Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 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 28

Unlikely UK book ownership statistic

Channel 4 documentary The Human Footprint includes the following "interesting if true" statistic: "More households in the UK own two cars than two novels". UK census shows 31% of households have 2 or more cars[1]. Various surveys[2] put the number of people who don't read books or haven't bought a book in the last year at around a third. Can anyone guess at Human Footprint's source on this, or provide other (better?) sources for UK book ownership statistics. Thanks. -CarelessHair 01:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a disconnect in those statistics, to me. Even if a third of the people "don't read books" or "haven't bought a book in the past year", they may very well still have two novels in the household. There may be another reader in the household, or the novels may be left over from school or previous residents. Keeping this in mind, the portion of households with fewer than two novels would be significantly lower than 1/3. StuRat 02:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that this is a misreading by the program of a different figure. I found this: "The researchers, Book Marketing Ltd, asked 200 couples to record their reading habits for three months. The results show that the "two-novel household" is rarer than the two-car household, with 23% of couples both reading fiction compared with 26% each owning a car. (The Telegraph, 27 May 2002)" found quoted on http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/Database/Mori.html#never

"Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures" By Vincent Lam

Hey! I was wondering if anyone knew what the theme(s) of the book "Bloodletting & Miraculous Cures" is. As well, I was wondering if anyone could find any symbols/images in it. Thank you!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.103.119 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

You can read some reviews at Amazon.com that should give you an idea about the theme(s), and you can find more on the author's website.  --Lambiam^Talk 04:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Last redact of my map

England in 1683

Hallo, here is my last design of the map of England in 1683. Schottland has another color because it belongs to England through personal union, not through conquest. It is possible, that the syncronization isn't so good - may be you must double-click the image to get the actual version of the map. Thanks to all, especially Clio the Muse and Marco polo. -- jlorenz1 08:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does the map date the personal union to 1601? (It took place in 1603.) Scotland didn't belong to England, by the way. Nice map: though the yellow seems a bit strong compared to the greyish colours, and "The British Isles in 1683" might be a better title. qp10qp 14:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Two comments:

1) The inland waters (lakes) are a different color than ocean water, I'd use the same color for both.

2) The key is in German (I think), so I assume this is for the German language Wikipedia ?

StuRat 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its in german, but the graphic is SVG. So you can edit this map in Inkscape or as XML in Notepad. So it is very easy to change the language. Sorry qp10qp, 1601 this was my own mistake. I'll correct it with the inland waters -- jlorenz1 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The yellow does look very bright; when I first saw this image, I thought it was specifically highlighting Scotland. Laïka 20:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the map is factually accurate except for the date of the personal union. I also agree that the title should be "The British Isles in 1683" (or "Die Britischen Inseln, 1683"). "England in 1683" would be more appropriate if the map did not show all of Ireland and Scotland. Since the point of the map is to focus on England, I would use the brightest color for the area of England and Wales, and dimmer colors for the other countries. It is right that Scotland is in a different tint altogether from England since, unlike Ireland and the Isle of Man, it was not an English dependency. As for the use of different colors for inland bodies of water and seas, this is a question of style. There is nothing wrong with using different colors; this is a standard practice among British (and perhaps European) cartographers, though it is less common among American cartographers. But there is nothing wrong with it. Marco polo 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Kinsale is misspelt "Lingsale" ("Kingsale" would be acceptable as an archaism). Also, Lough Corrib north of Galway is a lake, not a sea inlet as the coloration suggests. If the map intends to show places important at the time, then note Carrickfergus was bigger than Belfast. Regarding colours, I suggest bright for England+Wales and bright+dark cross-hatching for Ireland and Isle of Man. jnestorius^(talk) 18:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

USA vs USSR

Who was stronger (in all means, military, economic, cultural influence...), the USA or the USSR during every period of the Cold war? I guess the west was somewhat stronger, but I don't know to which degree. Thanks. --Taraborn 15:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Military: The US was more powerful early on, when they had far more nuclear weapons. Later, approximate parity in nuclear weapons was achieved with the USSR being superior in land forces in Europe and the US being superior in naval forces. So, hard to say who was stronger.

