Humanities desk
< November 18	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 20 >

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.

November 19

Lolita quote?

I'm looking for a quote on Nabokov's Lolita, from a critic back when the book first came out. He called it funny; probably "darkly funny" (I don't remember, or otherwise I wouldn't be posting this.) I'm sure he said "funny", though, and not any other synonym (like "humourous"). Thanks in advance. 69.84.112.228 (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified artist "Watson"

File:Annual report (1906) (14748550322).jpg and File:Fishing for pike.jpg both seem to be signed by the same artist. The signature appears to me to be "?Y S. WATSON", where the question mark is a character I can't make out. Can anyone identify the artist? - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, I just answered my own question. It's "HY S. WATSON", and it's Henry Sumner Watson, who may deserve an article. - Jmabel | Talk 00:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social democracy vs social liberalism

What are the differences between social democracy and social liberalism? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 09:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly historical development: You can think of the two achieving essentially similar ideologies and goals and outcomes, but with a distinctly different origin. It's a form of convergent evolution among political ideologies. Social democratic parties originated as an offshoot of Marxism (i.e. pure socialism) and gradually began adopting more of the tenets of liberal democracy. Social liberalism began as an offshoot of classical liberalism that began to adopt more socialist policies. You can see these differences in the "Development" and "Origins" sections of the two articles. --Jayron 32 15:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final fate of the Orlik armoured train

What happened to the Orlik armoured train[1][2][3] used by the Czech legion? Does it still exist, and if so, where?

The last record I was able to find says the Japanese forces used it during WWII in China. Due to its size and obsolescence, I doubt it was transported back to Japan at any point during or after the war, so presumably it's still somewhere in China (if it hasn't been melted down for scrap already).

I'd doubt it's in a museum somewhere since it's not historically significant to the Chinese, or the Russians who built it, but it's a pretty amazing piece of history for the Czech people so I'd like to track it down. 731Butai (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the discussion in this forum correctly [4] the caption in the photo suggests it was destroyed on August 22 (don't know what year) in Shmakovka, in Primorsky Krai, Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood the concept of an armored train which I encountered for the first time in the movie Doctor Zhivago. Even leaving aside aviation, they seem so easy to disable: you blow up the tracks and they're stuck. If you want to repair the track you're no longer protected. Besides the quantity of spare tracks you can carry is limited. Can someone explain what exactly they were good for? Contact Basemetal here 20:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article does. The obvious question is what's alternative are you thinking of? Steam trucks require decent roads or passageways which are also somewhat vunerable to destruction so aren't that useful particularly if you have far fewer of them than tracks. Transport by water requires water. Not really sure why Aviation came in to it, Rigid airships and powered heavier than air flight didn't come until the 20th century in a meaningful way. By the time of Orlik, these combined with other stuff like the caterpillar track, internal combustion engine and massive increase in roading were changing things hence why they were dying out, but that's irrelevant to why they were once quite a useful thing. (Although rail was still quite a useful thing in certain places, particularly if you had decent control over the territory, as the Death Railway unfortunately showed.) If you're asking why armour if it can still get stuck, consider that getting stuck is likely to be considered far better than getting destroyed which itself is likely to be far better than get captured. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that, but armoured trains were still in widespread use at the start of WWII. The thinking behind them was that they could quickly bring a huge amount of firepower to any given point, at a time when tanks could move at 30 mph at best and some could barely manage 10 mph and a train could easily do 60 or 70 mph. The armoured train would move up, do its stuff and retire again before its tracks could be overrun. Few military thinkers (even German ones) had envisaged the kind of fluid fronts produced by Heinz Guderian's panzer divisions and few armoured trains survived contact with them. We Britons were still making armoured trains in 1940 and they were used to patrol coastal rail lines; the theory being that as an enemy landing party came ashore, a train could be pulled up nearby and plaster them with machine gun and anti-tank fire while they were still on the beach. Fortunately, this theory was never put to the test. Alansplodge (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a way to quickly bring a large amount of firepower to bear to any point of a closed perimeter that the enemy has to cross (as in the UK WWII case mentioned by Alan) the armored train does make some sense, but most uses were not of that order. Does anyone have any example, any battle, from the Russian Civil War for example, where the armored train played a crucial role?

