings Bay, Georgia, but basing them 3000 miles from home seems a bit extreme to me! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't the trident missiles leased, but the warheads themselves are British? CS Miller (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a BBC News report about the issue here, and the report from the Royal United Services Institute is here. DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For historically similar situations, see Baikonur Cosmodrome, Black Sea Fleet, etc. Russia, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, generally engaged in treaties with former Soviet republics to maintain military bases in their locations. Similar deals would likely be struck between Scotland and the UK. Many such deals would have to be ironed out with military, monetary policy, customs, border controls, etc. It is entirely unlikely (and many say folly) that a sovereign and independent Scotland would sever all ties with the UK and do everything on their own. Many treaties would be established where the UK and Scotland would negotiate how to handle many situations; much of those treaties would establish the "status quo" as the most advantageous for Scotland and the new rump UK... --Jayron32 19:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note however in terms of the subject of the question, as our article says UK Trident programme#Scottish politics

All major pro-independence Scottish political parties, such as the Scottish National Party, Scottish Green Party, Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity, have policies opposing the presence of the Trident system in Scotland.

Of course any negotiations would include all parties including those opposed to independence (although those supporting independence do currently have a majority in the Scottish parliament), however the expressed views (notably it seems to be a key part of the current majority parties platform_ suggest a starting point is likely to be the eventually removal of the Trident system from Scotland if they do vote for independence. (Our article hints at this too.) Major concessions (e.g. a currency union) may change minds, but the UK government would need to be willing to make them. Of course, not everyone in the UK may want them there in the event of independence anyway [1] although others suggest more extreme measures may be used to keep them there [2].

Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that Reagan's policies made the USSR's economy too sparse and limited to manage?

^Topic ScienceApe (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that some people have argued this. Whether the claim is itself true or not is a matter of opinion - and we don't answer requests for opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find opinions out there ranging from "Reagan single-handedly brought down the Iron Curtain" to "Reagan interfered, almost fatally, in the process of bringing down the Iron Curtain, but took all the glory for himself" and everything in between. This is a sign that there is no agreement as to what really happened. This question therefore can't be answered here, as we don't provide opinions.

Incidentally, it's far from unusual for historical processes to remain murky. There are many events in history that have never been explained to the satisfaction of all; get ten Tudor historians in a room and you'll have ten explanations of the fall of Anne Boleyn, each equally plausible. --NellieBly (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, quite, but we wouldn't rudely dismiss a question about Anne Boleyn as "a matter of opinion". This is history, we can provide arguments from historians. If you don't know, you don't have to answer... (Of course I can't answer this either, I just wanted to point out that it's a totally legitimate and answerable question.) Adam Bishop (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that the preamble "Is it true that..." can dress any debateable claim you fancy as an objective enquiry? 84.209.89.214 (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think anyone argues that Reagan's policies or any other historical process made the USSR's economy "too sparse and limited to manage". Some historians argue that Reagan's policies weakened the economy of the USSR to the point where it had to shift away from the planned economy that was the basis for the power of the Communist Party. But this weakness was not a matter of being too sparse and limited to manage. It was a matter of being unable to sustain a rate of growth that would allow Soviet military spending to match the rate of growth of U.S. military spending in the medium to long term. As a result, a segment of the Soviet elite, led by Gorbachev, decided to shift away from a planned economy in the hope of generating faster growth. They did not foresee that this would lead to the collapse of Communist power and the breakup of the Soviet empire, but that was probably one effect of that shift. Probably most historians would agree that the structural issue (higher U.S. economic growth rates, after the initial period of Soviet industrialization, due to a capitalist economy) made it inevitable that Soviet policy would face a crisis at some point, whether or not Reagan had been president. Also, I think most historians would agree that the end game for the Soviet Union resulted from the failed Soviet intervention in Afghanistan (note the section "Consequences of the war" in our article) and the U.S. rejection of the policy of détente, which resulted from the Soviet action in Afghanistan. Historians disagree on the relative importance of the failure in Afghanistan and the internal dissatisfaction this created within the Soviet Union on the one hand and external pressures connected with the end of détente on the other as causes of the shift in Soviet policy. It is this disagreement among historians that is central to the disagreement over Reagan's role in the process. In fact, the shift away from détente began under President Carter. While Reagan emphasized his opposition to détente in his presidential campaign, in fact his policies can be seen as a continuation of those of Carter, so that even if external pressure was the main cause of the collapse of the Soviet system, Reagan would have to share some of the credit for that collapse (if one believes that credit is due) with Carter. Marco polo (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApe -- I really don't know what "sparse and limited" would mean in that context, but it's often been claimed that the military buildup under Reagan caused the Soviet authorities to spend more than they could afford in response, and that this -- together with the general accumulated inefficiencies of an overcentralized "command economy", and the fact that fifty years after the atrocities of Stalin's forced collectivization the Soviets still couldn't manage to show a consistent agricultural surplus -- made it clear to many within the Communist party that there was need for far-reaching and fundamental reforms. AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet budget (and state-managed economy) collapsed after a severe drop in oil prices, starting in late 1985. In 6 months after Ahmed Zaki Yamani abandoned any pretence of keeping to the OPEC quota (Sept. 1985), the oil production in Saudi Arabia rose 3,5 times and oil prices fell 6,1 times. By the end of the 1980s, Gorbachev was reduced to touring the West in search of multibillion-dollar loans. Reagan's role in all of this is disputed. I don't think the US president has that much of an influence on the rates of Saudi oil production. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent and fascinating point, Ghirla. I hadn't been aware of the impact of the drop in the price of oil. Thanks. Marco polo (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]