Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 February 22

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.

February 22

Decisive battle

What would people say was the most decisive battle of the last century? There are biggies like say Midway or Stalingrad, but I am thinking of something perhaps a little less obvious which if the result had gone the other way could have had very serious and immediate political consequences. WinnieWonka (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking for the most decisive battle of the last century that doesn't have a high profile? Seems like you're asking us for a subjective opinion, subject to a subjective opinion. Furthermore, the recognition of "obvious"ness will depend on where you live (for example, I could be wrong but if you asked Europeans under 50 to list decisive battles of WWII I doubt whether more than a couple would mention Midway). How 'bout we just come up with some decisive battles of the 20th century and you decide which ones fit the bill you're looking for? I'll kick things off, below. You can also research this yourself, by clicking through links at List_of_battles_1901-2000. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Some decisive 20th century battles with serious/immediate political consequences:

• Battle of Spion Kop 1900 - consternation in Britain --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Siege of Port Arthur 1905 - political turmoil in Russia --Dweller (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Battle of Dien Bien Phu, 1954 - the first time that a non-European colonial independence movement had evolved through all the stages from guerrilla bands to a conventionally organized and equipped army able to defeat a modern Western occupier in pitched battle. (source in article) — Lomn 14:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Suez Crisis? Turned Britain into a post-Imperial nation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tet? BonesBrigade 18:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Shanghai Campaign, 1949 - consolidated communist control of China, which moved China out of the western (Anglo-American) sphere of influence and which sowed the seeds of rivalry with the United States in the next century Marco polo (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How about Charge at Krojanty. It was still written in histories of World War 2 in the late 1960's, and I learned in history class, that Polish cavalry attacked German tanks with sabers and lances and were slaughtered. The Wikipedia article says that was only propaganda and it never happened, that in fact the battle was a great victory for Polish cavalry and the tanks only arrived at the scene later, after the victorious charge and the subsequent retreat under machine gun fire. What do military historians in general say now about this battle, national pride aside? If this battle showed that the era of horse cavalry was over, then that would be pretty decisive. Edison (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is generally true that most battles, no matter how important, are rarely decisive in the most meaningful sense of that word. But if pushed on this I would have to say that there is, for me, only one truly decisive battle in all of the twentieth century, and that was the Miracle on the Vistula in 1920. It was the key encounter of the Polish-Soviet War, one where the brilliant Jozef Pilsudski stopped the westward drive of Mikhail Tukhachevski and the Soviet Army. Just consider the likely outcome if the Poles had been defeated. Their country would have been transformed into a satellite of Communist Russia. But far more serious than that the Russians would have been able to carry their revolution forward into a weakened and divided Germany, and possibly even beyond, as Lenin eagerly anticipated. As it was the Soviet experiment was thrown back on itself, to Socialism in One Country, to the eventual eclipse of Trotsky and the steady ascent of Stalin. Is there anything more monumental than that? Winnie, if you, or anyone else, wishes to look further into this I would recommend Adam Zamoyski's recently published Warsaw 1920: Lenin's Failed Conquest of Europe. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Clio is a tough act to follow, but I'd like to submit the British raid on Taranto in November 1940. It was the model for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor a year later. Without Taranto, the Japanese might have formulated a different plan, one that would not have involved the "sneak attack", and the entry of the United States into WWII might have come without vindictive fury, and perhaps too late. --Milkbreath (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Guglielmo Giannini+ Fascist trials

I'm looking for some detail on the activity of Guglielmo Giannini, journalist and politician, in southern Italy after the Fall o Mussolini, but can find nothing here in the encyclopedia. Also, I would like to know if there were any trials of leading members of the National Fascist Party comparable to the Nuremberg trials in Germany. Yours truly, G. Secchi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.5.157 (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There were trials: by the Allies, an Italian high commission, and lower courts; but nothing comparable to Nuremberg.