Economic: The US was always far more economically powerful, it wasn't even close.

Cultural influence: The US was also far more culturally influential. How many American brands, movies, and songs are known worldwide ? How many Russian brands, movies, and songs ? (Even famous movies about Russia, like Dr. Zhivago, tended to be American-made). Russian lit was more influential than other cultural influences, but most of that was from Tsarist Russia, or before the cold war, in any case.

Political influence: You didn't ask about this, but I would say a rough parity existed here, as well, with many countries going to communism early on, but then switching to capitalism after experiencing all the shortcomings of communism. One odd case is China, which still insists it is officially communist, but is capitalist in almost any measurable way. StuRat 15:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In many respects it is difficult to draw strict comparisons between the military power of Russia and the United States, and much depends on what point in time one's analysis begins; but in terms of conventional forces-tanks, guns, army divisions and the like-the old Soviet Union was considerably stronger than the United States at almost all stages in its history from 1945 onwards. As you will see if you read the page on the Military history of the Soviet Union, the Russians had up to thirteen million men in arms by 1945, far stronger than the United States or any other nation. Though this figure was reduced after the defeat of Germany, the Soviets still maintained a force of some five million. The real weakness at this time, with regard to the United States, was the abscence of a nuclear capability. This gap in offensive strength was made good in 1949 when the Russians tested their their first nuclear weapon. From this point forward the chief thrust of Soviet military policy was to attain parity in nuclear arms with the United States, a position they achieved in strategic weapons by the late 1960s. Even after the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks the Soviets continued to have a powerful arsenal which, by 1986, was reckoned to be the strongest in the world, with no less than 45,000 warheads, according to estimates supplied by the Natural Resources Defence Council. In terms of Naval forces the Soviets made efforts to keep up with the west, sacrificing, to some degree, quality in favour of quantity.

So, by the time of Leonid Brezhnev the Soviet Union was, in a number of respects, the strongest military power on the planet. But this came at a huge cost. The United States was able to maintain high levels of investment in both the military and the civilian economy; the Russians could not. From the time of the first Five Year Plan under Stalin the chief emphasis had been on military investment at the expense of consumer goods of all kinds. In the late 1980s as much as a quarter of Soviet economic output was being spent in the defence sector, with growing shortages in all other areas of the economy, from housing to food. Even areas like health care, in which the Communists had always taken some pride, began to suffer. Figures on infant mortality, for example, were so embarrassingly bad that they simply stopped being published. The whole impressive military superstructure was built, to use a Marxist analogy, on a weak and weakening economic base. The 'Race of the Economies' was comfortably won by the United States, stronger in all respects than the Soviets, even in periods of slump.

Cultural influences are the most difficult of all to determine, and it really depends where in the world one happens to be standing. In most aspects of popular culture, particularly in cinema and music, the influence of the United States-even in the Communist world-was well ahead of the Soviet Union. Russian directors, despite censorship and restrictions of all kinds, did make some very high quality movies, though these tended to have a limited 'art house' appeal in the west. Russian writers maintined their influence in the world right through the Soviet years, though the best among them, notably Solzhenitsyn, Pasternak and Shalamov, often operated in the most disadvantageous circumstances. But overall the Americans also won the battle of cultures. Clio the Muse 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I am very grateful for your two excellent answers. To StuRat: ":Political influence: You didn't ask about this...". I did. That's why I typed "...". --Taraborn 20:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I should have said "you didn't ask about this explicitly". StuRat 16:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Name for Stalin's and Hitler's hat

