Humanities desk
< March 5	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 7 >

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.

March 6

State-Founding Conference in Mongolia

In this book (https://books.google.it/books?id=rHainkH7pdEC&pg=PA378&dq=Hsilinkuolemeng&hl=it&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Hsilinkuolemeng&f=false) it is reported that in April 1936 Prince De, Li Shou-Hsin and Japanese Special Service Chief Tanaka met the rapresentatives of varius places in a “State-Founding Conference”. I’m having trouble identifying most of the lands they list:
Mengchenhui, Hsilinkuolemeng, Tsakmarmen, Ulanchapmeng, Tumetechi, Alashan, Koshimouchi, Ikechiameng, Tsinghai and Outer Mongolia.
In another book (https://books.google.it/books?redir_esc=y&hl=it&id=nnkNAAAAIAAJ&dq=Mengchenhui&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=Ikeehiemeng) the same list is given with slightly different names:
Mengchenhui, Hsilinkuolemeng, Tsakharmen, Ulanchapmeng, Tumotechi, Alashan, Koshimouchi, Ikechiemeng, Tsinghai and Outer Mongolia. --151.41.143.52 (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tsinghai seems to be Qinghai. DuncanHill (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hsilinkuolemeng is Xilinguole-meng, and Ulanchapmeng should be Ulanqab. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mengchenhui is Mengcun Hui Autonomous County; Tumotechi must be Tumd Youqi (or Tumd Zuoqi?), Alashan must be Alxa Left Banner or Alxa Right Banner, or maybe Alashankou; Tsakharmen is the old Chahar Province (which seems to be the current Chahar Right Front Banner, Chahar Right Middle Banner and Chahar Right Back Banner). I'm not sure about Koshimouchi or Ikechiemeng...I could be completely wrong based on my extremely rudimentary understanding of how to map these sounds into any modern transliteration, but maybe Koshimouchi is East Ujimqin Banner or West Ujimqin Banner? (Assuming that "Koshimouchi" is "Wuzhumuqin"?) My best guess for Ikechiemeng is Heshigten Banner. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are former Leagues of China, of which only 3 remain, the rest having been subdivided or converted into other administrative units.

I think Tumotechi is probably Tumd Youqi and Tumd Zuoqi together - the former is presumably "Tumd Banner", the latter two are "Tumd right-banner" and "Tumd left-banner" respectively. Tumd was never a league in itself, but see Tumed for the people.

Alashan is now Alxa League - again the left-banner and right-banner are subdivisions.

Tsakharmen is most likely "Chahar League" or "Chahar Meng" - again now divided into banners.

My best guess is Ikechiemeng is Ih Ju League, now Ordos City

I'm drawing a blank at Koshimouchi too. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of Administrative divisions of Mongolia during Qing that might help us figure it out... Adam Bishop (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked a list of the administrative subdivisions of the Mongol Local Autonomy Political Affairs Committee, which was the semi-autonomous entity directly preceding the military government declared in 1936, and couldn't see anything that sounded like Koshimou-chi.

There's also the possibility that Koshimou is a transcription based on Japanese pronunciations of Chinese characters which are themselves transcribed from Mongol names... The original source text in Japanese would be quite helpful here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to put the link here, in case I never get to this and someone else has the language ability, patience, and internet connection to finish it: the OP quoted from the majority judgment of the Tokyo International Military Tribunal for the Far East. It's in Section 3 of Chapter V. A fairly authoritative Chinese version of the judgment is available, here, but is accessible via a clunky interface. If anyone has a better internet connection and/or more time than me, you can click through the pages of Section 3 to get the actual Chinese text. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay found it via a different version. According to the translation of the judgment anyway, "Alashan Koshimouchi" is one place - "阿拉善'额济纳旗", i.e. Ejin Banner. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So how did they get "Koshimouchi" out of that? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bishop, to be honest I don't know. The Chinese translation has kept "Alashan Koshimouchi" in brackets immediately after, which makes me wonder whether the translators were also unsure what it referred to. It is possible that the "E" in "Ejin" was formerly a "Kho", which was formerly transliterated into a "Ko" but is more correctly "Ho", which might have become "E" in the modern transliteration; "ji" became "shi"; the "n" is transliterated into Chinese as "na", and if there was a transcription error of the "n" to a "m" from Chinese or Mongol to English, you could end up with "mou". But not knowing Mongol I don't know whether this is very plausible (especially the step from "Ho" to "E").

My other guess would have been that "Alashan Koshimouchi" is meant to be "Alashan Khoshut-chi", which was a banner during both the Qing dynasty and the Republic. "Kho" becoming "Ko" and "shu" becoming "shi" seem quite plausible, but there is no evidence that there is a "-mou" sound or anything like it in any of the alternative names of the Khoshut. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility: the "mou" may not be part of the name, but part of "mouchi" as the transliteration of "end-banner" (moqi in Chinese). There were quite a few "end-banners", including a few Khoshut left/right/back end-banners. If that's what "mouchi" is, then it looks like "Khoshut-mouchi" could plausibly have become "Koshimouchi". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Marshall Islands' case against the Nuclear powers

I read this story in yesterday's paper (or rather, the same story in a different paper), and something baffles me.