On 28 July, 1944, a British tribunal sentenced General Niccolò Bellomo to death for the shootings of two British prisoners at Torre Tresca in 1941. He was executed by firing squad on 11 September. Bellomo had been one of the few generals to fight against the Germans after the September '43 armistice. (Villari, Luigi. (1959) The Liberation of Italy, 1943-1947. p. 226-7. Villari states: "The subsequent execution of this gallant officer can only be regarded as an act of mean and illegal vindictiveness.") See also the BBC documentary Fascist Legacy.

After the the forty-five days of Pietro Badoglio, the government of Ivanoe Bonomi passed Decreto Legislativo Luogotenenziale Number 159 on 27 July, 1944. This established a high commission under Carlo Sforza and sub-commissions for the confiscation of fascist property and war profits, to purge fascists from the government, and under Mario Berlinguer a commission for the prosecution of fascist criminals.

The first trial was that of Pietro Caruso. In March of 1944, Caruso (as head of the Italian Police) and the Nazis had killed 335 innocent men, women, and children in the Ardeatine Caves in retaliation for a partisan attack. When the first prosecution witness, Donato Carretta former governor of Regina Coeli prison, took the stand the crowd—possibly mistaking him for Carretta for Caruso—rioted, dragging him from the courtroom and eventually beating him to death. Caruso was convicted and executed by firing squad on 22 September.

Other trials by the sub-commission were: Vincenzo Azzolini, governor of the Bank of Italy, on the charge of transferring 120 tons of gold behind German lines, sentenced 30 years in prison. December 14 Generals Riccardo Pentimalli and Ettore Del Tetto, on charges of conspiring to surrender Naples to the Germans, sentenced to twenty years each.

Despite calls from the Left to go after higher ranking officials, as well as the king and crown prince, the commissions faced many obstacles. When Sforza began making plans for the arrest of Badoglio, the marshal sought sanctuary in the British embassy while the ambassador, Bonomi, Anthony Eden, and Churchill intervened. Mario Roatta, who had served Mussolini, Badoglio, and the Allies; on 4 March 1945, simply walked out of the military hospital where he was being held prisoner. After hiding in Spain he was later exonerated in absentia and returned to Italy in the 1960's.

Thousands were indicted by lower courts, but the verdicts were very on even. For instance Domenico Soprano was exonerated while Cornelia Tanzi, one of Mussolini's mistresses was convicted and sentenced to 30 years.

While the courts operated in Rome, the facists of the RSI instead faced other forms of justice. Emilio De Bono, Galeazzo Ciano, and others were executed by the Nazis. Aldo Rasega, Giovanni Gentile, and many men and officers of the Black Brigades were assassinated by partisans. In anticipation of the upcoming liberation of Northern Italy, popular courts were set up in Milan and elsewhere, but it is unknown how many of Mussolini's followers were afforded this nod to legality and how many were simply executed on the spot.

The CLN claimed four hundred were executed in Milan city, arriving American forces estimated two thousand. Another estimate at the time was 25,000 executions total in the whole of the North. An Allied administrator would remark that: "any person tainted with Fascism has been extremely fortunate if he has remained alive...with the result that not a great deal has been left to do in respect of epuration. The methods have been cruel and summary—perhaps sometimes unjust—but thorough." One partisan leader, Bruno Perelli, later complained that the Allies arrived a mere ten days too soon, given more time the fascist problem would have been solved completely.

Partisan leaders agreed to end the popular tribunals at the beginning of June when Allied forces began assuming control, but assassination of fascists ("easily hundreds and perhaps thousands") continued by small bands acting independently during the last half of 1945. Allied forces began taking some into custody as prisoners of war in order to protect them from summary execution or assassination, including Rodolfo Graziani.

Post-liberation trials by established courts focused on the RSI and not the il ventennio fascista of 1922–43. Attilio Teruzzi was sentenced to 30 years, Guido Buffarini-Guidi shot. The sentences handed down to lower ranking officials were again, very uneven and arbitrary. One of the first decrees of the Republic of 1946 was amnesty for fascists and commutation of sentences for those already convicted.