Those two guys wear similar hats as shown in photos. Does it have a name? --Taraborn 15:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you could link to an example photo, that would help people respond. - Eron ^Talk 15:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the politics of headgear! I think what you have in mind is the military-style Peaked hat, with a visor to the front. Hitler almosy always wore this for public appearances, and Stalin in his role as generalissimo. However, you should also note that Stalin, earlier in his career, usually wore the kind of cloth cap favoured by Russian workers, while Hitler, in his more casual moments at the Berghof, was to be seen in a bourgeoise fedora. For real style in hats you should check-out Mussolini, who, amongst other things, wore a fez! Clio the Muse 17:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Or Stonewall Jackson, who wore a cadet's cap that disintegrated and had to be patched several times. Lee and others made comments about how utterly shabby the cap was. Arguably, he wore it to make a populist point, but it's as likely that it was his lucky hat. I think, though, that the cap he wore, and the caps the questioner is referring to, is sometimes called a campaign cap. I'm not entirely sure, though. Geogre 18:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the great Stonewall Jackson, an eccentric in most respects! Mussolini-who also had a flamboyant style-certainly wore the kind of campaign cap you have linked, Geogre, but most assuredly not Hitler or Stalin. I now have an absurd image of the Führer and the Vozhd in mind, wearing their caps at a jaunty angle! Hats, incidentally, was the one subject guaranteed to keep Hitler amused through the war years. Goebbels frequently pointed out to him the style of headgear favoured by Churchill, from sun-helmets to sailor caps, in his journeys around the globe. Clio the Muse 18:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, what would anti-"German" propaganda of World War One been without the wonderful picklehaub? If Otto von Bismark had not worn such a ... distinctive ... helmet, cartoonists would have been in trouble. In fact, I believe the venerable picklehaub (pickelhaub? pikelhaub?) has even survived as an object of humor to this day. It was a very immodest chapeau. Geogre 21:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Pickelhaube, Geogre. It is said it was invented to prevent the seagulls from sitting on the Emperor's head and soiling his statues. Dr Zak 01:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Aha! The Pickelhaube! Mein Deutsch nicht ist. One would also suspect the utility of a hat that would make one the instant winner in a game of Red Rover. :-) (Yes, we're a bit silly, and the RD isn't supposed to do that much. I will now return to po-faced academicism.) Geogre 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(I'll bet there were no photos of Hitler in a bowler). I have sometimes envisioned a TV comedy sketch of opposing generals having a cap contest, in which they alternately put on caps with higher and higher peaks. Edison 01:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A bowler? Well, if Stalin can wear one [3] why not Hitler? Clio the Muse 02:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell are the Monty Python gang, now when we really need them? JackofOz 04:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is this scene in The Great Dictator, where Anton Hynkel and Benzino Napoloni are the barber's, and they raise their barber's chairs ever higher. Dr Zak 12:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

de:Pickelhaube is something other, it's more a cap for pilots or captains on the sea -- jlorenz1 01:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair tax or fair crap?

Fair governments that depend upon source of revenue have always given favor to that source. Labor currently finds favor with government as the result of earned income. If earned income as the source of government revenue is replaced by sales will government then favor the consumer instead of labor and even more so the rich, who always have plenty left over after meeting basic needs and virtually anything else they want? 71.100.8.252 15:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You said: governments ... have always given favor to that source but you don't define what you mean by 'favor', nor do you specify the analytical basis of your premise. For that reason alone, your assumptions need more support for your question to be meaningful. For example, from an economic perspective, what you call "favoritism" could be called the systematic application of a discretionary counter-cyclical fiscal policy, with the objective of stabilizing fluctuations over the entire economy, (balance of trade, aggregate demand, govt. budget etc.). dr.ef.tymac 17:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

What I mean in regard to "favor" is that although little sis loves mom when it comes to money she "favors" dad. 71.100.8.252 05:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Essentially the question comes down to this: What will the difference be for labor, the consumer, the poor and the rich if the primary source of government funding comes from people who have money to spend rather than labor to sell? Such a dramatic change in the source of funding cannot help but to have major impact of an unwise and dangerous kind. Where is the sandbox in which this proposal was tested and on what other basis would you risk your life and others that I am wrong? 71.100.8.252 07:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference in the effects of a sales tax and an income tax is mainly that a sales tax hits people with lower incomes harder than an income tax. The reason is that people with lower incomes have to spend virtually all of their income on consumption. However, people with higher incomes spend a much smaller portion of their income on consumption, because their incomes exceed their needs. People with high incomes devote a substantial share of their incomes to savings and investment. This saved and invested income would be subject to an income tax, but not to a consumption tax.

