Humanities desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 24 >

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.

June 23

Why didn't the US invade the soviet union in 1946?

WW2 started because germany invaded poland. After WW2 ended the soviets had invaded almost all of eastern europe, all of poland and half of germany and refused to give them back. Why didn't the US push the soviets back to their 1938 borders? The soviets did not develop the A-bomb until 1949 so the MAD principle did not develop yet.--User777123 (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the public wouldn't have stood for it. The war was over, and everybody was celebrating. No politician is going to say there's a new one, and with our former ally. Also, the Soviets had one humongous land army, probably bigger than those of rest of the Allies put together(?). Finally, the timing would have been tricky even if war-lover Patton had somehow become president. The US was still fighting Japan when Germany surrendered. Who starts a second war before the first is completely finished? Some wacky corporal picked a second fight without ending the first, and look what happened to him. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See: Operation Unthinkable (1945) & Operation Dropshot (1957) & Plan Totality (which was a disinformation ruse) —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the soviets were allowed to get away with it. Was there much talk about this back in 1945 in the press? What was the point of US intervention in WW1 and WW2 if we just quietly let the soviets take over half of europe? --User777123 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They were an occupying force as a result of defeating the Nazis, just like we were (and still are). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The OP mentioned the 1938 borders. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany made the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 with a secret protocol to divide Eastern Europe between them. In accordance with this, the Soviet Union invaded six peaceful non-nazi countries Poland, Finland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. All conquered territories (eastern parts of the first three and all of the latter three) were made part of the Soviet Union itself while the pact with Germany was still in effect. They were later conquered by Germany and reconquered by the Soviet Union who kept them after the war but not because they had been Nazi-controlled for a while. And you are generally only an occupying force if you control the politics and/or your presense is against the will of the locals. The US occupied part of Germany for a while but not elsewhere. Western Europe was democratic and wanted a US presense for protection against the Soviet Union. Eastern Europe didn't want the Soviet Union and the communist dictatorships they set up. Of course it was reversed according to nonsensical Soviet propaganda. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazis invaded Poland and set up a number of their death camps there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Nazis and the Soviet Union both invaded Poland in September 1939 and split it between them as agreed in their pact. The Soviet part of Poland was never returned and is part of the former Soviet republics to this day. See Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union. The Nazis were worse but the Soviet Union still murdered hundreds of thousands of Poles. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in German camps in occupied Poland during World War II, the Nazis attacked the Soviet army in eastern Poland, and the Soviet army eventually retook Poland and liberated the camps (or liberated them from the Nazis, anyway). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