Guglielmo Giannini published the first issue of L'Uomo Qualunque (The Common Man) 27 December, 1944. A comedy writer and theatre critic during the ventennio he had been subsidized by the Ministry of Popular Culture. Giannini was very critical of the Bonomi regime. Though the fascists had oppressed Italy for twenty-two years, he wrote, now "forty-five million Italians were suffering under the yoke of 10,000 windbags, boondogglers, and crooks, otherwise known as professional politicians."

Domenico, R. P. (1991). Italian fascists on trial, 1943-1948. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. OCLC 23691291.—eric 20:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

81.156, Eric has given you a wonderfully detailed answer on the trial question. All that remains is to flesh out the information on Guglielmo Giannini.

To a significant extent, L'Umo Qualunque, despite Giannini's alleged anti-Fascist credentials, fed on past attitudes, demonstrating a certain degree of nostalgia for former certainties and distaste for the emergence of democratic politics. Even the slogan on the newspaper's masthead, Abasso Tutti (Down with everybody!), recalled the nihilistic radicalism of Me Ne Frego (I don't give a dam!), the early Fascist war cry. Although Giannini during the Mussolini years could best be described as a 'fellow traveler, rather than an active supporter of the regime, he could be quite fawning in his praise of Il Duce, comparing him at one point with Lorenzo the Magnificent. The political movement that grew up around L'Umo Qualunque drew on the same well-springs as Fascism, mixing populism with a condemnation of ideological politics. Giannini also became increasingly demagogic in his public speeches, drawing on phrases and expressions that were commonplace under the Fascists. Liberals and Marxists were described as the dupes of foreign-inspired influences, in forms of language that Gianinni referred to as 'verbal squadrism', again recalling the early days of Fascism.

As the movement behind his paper took on a more organised political shape Giannini adopted the title of Fondatore (founder) of the 'Front of the Common Man'. After the war UQ 'anti-party' cells sprang up across Italy, especially in the south, causing some alarm in the political mainstream. Giannini even went so far as to claim that it was his growing influence that led the fall in December 1945 of the government headed by Ferruccio Parri, a prominent anti-Fascist and former partisan. In May 1946, L'Umo Qualunque published an appeal to all those proud of the past to align themselves behind Giannini. In the local elections in November of that same year the UQ movement came out top in several municipalities in the south, and became the main opposition party in Rome.

But in the end Giannini proved himself to be no more than a dilettante, a political amateur, easily outmaneuvered by those with far greater experience. He was trapped into praising Palmiro Togliatti, leader of the PCI, which alienated many in the UQ's unstable right-wing coalition. His Catholic support was drawn away to the Christian Democrats, while the genuine Fascists found Giorgio Almirante, far less oblique in his appeals to the past, more to their taste. When the Italian Social Movement was founded in December 1946 the UQ simply crumbled.

In essence the Fondatore was a comedian playing at politics, the leader of an inchoate populist movement that might best be compared with that of Pierre Poujade in the French Fourth Republic. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

giotto/arena chapel

were the paintings by Giotto of the Life of Christ in the Arena Chapel used in performing the devotional service know as the "Way of the Cross"?Hinesandy (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Identifying piece of classical music (Michael Nyman, perhaps?)