Also, it isn't really right to say that the government "favors" the people from whom it takes most of its revenue. How so? Is it doing them a favor by forcing them to pay more than their share of taxes? The government does not favor people who spend most of their income on consumption (that is, most people of low or middle income) by taxing mainly consumption. In fact, it disadvantages those people by taxing them disproportionately.

Marco polo 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

What a difference a decade makes...

Typically, when thinking back to 20th century events, every decade has its own distinct flavour; the fashion, tastes, music, architecture and politics of 1950s were very different to those of the 1940s or the 1960s. But further back, would 10 years have such an effect on society? Would people in 13th century think the 1250s to be all that different from the 1260s? Laïka 19:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is fairly safe to say that the pace of change in the western world has become ever more rapid since the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in the eighteeth century, so much so that, by the twentieth century, it was possible to determine differences in style by the decade, as you indicate, Laika. In our century perhaps the half-decade will become more significant as a period of measurement. But the further back in time one goes the slower the rate of change becomes; indeed people in the 1350s are likely to have noticed little change from the 1250s; so a measurement in a single decade would have no significance whatsoever. If you want a contemporary example you might care to look at some Third World economies and societies. Life for the African peasant today is hardly much different from life fifty years ago. Clio the Muse 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The 1890s were known as the Gay Nineties, so it goes back further than just the 50s or 60s. I think the analogue to "decade" in the middle ages would have been the rule of a particular king or queen. Think of the "Elizabethan era," for example. (Okay, not the middle ages, but you get the idea.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 21:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in the concept of an ever-quickening rate of change, you may want to read the book Future Shock. Personally, though, I believe there are some limits on the rate of change, such as humans only being able to change at a relatively slow rate (for example, many older people still don't use computers at all). StuRat 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Back to the original question, I'd say that there has to be a concept of a decade for there to be a cultural image of one. People in 1250 were surely aware of the date, but their understanding of history, while epochal, probably did not have a space for things such as decade-long zeitgeists. They thought of, wrote of, and spoke of "rule of X" more often than decades. Their organization of time would be more likely to be along the lines of "In Leo X's time, things were..." than "In the 1310's, we all...." In other words, they conceived of the character and temper of the times as being organized much more along the lines of the leader or the national movement than they did as if the time had within itself an independent spirit.
• Additionally, for there to be a knowledge of a decade, there has to be communication. We know what the 1980's were because of the news industry, television, and rapid communication and transmission of culture across distance. We cannot speak of the 1980's, unless we have a picture of what happened then. Knowledge of the outside world was at a serious premium prior to the regularized postal system, and that had to wait for stable national borders and the concept of the nation state, as well as navigation and transportation improvements.
• Things change, and the rate of change is one of those things that we always perceive to be too fast. Whether history is actually moving more quickly these days than it formerly did or not, we are almost compelled to think that it is. After all, we find the same hand wringing in the preface to Lyrical Ballads in 1798. We found it in the letters of Alcuin, too. They may have all been wrong and we may be right, or it may all be the same, but I'm not sure we can know. Geogre 00:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

These are all superb points, Geogre. There is much in this whole question which is to do with perception, and the nature of time as a social and historical construct. I would even question if most people in 1250 were aware of dates, in the sense we understand them today. They may, indeed, have referred back to the time of a particular king or lord, though only in the most general terms. However, daily life for most would have been determined, in age-old fashion, by the rhythm of the seasons; and by this simple calculation there would have been little, if any, difference between 1350 and 1250. The peasant farmer in the Middle Ages might be said to have lived in a kind of perpetual present, with horizons extending no further than the borders of the manor estates in which they played out their lives. Clio the Muse 01:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Another point is that although fashions in architecture, clothing, and the like may have changed from year to year, they may not have changed for the vast majority of citizens, and we may not know what those changes were. We know, for instance, that changes in clothing fashion (among the wealthy and the comfortable) date at least as far back as the 1660s in England. Samuel Pepys discusses fashion in his diary, especially in relation to his wife's spending habits and her new clothing, and in at least one entry I recall off the top of my head complains that his wife's new tabby dress cost a fortune and would likely be out of style next year. (He didn't mind much, though; her appearance was essential to his status as an up-and-coming bureaucrat.) However, the overwhelming majority of men and women didn't and couldn't follow fashion and might not even have known it existed. Most clothes were handmade, sometimes from scraps of clothing that had worn out, and were only replaced when they became unwearable. Women sewed what they knew and what they had the fabric for, usually simply replacing what they had been forced to throw out. And most people only owned two or three changes of clothing at most.

