Humanities desk
< April 26	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 28 >

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.

April 27

Speculative fiction novel

I hope someone can help with this. I'm looking for the title of a speculative fiction novel about a European war that occurs in the 2000s. I think the book was published in or around 1999, and that the author was British. I've a vague memory of hearing him interviewed by someone on BBC Radio 2. Can anyone help identify the title and author? Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat earlier, but there is The Third World War: The Untold Story (1982) by Sir John Hackett. Alansplodge (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't Russia militarily intervene during the Hamidian massacres?

Why didn't the Russian Empire militarily intervene in Ottoman Armenia (specifically the six vilayets plus Trabzon) in response to the Hamidian massacres in the mid-1890s? Futurist110 (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why would Russia gain from going to war with the Ottomans? From what I can see from History of Russia (1892–1917), it had its own troubles. It didn't need to borrow more.~~ Foot, meet mouth. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would liberate the Christian Armenians from Ottoman rule and would also secure a really nice piece of real estate for itself (with a great climate and everything) that it could eventually transform into a Russian Florida. Futurist110 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Securing a nice chunk of the Ottoman Empire was what everyone wanted, and what everyone tried to prevent everyone else from doing. See Eastern Question: "Imperial Russia stood to benefit from the decline of the Ottoman Empire; on the other hand, Austria-Hungary and Great Britain deemed the preservation of the Empire to be in their best interests." We also have an article on the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, which notes that "The Russian Empire developed a plan for invading and occupying the Black Sea port of Trabzon or the Eastern Anatolian town of Bayezid in retaliation" for German interference in the Black Sea in the years before WWI. "If there was no solution through Naval occupation of Istanbul, the next Russian idea was to improve the Russian Caucasus Army." The Caucasus Army was heavily Armenian, but unfortunately it didn't exist yet in the 1890s - at the time there was the Caucasus Military District. So Russia did have an army nearby and at various times they were thinking about exactly what you mentioned, but politics prevented them from just doing whatever they wanted with the Ottomans. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to why they did not want to go to war in the 1890s, perhaps because in the 1850s, they tried something similar, and it didn't go well. Memories of such things could have made yet another war against the Ottomans unfavorable. --Jayron 32 15:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians did go to war with the Ottomans again in 1877-1878 and won that war, though. Futurist110 (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Maybe they figured they should quit while they were ahead. --Jayron 32 17:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russia personally didn't get much from its victory in 1877-1878, though. It got Kars Oblast and a bunch of weak new allies in the Balkans--and that's about it! Kars Oblast itself isn't worth very much due to the lack of coastline. It's the coastline west of Batumi that was the real treasure for Russia. Indeed, Russia should have captured this coastline (up to Samsun or so) and then stopped fighting. That way, Russia would have truly quite while it would have been ahead. Futurist110 (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of historians think Russia would probably have defeated the Ottomans in the Crimean War if not for the other Great Powers. In 1877 things had shifted in Europe. Britain was preoccupied with internal problems, while Russia, Austria, and Germany were allied in the League of the Three Emperors. France wanted to disrupt both the League and the Ottomans, so they likely felt that not picking a side and letting them fight each other was in their interest. At the end of the war, Britain and France did pressure Russia into making some concessions. By the 1890s, Russia had moved away from Germany and towards France. This made the prospect of a general European war more fearsome and also more likely. Germany and Austria against France and Russia were more evenly matched, and due to geography this provoked great fear in Germany of "encirclement" in a two-front war. Russia's government also was devoting more attention to both expansion into Asia and domestic unrest. These were likely factors in Russia's non-intervention in the massacres. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was Germany actually prepared to fight on behalf of the Ottoman Empire in the mid-1890s, though? I mean, AFAIK, the Ottoman Empire didn't become an official German ally until 1914. Futurist110 (talk) 00:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Germany had developed closer ties to the Ottoman Empire. But of course, what matters is whether Russia's government felt German intervention was possible. But more importantly, Austria quite likely would have gotten involved, given its great concern over the Balkans and Balkan nationalism. If Russia threatened Austria, Germany would have been compelled to defend it, seeing Austrian collapse as unacceptable. Indeed, this is largely what eventually happened in 1914, except that Russia threatened Austria in defense of Serbia. It almost happened in 1908; that time, Russia backed down given its lingering problems from the Russo-Japanese War, as well as a lack of diplomatic support from Britain and France. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would Austria actually bother getting involved if Russia limited its military involvement to eastern Anatolia, though? Futurist110 (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with counterfactuals: it's impossible to know for sure. What Austria would have cared about is whether Russia appeared to threaten the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Austria feared an Ottoman collapse and subsequent kindling for nationalism in the Balkans and Eastern Europe that might cause the numerous peoples in its empire to seek autonomy or independence. Again, that's what eventually drove Austria and Russia to war. Austria's leadership saw Serbia as an existential threat due to its expansionist goals and it fueling pan-Slavic nationalism, and seized upon the assassination of Ferdinand (the death of whom many of them privately were happy about) as a casus belli. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of the schools clause of the 1875 Civil Rights Act