Hello! I'm trying to identify a piece of piano music from an episode of Frasier. It may be a piece by Michael Nyman of "The Piano" fame, but I'd love it if any of you could have a listen and suggest anything. The short clip is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqMMJV-ZgPQ. Thanks! --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's very short. My first impression was something by Philip Glass. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Short, yes. I don't know about Glass (or however you spell his name!). It might be Glass if it went on without significant melodic, rhythmic, or harmonic interest for five minutes; but since we have only three seconds, and there is some structure and some slight variation even in that time, I suspect it is not him.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I know the clip is very short (though it wasn't me who posted it!) I have, therefore, uploaded my own version of the clip which is a few seconds longer, and fully in sync. Please view this updated version here, and keep the suggestions coming! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqMMJV-ZgPQ. Thanks! --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds much more like Nyman than Glass to me, but I don't specifically recognize it. Pfly (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, scrub the Glass idea. I don't know Nyman well enough to identify him from the style, but it could be him. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. What I can do is have a listen through all the Nyman pieces I have and hope it's there somewhere. I'll keep an eye on this page and youtube, too. I really appreciate the help. :) --- Soulhunter123 (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Salerno Coat of Arms Interpretation

Hello I have been looking far and wide trying to hunt down the symbolism and meaning behind the Salerno Coat of Arms. The crossed branches inside a crown over top of a shield design. The shield's upper half is gray, and lower half is black. in the middle of the shield is a bronze colored seal with a compass pointing to the North Star in the sky. On the upper half of the shield is a pair of wings that seems to be reflected onto the darker half of the bottom of the shield.

if anybody can tell me what this all represents, i would be greatly appreciative. my family is from Stella Cilento which is a town in the province of salerno and I am trying very hard to track down and record as much of my family's history as possible. any information would be wonderful. thank you. Michaelcona (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean Commons:Category:Coats of arms of the Province of Salerno (not Commons:Category:Coats_of_arms_of_Salerno). Coats of arms don't always have simple symbolic meanings, but in this case I bet the letters on the central disc are an abbreviation of some motto or list of names which might throw some light on the matter. AnonMoos (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the Statute of the Province of Salerno, the compass represents that invented or improved by Flavio Gioia. The letters are mentioned as "M.T.G.L.S.O.L.P." but not explained.  --Lambiam 09:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Italian, much less Italian heraldic language, but you said "any information". I Googled on "M.T.G.L.S.O.L.P.", which gave three identical hits. I went to this one and pasted the text into Babel Fish. Here is the resulting gobbledygook:

'Cut of silver and black; in means one compass from navigation crossing loaded to around with letters M.T.G.L.S.O.L.P. Of over two semiflights of black it attacks to you in you wrap to the compass, in cantone skillful of the head one star of fulgente gold of beams; under two semiflights of silver it attacks to you in you wrap to the compass. The crown that overhangs is formed from a circle of gold geminato with the smooth cordonature to the margins, with two coppers one of bay and one of oak (natural) outgoing from the crown decussate and falling back to the infuori

Origini and Simbologia of the Coat of arms

the Province with the assumed coat of arms means to assert that the compass of the amalfitano Flavio Joy, insuperato instrument for the guideline of everyone, is the expression of the ancient salernitano talent, than from the sea of the glorious Republic of Amalfi was connected to far civilizations, to they carrying the wisdom of an ancient one straight, of laws and customs of great value, still today valid example of understanding between men and various people, racial and ideological, of safeguard of the linguistiche ethnic minorities

Gonfalone

Riproduce in blue field the coat of arms sormontato from written the semicircular "Province of Salerno" and is completed with the tricolour tape (green, red white man and) knotted under aims them'

The "semiflights" are the wings, of course, and the branches are bay and oak. The interpretation seems to be complete made-up bullshit; it reads like a PTA mission statement. If they actually knew anything about it, they would have told us what the letters stand for. The heraldic blazon seems OK, as far as I can tell, which isn't very far. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I do know a little bit of Italian heraldic language, though I'm rusty. It's interesting that none of the illustrations get the colors quite right, and that the color of the compass is not given. As to the interpretation, there's not much improvement to be made on Babelfish! The mission statement apparently comes from a provincial statute, so pious baloney is to be expected. —Tamfang (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Insults to humanity