What's more, we don't really know what most of those fashions were. Yes, we have paintings from that time, but they don't show what people wore on an everyday basis as much as they show what people wore to have their portraits painted. It was standard to hire or borrow an expensive, often exotic robe or dress to have one's picture painted, and many women were painted in costume as saints (Elizabeth Pepys, for instance, was painted as St. Elizabeth) or ancient mythological characters. --Charlene 07:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, well, when it comes to Restoration dress, the serious culprits were men. First, this is a time when people wore worsted wool, and that means that they could not wash their clothes many times. (One reason cotton was king, later, is that it replaced a difficult fabric.) So, clothes needed replacing frequently. People had their smelly everyday wear and their very expensive luxury wear. In class conscious societies (England, France, Spain, Portugal, HRE) anywhere in a city (and, later, all over when rapid communication occurred), each class attempted to dress like the class "above" it. The nobles had to look like the royals. The merchants had to look like the nobles. The artisans had to look like the merchants. The peasants wanted to look like the artisans and small holders. An estimate I read when I was in college (yes, citation needed) said that, prior to the Civil War in England, nobility spent on average, one third of their income on clothes. Imagine spending more on clothes than rent/mortgage every month. The system was untenable and impractical. After the Restoration, things did not change a great deal. Ultimately, it would take the water looms and textile factories to reduce the base cost of clothing enough for the upper classes to compete with each other on a different basis (architecture, horses). And we sneer at $1,000 purses today. :-) Geogre 13:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the more closely one researches a given era of the past, the more complex and changing it seems. When asking whether 10 years would have much of an effect on society, it's only fair to compare societies of reasonably equivalent cohesion and communication.

So, let's look at, say, 17th century social changes in places like England, Scotland, France, Germany, New England, Virginia, New York, the West Indies, etc. This may bring up the issue of familiarity. People today (who read wikipedia!) are probably familiar with the 1950s and 1960s and have a feeling for how things changed. Perhaps one can feel a kind of empathy (or even memory!) for what it was like to live during those times. But how familiar are people with the 1670s, 1680s, 1690s? Can you list off the major events effecting people in England, Virginia, New York? (clearly I'm testing readers for knowledge of things like King Philip's War, Bacon's Rebellion, the founding of South Carolina and Pennsylvania, the final transformation of New Amsterdam into New York, Rampjaar, the Glorious Revolution, War of the Grand Alliance (aka "Nine Years' War"), the not-unconnected mass migration of Germans to Pennsylvania, Covenanter rebellions and such things as the Battle of Drumclog, and the not-unconnected beginnings of Scottish migrations to Pennsylvania, the Monmouth Rebellion, La Salle's voyage down the Mississippi River and the French claim to Louisiana, the Edict of Fontainebleau, the not-unconnected migration of Huguenots from France, the Boston fire of 1679, Leisler's Rebellion, Massachusetts' invasion of Quebec (Battle of Quebec (1690)), the creation of the Dominion of New England and then the Province of Massachusetts Bay, the Salem witch trials, the destruction of Port Royal, the publishing of Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and even the extinction of the dodo!)

And that's the short, mainly political list. How many people can honesty say they have the same feeling of the difference between the 1950s and the 1960s in, say, London, as they do of the difference between the 1670s and 1680s in, say, Boston?