Does anyone know if the schools clause of the 1875 Civil Rights Act (a clause that was ultimately removed from the final version of this act) would have desegregated the (public) schools in Washington DC as well or only in the US states? Futurist110 (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the act that was passed (linked from the article) says it's about the rights of "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" and assigns jurisdiction to "the territorial, district, or circuit courts of the United States wherever the defendant may be found... and the district attorneys, marshals, and deputy marshals of the United States, and commissioners appointed by the circuit and territorial courts~~, and commissioners under this~~ of the United States". So it's pretty clear that its scope not limited to states. Why would schools have been treated differently? --76.69.46.228 (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, I accidentally copied-and-pasted part of a marginal note in the middle of the actual text there. Fixed by strikeout now.) --76.69.46.228 (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might not have been different in regards to schools. I was simply wondering about this because, in the early 1870s (1871, I think), the US House of Representatives rejected a proposal to desegregate Washington DC's (public) schools. Thus, I'm wondering if attitudes in regards to this in the US House of Representatives (and possibly in the US Senate as well) significantly changed by 1874-1875. Futurist110 (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article on the Act, the bill was drafted in 1870, when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. It was drafted by Charles Sumner, who was an outspoken abolitionist—famously almost beaten to death on the Senate floor—and a leading Radical Republican after the Civil War. Sumner was openly critical of Grant's administration and changed to a third party as part of an attempt to unseat Grant in 1872. Sumner died in 1874; at the end of that session of Congress, the Act was whisked through primarily as a tribute to Sumner. (Note that the incoming House was controlled by Democrats.) The article on the Act does not say when the school integration provision was removed. I don't how where to get ahold of committee minutes from that period, but that would be where to look for such information. Regardless, there was self-evidently no widespread demand in Congress to consider school integration. This is unsurprising, as support for Reconstruction was waning even among Republicans; Reconstruction would be ended two years later. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Michael McConnell wrote on pages 979-980 here that the school desegregation in the draft version of the 1875 Civil Rights Act would have applied to US states as well as to Washington DC: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12624&context=journal_articles However, I don't know where exactly he got his information from. I'm presuming from the Congressional Globe, but maybe I should try e-mailing him and asking about this.

BTW, there actually was strong support (almost two-thirds) in favor of school desegregation in both houses of the US Congress before the 1874 elections in the US. After the Democrats won these elections in a landslide, though, a significant number of Republicans backed away from the idea of school desegregation--presumably due to their fear of voter anger. Futurist110 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm interested in reading more about this; I've been on a bit of a post-Civil War kick lately. Were candidates campaigning on this? --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Democrats made this a campaign issue in 1874--though I don't know to what extent. I would presume that the public (at least those who read newspapers) would have been at least somewhat aware of the debates and deliberations in the US Congress in regards to this. You are welcome to try finding and searching through US newspapers from this time to see how much mention of school segregation there was in them back then. Anyway, the link that I posted in my previous reply right above should be a good starting point for you to read about this. I think that Michael McConnell's research in regards to this topic is excellent. Futurist110 (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's fascinating. One reason among several that the bill was held up for so long was that it was revised in response to the Slaughter-House Cases, which are arguably the most important U.S. Constitutional cases that no one outside law school has heard of, in which the Supreme Court gutted part of the Fourteenth Amendment in opposition to the stated intent of its drafters. (A preview of what the Court would do to much other civil rights legislation, including this Act.) As for the schools provision, it was first amended to allow "separate but equal" schools, and then stripped altogether on the House floor, mainly because many Republicans fled from it after the results of the 1874 election. Regarding school segregation in D.C., Congress never passed legislation explicitly establishing it; bills to eliminate it were blocked by procedural issues, as well as some who claimed to oppose segregation overall but felt hasty integration would damage the quality of education received by blacks. Also on an interesting note, the Act was filibustered in the House, eventually leading to the majority changing House rules to allow a simple majority to suspend rules and bring business to the floor. Although our article says some other tactics were used to filibuster in the House until 1890, this was a step in eliminating the filibuster in the House. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the Slaughter-House Cases held this bill back? After all, AFAIK, these cases simply resulted in Republicans changing their focus from the Privileges or Immunities Clause to the Equal Protection Clause--all the while aiming to achieve the same goals that they did before. Also, AFAIK, the US Congress never agreed to "separate but equal" in regards to schools in the 1875 Civil Rights Act; rather, according to Michael McConnell's article (linked to above), Republicans preferred not to mention schools at all in this act if the only choice was between no mention of schools at all and "separate but equal." As for Washington DC school segregation, Congress did create separate schools for Blacks in DC in either 1862 or 1864 (I don't remember the exact year). That said, though, Michael McConnell argued elsewhere that while Congress assumed that Washington DC schools would be segregated, it never actually required them to be segregated. Also, Yes, I'm well-aware of the failed Congressional efforts to abolish school segregation in Washington DC as well as of the abolition of the filibuster in the US House of Representatives in either 1874 or 1875. Futurist110 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was summarizing points made in the journal article you linked. Page 1001: "The Slaughter-House decision changed the tenor of the debate and forced the Republicans to clarify or revise the textual basis for their constitutional position." The bill's text was revised for this purpose—page 1070: "But in fact the committee had subtly altered Sumner's language to reflect the revisionist equal protection rationale for the bill, as a response to the Slaughter-House decision." As for "separate but equal" schools, see page 1081: "As reported by the Judiciary Committee, the bill applied to schools, but expressly permitted the schools to be separate but equal. Other facilities covered by the Act would be desegregated." The schools provision was then deleted on the House floor—page 1082: "When time came to vote, Kellogg's amendment striking the school clause passed, 128-48." --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]