Whenever one utters an insult to an ethnic group, most members of that group feel insulted and react angrily. However, I've observed that whenever insults humanity as a whole, something that is nowadays fairly common (humans are called cruel, selfish, stupid among many other things), not only almost nobody feels insulted but in fact most people agree with the insult. It seems like a contradiction to me. Why is that? --Taraborn (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In one case you are singling out a group of humans. In the other you are not. Seems a reasonable difference to me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As a purely personal opinion, I'll theorize that it's the lack of any sort of categorization in the "all of humanity" category. If somebody says "all people are idiots", it's easy enough to conclude that obviously I'm excluded. On the other hand, "all wikipedians with L-handles are idiots", then more of the generalization is specific to me. If "humanity" ever carries a similar degree of specificity, I'd be willing to bet that we'd take offense. For instance, when the dolphins start denouncing humanity as moral reprobates who should all die for polluting the oceans. — Lomn 17:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is also explained by the fact that when someone tells a joke about their own ethnic group it is fine, but if someone outside the ethnic group does it then it is insulting. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It also makes wikipedia interesting. If anyone insults a particular group of people, as far as I've seen on talk pages, it is immediately assumed that that person is not of that group and has the worst of intentions. Since you can't see the person, you just assume the worst. Wrad (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is why we have the "assume good faith" rule. That rule doesn't just apply to people who are actually demonstrating good faith; if it did, it would be almost pointless. No, it applies particularly to people who appear not to be exhibiting good faith. If an editor insults you, your first response should be to assume that the insult was unintended. You can ask for clarification that there was no such intent; and if so, you might suggest they might improve their terminology, and they will likely apologise for the unintended slight. However, If it becomes clear subsequently that there was an intent to insult, then action can be taken. This assumption of good faith is particularly important precisely because we can't see them and their body language, such as whether there's a twinkle in their eye or not. Jokes that work fine face to face often not only lose their humour when all we have is the text of the words, but can actually seem insulting. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a contradiction. Rather, there is a great difference between misanthropy and hatred. Misanthropy involves no discrimination between humans; it is therefore not inherently evil. It also does not (normally) lead to attempts to rid the planet of the humanity as a whole or of any part thereof. Hatred, on the other hand, is usually selective by etnicity, gender, age, and so on; as such, it is perhaps the most evil and the most destructive emotion a human being is capable of. One should also not confuse misanthropy with pathological conditions like Antisocial personality disorder and Dissocial personality disorder. Returning to your question, to resolve the apparent contradiction you can ask yourself: do you feel insulted when you read Kurt Vonnegut or Evelyn Waugh? Chances are, the answer is "no", because the contemplation of the human race's lamentable lack of virtue (in these writers' eyes, at least) serves to entertain us and, hopefully, to improve us. This is something that can never be accomplished through discrimination or insult. On the other hand, a crude form of misanthropy may indeed be more insulting than entertaining or helpful; however, in that case "almost nobody feels insulted" does not apply. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I might take exception if the insult to humanity was uttered by an alien intelligent (?) life form.  --Lambiam 09:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points, thanks to all. --Taraborn (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Extradition

re: murderer of Sally Anne Bowman facing possible extradition to Australia.

If the Australian Crown Prosecution Service puts a case together in say the next 6 months-year, can the extradition process then start, with the bastard being extradited say 6 months-year later immediately resulting in trial, and supposing he was convicted, and after the end of the trial then being retuned to the UK to serve the rest of his sentence, after which he has served that he is then returned to Australia to serve that sentence?

Or can it only happen after he finishes serving his sentence in the UK, which may be 30 years away, by which time key witnesses might be dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.32.110 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Section 98(2) of the UK's Extradition Act 2003: The Secretary of State may defer making a decision with regard to the person’s extradition until the sentence has been served. So, while Australia can request Mark Dixie's extradition, under UK law they can wait until his sentence has been served (although they might not if the charge is serious enough, with the condition that he must be returned to the UK after trial). This is all theoretical at this point as the DPP hasn't charged Dixie or requested extradition. FiggyBee (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Law and nazis