I'm not arguing that the size of "society" and the speed of communication has not been accelerating lately, for some of the planet's people. But I do wonder how much of the sense of accelerating change is due to a general forgetting of the past and an increasing inability to imagine what life was like long ago. Pfly 07:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is a little true story for you, Pfly, drawn from history, which might serve best to illustrate the 'timeless' nature of certain modes of existence. After the defeat of the Jacobite Army at the Battle of Culloden in 1746, Prince Charles Edward Stuart, aka Bonnie Prince Charlie, fled to the west of Scotland, where he remained in hiding for a number of months, moving from place to place. During this time, the government of George II made serious efforts to track him down, by land and sea. One naval sweep made it as far west as the remote archipelago of St Kilda, where they found that the inhabitants not only knew nothing of the existence of the rebel Prince, but also they had never even heard of King George! Clio the Muse 08:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

They know about King George in the St Kilda close to where I used to live. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JackofOz (talk • contribs) 00:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Which King Louis was insane?

I remembered hearing about one of the Louis being insane but can't remember which one. It was said that he used to capture mice and hang them and all sorts of other weird stuff. I've looked through the pages of Louis XIII to Marie Antoinette's son and cannot find record of it. Iluvelves 20:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's possible that it is not a Louis at all, and that you are thinking of Charles VI, also known as "the mad," but someone else may have better information. Carom 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mad king Louis of Bavaria?

qp10qp 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's more likely to be Charles than Ludwig, as there is still some doubt over the nature and degree of the Bavarian king's madness. All the French Louis' were sane enough, though some of them were highly eccentric. I'm not familiar with any accounts of a king hanging mice. It's worth remembering, too, that the historical record can occasionally be quite scurrilous, and there is often an explanatory gap between what did happen and what is occasionaly said to have happened. Perhaps the most notorious example of this is The Secret History of Procopius, with its savage caricature of Justinian and Theodora. Clio the Muse 22:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Florida child custody laws

I'm 17 years old, and my parents have been divorced for 12 years. Over that period of time, I have lived out of a suitcase and switched houses at LEAST twice a week, every week, for these past 12 years. how can my father get full custody of me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sooroopoof (talk • contribs) 22:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

If you're 17 you might want to just wait until you turn 18, then you can go wherever you like. StuRat 22:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for legal advice, Wikipedia cannot offer exactly that. Talk to a legal professional. Splintercellguy 23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You have my full sympathy. If you have put up with this for 12 years, can you just somehow put up with it for the remaining months? Perhaps get a calender and mark off the days. It will pass quicker than you think. Edison 01:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, but presumably your father can go to the family court and ask for a change of the custody arrangements. Lots of child-custody arrangements change when the child reaches adolescence and can make up his or her own mind about where he or she wants to live, although that's usually written into the divorce settlement from the get-go. -- Mwalcoff 07:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

State laws are very different on this kind of thing. It is even possible that given your age, you may have a better case with independence given your proximity to age of majority, which is usually 18 in most places, but not everywhere. I won't go any further than that, but there are means for intolerable situations. A lawyer with experience in family law may be willing to discuss the issue with you on a pro bono basis if you look around, and you may also be able to find assistance from school guidance counselors. Only you can decide how intolerable your situation is, but waiting the situation out, if at all possible, would likely be the path of least resistance. In fact, your 18th birthday could moot the issue before formal proceedings were completed if you went that route. –Pakman044 23:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WII and the War With Japan

I have never understood why the war with Japan became part of WII and not just another war that was happening at the same time.

While I realise both Gerrmany and Japan were reacting to similar issues, such as Treaty of Versailles, I don't see many other similarities.

Why for example, after Pearl Harbor did this lead to the US supporting Europe in defeating Germany rather than just Japan. It seems to me that it would seem sensible for both the Germans and UK to not get involved in another war when they had so much going on closer to home.