The Marshall Islands is apparently suing (in the International Court of Justice all nine nuclear powers for breaching their obligations under article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons which states "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."(emphasis mine). They apparently don't realistically expect any of the nine to be forced to cease their nuclear weapons programs, but they want to bring attention to the issue.

Now here's my question: I can understand them potentially having standing to bring such a case against the five nuclear weapons states who are members of the treaty. I'm not saying they'll win the case, but they have standing to bring it. They might have a case against North Korea, if they can prove that it breached the treaty in some fashion whilst it was still a member, despite it having since withdrawn (though this may be tricky), or by arguing that its' withdrawal was invalid (the treaty only allows "legal" withdrawal from one's obligations under it in limited circumstances, and it involves following specific procedures). But how on earth could they bring a claim under the treaty against the three nuclear weapons states who never signed it?

Israel, India and Pakistan never signed the treaty. Wouldn't they be perfectly entitled under international law to legally build and possess nuclear weapons in perpetuity? How does the Marshall Islands intend to frame its' case in the ICJ against these three, in legal terms? Or are they simply bringing a case for P.R. purposes, but don't have a legal leg to stand on (regarding these three)? EDIT: Reading the application on the ICJ's website, the Marshall Islands is arguing that the treaty, by virtue of its' widespread adoption, has become customary international law, thus binding even non-members. Is there any chance of this argument holding legal water? Eliyohub (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I got to your third paragraph, I was about to say, if I were the Marshall Islands I'd frame the case against the other nuclear states in terms of customary international law. So I'm glad that your description of their case has confirmed my initial thought.

It is an accepted doctrine of public international law that some principles of international law, which might have their origin in treaties, may become so widely accepted that they become customary international law that binds all states, even if not parties to the treaties. The UN Charter is an example - the principles enshrined in the charter are often regarded as customary international law which binds all states, even non-UN member states. Alternatively, one might argue that there is some fundamental principle which is merely codified or recorded in a treaty, and it is applicable anyway as customary international law. Have a look at "jus cogens" and "Sources of international law" for a start. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting the Franco-Prussian War

What if Bismarck's gamble had failed: France declares war on Prussia, but none of the South German states join in, so it's just a contest between the Norddeutscher Bund and France. How did Bismarck and Moltke propose to invade France? Some sort of pre-Schlieffen invasion of Belgium and the Netherlands, or just fighting on the tiny border between Prussia and France? Or were they planning just to wait for a French invasion? The French navy was vastly superior to the Prussian (470 warships to five), so a seaborne invasion was impossible, and I can't imagine a master politician like Bismarck not developing at least a contingency strategy. Nyttend (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Because this is an alternate history question, I'll speculate. Looking at the later German Schlieffen Plan, the planners depended on "buffer states" simply allowing the Germans armies to march through their territories, in return for cash compensation afterwards. Luxembourg acceded without much fuss, but it seems that the Germans were genuinely surprised that the Belgians refused. Because the Germans didn't win straight away, the Luxembourgoise had to endure four years of occupation, which wasn't in the original script. I can't imagine the King of Bavaria or the Grand Duke of Baden wanting to start a war with Prussia by refusing transit.

However, I'm not certain about the premise of your question, because according to this map, Prussia did indeed have a substantial land border with the French department of Lorraine, which seems to be the Prussian Rhine Province (south of Luxembourg). It was this border, together with the Bavarian Palatinate which was actually the start-line for the Prussian invasion in July 1870 (see File:FrancoPrussianWarFrontierJuly1870.jpg). Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That map is drastically wrong; it doesn't even depict Luxembourg! I've just added a much more accurate map at the top of this section; you'll see how narrow the Franco-Prussian border was. See also File:Rheinland 1905.png, which demonstrates that the distance between Luxembourg and the Bavarian-controlled Pfalz was less than 60km. You note that the invasion began partly from the Pfalz — but that's irrelevant because had the southern states stayed neutral, that corridor wouldn't have been available. Please reread the question: I'm asking for references about prewar plans for such a scenario, not for alternate-history speculations about what happens in such a situation. Nyttend (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was only trying to help, Alansplodge (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of two Prussian armies in the Palatinate is surely a clear indication that Bavaria (at least) was already committed to taking the Prussian side in the conflict - so there was no need for any alternative plans. You are unlikely to find written sources about what was agreed: it was de rigeur in 19th century diplomacy to keep such agreements completely secret. The best you will find are the guesses of various historians 109.150.174.93 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this actually real propaganda or just satire? (Mussolini)

Long ago I saw a few seconds of song that went "Mussolini!" dadadadadada (da's are instrumental, not sung) and it's so catchy that I can't read Mussolini's name without that playing in my head. It didn't sound especially militaristic like might be expected and wouldn't be out of place in a US parade or newsreel or something of the era. The music is so cartoonish for something fascists made that I wonder if it's real. Then again until Führer asked the deranged Ron P.* zealot looking youth where he's from I didn't notice anything fascist-feeling in Hitler propaganda either. So maybe it's real. *not BLP? Maybe the song's even fairly well known (at least to Duce's citizens) and I'm just ignorant? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Bugs Bunny music what you remember? If so, here's an article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was one of the numerous anti-Axis films by Loony Toons. Tokio Jokio was the first Google result but it wasn't that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]