In what way did nazis change the law in Germany to create dictatorship? Schneke (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See Gleichschaltung. Lantzy ^talk 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The Nazis progressively blurred the distinction between private (party) organisations and public (government) ones. The Gestapo was effectively a federal secret police (performing a function analagous to that of the Special Branch or parts of the the FBI) but as part of the SS it was essentially a party institution. The Kriminalpolizei was part of the ordinary civilian police, but it reorganised as a unit of the SS and thus became a political tool. German military intelligence (the Abwehr), which enjoyed independence for a time, was abolished and replaced by yet another part of the SS. While the Waffen-SS was never integrated as a regular Army organisation, it operated as an independent army, answerable directly to the party without the intervention of the (not entirely nazified) army high command. In all these cases (and in Gleichschaltung cases Lantzy linked to above) laws were passed, or executive orders issued, that deprived previously independent civic institutions of their proper governance and elevated private and party institutions to the status of government departments without the proper oversight and transparency. This pattern is common in totalitarian systems - there's more to being a one-party state than just having one party; that one party becomes the state. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that some of said civic institutions happily went along with it—they saw it as a great way to consolidate their local power against rivals and also many of them genuinely were on board with various aspects of the Nazi platform. Robert Proctor wrote a wonderful book on the Gleichschaltung ("alignment"/"coordination") of the German medical profession (Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis) which is an excellent case study of such a thing.

While looking at Nazi legal implements, you might also take a look at the classic Nuremberg Laws, which consolidated their racial policies into a bureaucratic structure. Key to understanding the Nazis (and many such states) is the obsession with "legality"—the idea that if you set up very dry-sounding procedures outlining what you want to do, you will legitimate it (the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring is a great example of this; as it was first written it is quite conservative and looks like it has many checks and balances, but eventually many of these were removed and never taken seriously in practice).

Of course, I expect the Muse to quibble with my characterization of this. ;-) --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should she? It's very good!

What might be worth stressing, though, is that the Nazi Machtergreifung began, in essence, as revolution by decree, with Hitler persuading President Hindenburg to pass 'laws' using his powers under Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. In the end the distinction between government and state was ended after the death of Hindenburg in August 1934, when Hitler combined the office of President and Reich Chancellor in his own person, an act that never had any legal or constitutional sanction. From this point forward it really did not matter what formal expressions of legality were lodged by statute; the law, quite simply, was the will of Führer.

How could any formal statute limit this will? Indeed, how could it express it? It was effectively beyond any rational process or formal wording. When Hitler introduced the Enabling Act he told the Reichstag that "The legal system must...serve the national community...The nation rather than the individual must be regarded as the centre of legal concern." This vagueness was then carried forward into the Penal Code of 1935, which required judges to consider not only the letter of the law but also 'healthy and popular feeling', whatever that is supposed to mean. Sorry, I know exactly what it means. No matter what the law said there was no protection for any form of dissent, social, religious, political or sexual.

In essence the Nazi regime was never a Rechstaat in the normal sense of the term; it was created by extra-constitutional means and proceeded by extra-constitutional means. It ended every distinction between law and the pure exercise of executive power. Even the so-called Nuremberg 'Laws' were nothing of the kind; they were just more decrees, vacuous and arbitrary in nature, merely a statement of discrimination. The formal wording says they were approved by the Reichstag. They were not, because they were never placed before the Reichstag. But it simply did not matter, for the decrees only served to remove even the loosest form of protection that the Jews might have enjoyed under any rational process, amply demonstrated in 1938 by the Kristallnacht. Historians will never find any formal authorisation from Hitler for the Final Solution, no matter how hard they search the archives. He simply said it should be so, and it was so.