Regarding the concept of the mobile tank warfare which is usually considered to be a purely German contribution, and which made many things (among them armored trains) obsolete, it seems it had been developed independently by de Gaulle in his book Vers l'Armée de Métier, which had few readers in France but ten times more in Germany: "In 1934 [De Gaulle] wrote Vers l'Armée de Métier ([French] Toward a Professional Army), which advocated a professional army based on mobile armored divisions. Such an army would both compensate for the poor French demography, and be an efficient tool to enforce international law, particularly the Treaty of Versailles, which forbade Germany from re-arming. He proposed mechanization of the infantry, with stress on the wholesale use of tanks. Ironically the German panzer units, so effectively employed in the invasion of France in 1940, utilized similar theories, while the French dispersed and wasted their armor. The book sold only 700 copies in France, where Pétain advocated an infantry-based, defensive army, but 7,000 copies in Germany, where it was studied by Adolf Hitler." (from WP article Charles de Gaulle). Mikhail Tukhachevsky in the USSR also developed similar ideas. I'm not saying the Germans got their idea from de Gaulle or from anyone else, but that it could be that several forward military thinkers had independently arrived at the idea, but the Germans were those who implemented it first and in the most efficient way.

Contact Basemetal here 11:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The conception of the armoured formation is usually considered to be the brainchild of "Boney" Fuller and Basil Liddel Hart who inspired the British Experimental Mechanized Force in 1927. It was based on the experience of the use of medium tanks at the Battle of Amiens (1918). However, neither the British or French high commands were really convinced of the concept since the inter-war tanks were not terribly capable. However, the Germans seized on the idea and Hitler even invited Fuller to inspect his new panzer divisions, asking if Fuller recognised his children. Fuller was so impressed by Hitler that he became a leading Fascist, thereby losing any credibility that he had left in the UK. Even the German high command weren't really sure about the Blitzkreig idea, but Guderian sold the idea to Hitler and they were overruled.

For the Poles and the Russians, the main armoured train users, the issue was the large distances that needed to be covered and the inability of 1930s tanks to cover these. Before tank transporters had been developed, the only way to move tanks at any speed was to laboriously load them onto railway flatbed wagons and then unload them again close to where they were needed. Any long drive on their own tracks resulted in a catalogue of mechanical failures and top speeds varied from 10 to 30 mph on road. The Germans not only developed transporters, but also more mechanically reliable tanks and a superb mechanical support infrastructure that allowed tanks to be kept in fighting condition. Both Russia and Poland had used armoured trains with some success in the early 1920s and they were seen as a valuable adjunct to other fighting arms rather than as a battle winner on their own. As history shows, they were less effective than expected, but hindsight makes things easy for us. Alansplodge (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you may be interested in Battle of Mokra (1 September 1939) which says:

"At 1030, the Polish 4th Squadron of the dismounted 19th Cavalry Regiment was attacked from behind and pushed out of the forest. This threatened the separation of their 19th and 21st Regiments. Colonel Filipowicz ordered the 19th Regiment to withdraw to the other side of the railway, but the way was already occupied by German tanks and the unit was effectively surrounded. However, the Polish defence was reinforced by the arrival of the Armoured train No. 53, known as Śmiały ("bold"), which arrived on the battlefield the very moment the German tanks were crossing the railway line. It stopped in the middle of the German column and opened fire with its 75mm and its heavy machine guns at close range on the German tanks. The German column was dispersed and retreated with heavy losses, losing a number of Panzer I and II tanks, while the 19th Regiment crossed the railroad under cover of the armoured train. Although the 19th Regiment suffered heavy losses, it managed to regroup on the other side.

"Simultaneously, a German attack on the main positions of the 21st Regiment near the village of Mokra began. German tanks managed to outflank the 4th Squadron of the Regiment from the north, at the same time attacking it frontally. In the result, the Polish defenders were pushed out of the forest and heavy fights for the village itself started. The Germans lost four tanks to the Polish 2nd Artillery Battalion firing from across the railway, but the 4th battalion was in retreat, fighting for almost every house in the village and suffering heavy losses. Again the day was saved by Śmiały. It arrived in the area at the height of the battle and opened fire from a distance of almost 2.5 km, which was beyond the effective range of all German tank guns of the time, in the end destroying or knocking out several more Panzer I and IIs."

(Later in the battle) " When the German tanks crossed the line, both of the armoured trains arrived and attacked them from behind. While the losses in tanks were limited, the panic that started in German units resulted in many tanks being abandoned by their crews, who could not drive the tanks directly through the railway tracks (elevated some two metres above the ground) and the crossing was blocked by burning AFVs. Although both trains suffered some losses and were finally forced to retreat, the panic in German ranks was not stopped. In the smoke some of the German tanks started firing at German positions, while others simply retreated towards the initial position, directly through the German infantry." Alansplodge (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]