Why are these wars lumped together and given the single label "WII"?     Caffm8 23:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I take it you have read the page on the Second World War, Caffm8? If you picture a conflict growing in ever increasing circles, then you will begin to appreciate the full significance of WWII. By late 1941 it had subsumed and united what might be said to be three distinct conflicts: the Sino-Japanese War, the War in Europe and Africa, and the war in the Pacific. In every conceivable respect it had become a war which had embraced the whole of the planet. You must remember also that when Japan attacked the American base at Pearl Harbor it launched simultaneous attacks against the British in Hong Kong and the Malay States; so Britain, already at war with Germany and Italy, was automatically pulled in to the war against Japan. Hitler was under no obligation to assist Japan in its war of aggression against the United States, but chose to do so on his own initiative, declaring war on 11 December 1941, as did Mussolini. By the end of the year, therefore, the United States was at war with all three of the Axis Powers. Roosevelt could have given priority to the war against Japan, but in discussions with Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, it was decided that the war in Europe would have the first call on men and materials. But as it turned out, America was able to fight effective campaigns over two Continents. Incidentally, the Japanese decision to go to war had nothing at all to do with the Treaty of Versailles, which was a specifically German grievance, and much more to do with obtaining the resources, particularly oil, to enable it to sustain its aggressive war in China. Clio the Muse 23:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did the US give priority to the war with Germany? The Germans may have declared war on them but it seems unlikely to me that they could or would have brought the war to US's doorstep being rather busy fighting the war in Europe. Caffm8 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

For this particular question you need to refer to Europe first and the Arcadia Conference. The simple answer is that Germany was considered to be the greater threat. And as far as an immediate challenge, and bringing the war to America's doorstep is concerned, German U-boats began sinking tons of US shipping in the so-called Second happy time. It was a question of strategic priorities. Clio the Muse 00:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The American people would have preferred a war against Japan first, since Germany had not launched such a vicious assult against us. The U.S declared war on Japan on Dec. 8, 1941, then Germany honored their mutual defense pact with Japan and declared war on the U.S. They could have remained at peace with the U.S, because the pact only required them to aid Japan when it was the victi\m of external aggression, and the U.S. might theoretically have remained neutral in the European war for a time, just as Russia was at war with Germany but not Japan until mid 1945. As it was the U.S. declared war on Germany on Dec. 10, 1945. Churchill was said to be very happy that Japan attacked the U.S. and brought us fully into the war.Edison 01:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Edison, just one small correction to what you have written here: the United States declared war on Germany on the afternoon of December 11 1941, not 10 December 1945. Also, Hitler did not declare war on the United States to honour his mutual defence pact with Japan. The Tripartite Pact put him under no such obligation. He did so for reasons unconnected with any existing treaty, as you make clear further on in your submission. Clio the Muse 02:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I should not rely on memory. But from where comes "Hitler did not declare war on Japan !" Edison 07:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Touché! The error has now been corrected, kind sir! Clio the Muse 07:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect Germany took top priority for a couple of reasons. First, England was in danger of falling, which would mean losing a base from which to launch an invasion to free Europe, whereas in the Pacific theater, the timing wasn't as crucial. Second, the US had stronger ties with Britain than with the Phillipines, China, etc. Also, Germany simply was a bigger threat. If it had conquered all of Europe and the USSR, it would have posed a long-term danger to the US (today Europe, tomorrow the world). Japan, on the other hand, had its hands full with a divided, ill-equipped Chinese enemy. It just simply did not have the resources or industrial might to threaten the US. The entire Japanese strategy was to grab a large amount of territory and natural resources and hold on for dear life, hopefully making the cost to take it back so great that the Allies would sue for peace (big miscalculation). Clarityfiend 04:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

England was not 'in danger of falling' in December 1941, Clarityfiend, though Russia looked as if it were about to go under, with the Germans within miles of Moscow. If the Soviets had collapsed, it is difficult to see how England could have remained in the war, especially after the main German army returned west. Europe completely under the control and influence of the Nazis would, indeed, have been a far greater threat to the security and integrity of the United States than Japan ever could be; hence the Europe first strategy. In the circumstances, any other policy would have been strategic madness. Clio the Muse 06:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. The Battle of Britain had come and gone by then. Clarityfiend 10:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)