In the end the law itself might be said to have disappeared altogether. In 1942, in what was to be its last meeting, the Reichstag passed a decree recognising that Hitler's power was limitless, 'not bound to existing legal precepts.' From high to low Hitler exercised this power, on occasions ordering the death of those sentenced by the courts to imprisonment. I’m mindful of the words of a Gestapo officer to one of those accused of involvement in the 1944 July Plot-"There is no doubt that you and your friends are good Germans. But you are enemies of the system, and therefore you must be destroyed." There was no need for law; Hitlerite Germany was beyond all such considerations. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A most important step was the Enabling Act. --Anonymous, 00:29 UTC (link edited 00:31), February 23, 2008.

US National Anthem

Just curious, but why was The Star-Spangled Banner chosen as the United States national anthem, over other equally patriotic songs such as America the Beautiful? What in particular made that song be chosen over the others? Thanks for satisfying my curiosity. 71.98.17.31 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

As I recall it, it was decided by vote. There were several songs nominated, and the winner was the SSB. Take a look at the The Star-Spangled Banner article. It says a bit about it. Wrad (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I kind of like the fact that the U.S. national anthem is a description in archaic poetic literary diction of an old war that few people know much about, set to a melody that many find to be semi-unsingable. ;-) AnonMoos (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Although there is a bit where it sounds like "We Wish You a Merry Christmas", and the rest of us enjoy singing that. -Gwinva (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, AnonMoos. The tune was written by an English teenager for a society that honoured the works of a 6th century BC Greek philosopher. (Actually, I love the tune and never quite understand why people complain about its alleged unsingability. That's just me, though).  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The song does have a wide range, and the verse everyone sings, the first one, really doesn't talk as much about America as the other songs that were proposed. It's all about flags and war. Sometimes, though, that is what America is all about. Wrad (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thank goodness. I love our anthem. It's staid and dignified, and the bass line that fires up at the end of the bridge is worthy of Bach or Sousa. Get a load of the fomata and that alpenhorn fanfare ending. The only better anthem I've heard is the Internationale, but our lyrics are quite a bit less strident. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with this one [1], Milkbreath, or even this one [2]. OK, OK; I'm being provocative! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I never, ever do this, but ROTFLMAO. Oh...my...God. Who knew the Man of Steel could belt one out like that? Seriously, though, I had no idea their propaganda was so adroit. The Soviets, I mean, not that other gang of dunderheads. I feel a little more Russian than I ever have before. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do believe the singer is Paul Robeson. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to disagree about the US anthem, it's probably one of the worst out there. Not that any of my three anthems are better. I would agree with the you on Internationale. The South African anthem is also good. I also recall reading the ROC China was considered one of the best anthems in the early or mid 20th century although I don't find it that great. Anyway to avoid this turning into a diatribe, I won't respond any further Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And not to continue the diatribe, but I think it's pointless generally to argue which anthem, song, painting, novel, film etc is "better" or "worse" than any other. It's all a matter of personal taste, which is subjective. Say you like Anthem X more than Anthem Y and people have no choice but accept that; but say Anthem X is better/worse than Anthem Y and all you'll get is heated disagreement. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarendon

Hi, everybody! I am doing some work on the English Civil War, particularly on the sources, and would like to know if Clarendon's account still has any value, or is it too biased to be of any real use? G H Dixon (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarendon's History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, G H, is a great work of history and of literature, in some ways comparable with Herodotus and Thucydides. It's also an invaluable source for the period, one which I have used myself. But, like Thucydides and Herodotus, it should be read with caution. For Clarendon, trenchant and readable as he is, is lavish in his judgments, praising and condemning with equal verve! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Restitution of Belongings to Holocaust Survivors

Were there any people, famous or well known, in the United States that maintained collections of objects stolen from Jews during the holocaust?

Is this question based on that movie with Elijah Wood in it? I forget the name of it... Wrad (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything Is Illuminated (film)--Yamanbaiia^{(free hugs!)} 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems more likely that a European would have such a collection. I would surf around for some Holocaust-survivor-related blogs and ask this question, if I was really curious. Wrad (talk) 01:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Try this link about the Thyssen. They have a really spectacular art collection.217.168.3.246 (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)