De facto, the US was a "presence for protection" as PrimeHunter says. De jure, the US presence in always-friendly countries such as England was justified under the North Atlantic Treaty which set up NATO. But in Germany, as Bugs says, the US was indeed an occupying force—but only until 1990, when the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany changed its status. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(After an Edit conflict) There are many perspectives one can take on the situation. For decades after the end of WWII the USA maintained military bases in most of Europe where the USSR wasn't. Many are still there. Why was the USA allowed to get away with it? And I think you need to reflect on the comment by Clarityfiend above. It seems to describe the times pretty well to me. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Allowed to get away with it?" Someone else might ask, how the US get suckered into it? It was a pretty sweet deal for Europe, which otherwise would have had to shoulder the burden on its own. I grant that the States didn't do it out of altruism and did get something out of it, I suppose mostly influence. But I don't think that influence was worth all those billions. Mainly it was to prevent a Soviet-dominated Europe, which would have been bad for us, but much worse for Europe. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was only playing with the words the OP had used. Sadly, this has turned into a "Gee those commies were awful" thread. That may well be true, but it isn't the topic here, and isn't going to serve any useful purpose. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Yalta Conference where the plan for post-war Europe was agreed by the Allies. Alansplodge (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US elites were disinterested. US policy makers and state apparatus were disinterested. New US allies had significant communist movements internally with significant legitimacy. Old US allies were opposed and suffering mutinies and revolutionary mutinies. The US military lacked the military capacity and was aware of this. The US was suffering proto-mutinies and mutinies over repatriation. US labour was engaged in a strike wave. The US as a political economic system controlled by a political elite with bourgeois acquiesce did not conceive of a desire, and lacked the capacity to do so. You may be interested in the percentages agreement Fifelfoo (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peeve: It would be better to say they were uninterested. I'm aware the descriptivists will point out that people in fact do use "disinterested" in that way, but by doing so, you lose a useful distinction. Properly, disinterested means "free of bias because not personally affected by the outcome", which certainly does not apply to US elites or policy makers in that situation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Going by EO, neither one works.[1] "Not interested" would work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Swedish invasion of Russia (1708–1709), which “effectively ended with the Swedish defeat;” French invasion of Russia, which “led to great losses in men, and a general loss of discipline and cohesion in the army;” and Operation Barbarossa, “all of which eventually failed.” DOR (HK) (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Moscow record low is -42.1°C, mercury thermometers freeze at -38.83 and Grozny (126m altitude, souther than Sochi) is -31.9. I now see why only the Finns had some winter success against Russia (not "lose 0 land" successful but of course, their population's much smaller than USSR). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while this hypothetical war was raging, the US would have to rebuild Europe, a la Marshall Plan, and denazify western Germany. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles have been linked. Western betrayal also comes to mind. I looked for opinion polls regarding communism and the Soviet Union from the perspective of the US public around the time of world war 2, but hard to find. Gallup might have them, but my library doesn't have access to their archives. I mean, we (being Americans) were all taught in school that "there was no more appetite for war". I note that the Truman Doctrine did not include attacking the Soviet Union, obviously. We can conclude from all of this that we were taught correctly, there was no sufficient support for the war. But I haven't found sources that actually discuss this directly. That mention say, internal US military or political discussions about the possibility, or public polling on whether voters would have supported such a war. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User777123 -- The United States did get Stalin to guarantee "free elections in Poland", but was not willing to go to war over the matter. General Patton seems to have gung ho for taking measures to restrain Soviet expansionism, but in 1946 Europe was drastically in need of time for recovery, so the United States would have had to act basically unilaterally, at a time when most people in the US wanted the boys to come home. And you have to remember that much of the U.S.-Soviet antagonism didn't really build up until 1948-1949, as a result of a series of events such as the Czech coup, the Berlin blockade, the Soviet A-bomb, the communists taking over mainland China etc. In short, for the U.S. to attack eastward in 1946, U.S. leadership and public opinion would have had to be a lot more cynical (i.e. willing to instantaneously switch alliances out of pure self-interest) and militaristic than they actually were... AnonMoos (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nipple piercing in antiquity

Juvenal's Satire XI says in WS's translation that Messalina's nipples were 'bare and gilded,' which gave me hope that was a reference to nipple piercing in antiquity. I have no Latin, but the original

"tunc nuda papillis prostitit auratis titulum mentita Lyciscae ostenditque tuum, generose Britannice,"

...seems to say only that she had golden tits, and maybe is ascribing goldenness to the other stuff going on here. I don't know.

I mostly want to know if we have any knowledge of nipple piercing in antiquity, and whether it was gendered. Google gives a lot of references to soldiers supposedly doing this as a manly thing, which may have been based on one dude's interpretation of an old statue or two. Google also shows a lot of people saying that Gaius Julius had one nipple pierced, which sounds about as good as 'Hitler had one ball.'

WP's body piercing article says "Nipple piercing may have been a sign of masculinity for the soldiers of Rome," and the cite is something we can't read online. That's the closest I've gotten to actual scholarship on the topic.

Primary sources for related topics wouldn't be turned down either. Gratias Temerarius (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The usual meaning of "gilded" would be having a thin layer of gold leaf applied to it. For ancient Roman genital piercing, see Infibulation#Male... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may already be aware of this, but at one point, it was thought that Roman soldiers pinned their cloaks on by way of nipple piercing. This (non-RS) source claims that that was just the opinion of a single person, Richard Simonton. He was a rather tireless body-piercing promoter, so that portion of the story seems to ring true. If nothing else, be aware of the names "Richard Simonton" and "Doug Malloy" (his alias) when researching this topic. They crop up in a number of places (that last one is NSFW, but seems a reliable primary source). Matt Deres (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

US Supreme Court overturning its earlier decisions; effect on sales tax

I know that happens sometimes but I thought such cases were considered rare or even momentous. Was the recent decision about the internet sales tax an example? It seemed to reverse some earlier decisions but I can't tell from news reports whether it was a true overturn or merely some kind of refinement.

And does anyone know if untaxed internet sales exerted any pressure (i.e. as recognized by economists) on states to not increase their sales taxation rates (from the retail lobby facing out-of-state competition keeping the legislatures' impulses in check)? I don't buy that much stuff online, but when I heard of the decision my first thought was that local sales taxes would start going up. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well our South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. says

determined that the physical-presence rule of Quill was "unsound and incorrect" and overruled it, along with National Bellas Hess v. Illinois (parts of which Quill had already overturned) were both overturned

and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota says similar. So you be the judge. Nil Einne (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]