Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 August 23

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.

August 23

Hitler 's abilities as a strategic military commander

Do we have an article about this? Any ideas about reliable articles on the subject I can read online? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Hitler as Military Commander by John Strawson, is available cheaply on Amazon (hardback used from £0.01 apparently). Hitler: Military Commander by Rupert Matthews has a lengthy preview on Google Books. I also found this thesis: A MILITARY LEADERSHIP ANALYSIS OF ADOLF HITLER . Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The famous military historian John Keegan wrote an interesting book "The Mask of Command", comparing Alexander the Great, the Duke of Wellington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Adolf Hitler. Hitler was looking pretty good early in the war (down to mid-1940), when most of his invasions encountered relatively little resistance. When his military forces encountered fiercer opposition, Hitler didn't do as well... AnonMoos (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Really interesting thanks. Our article on Battle of Kursk, which is what led me to the question, is quite damning about Hitler's interference, comparing it unfavourably with Stalin leaving things to his generals. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This paper (p. 30) quotes General Hans Speidel: "[Hitler] had a certain instinct for operational problems, but lacked the thorough training [which] enables a [commander] to accept considerable risk in an operation, because he knows he can master [it]". Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

• Surely Hitler's First Big Mistake (of a series) was mid-1940, precisely when there was little resistance: the Fuhrer Halt which made Dunkirk possible. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Although that was atypical of Hitler, since he seems to have been following the advice of his commanders (albeit not the ones who were actually on the battlefield). The exact decision process is still debated, but it seems to have been initiated by Gerd von Rundstedt, who was concerned that Army Group A's armour would become depleted due to lake of maintenance and that their over-extended lines-of-communication were vulnerable to Allied counterattack. Cassel and Hazebrouck 1940: France and Flanders Campaign (pp. 26-27) by Jerry Murland calls the decision "realistic". Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"[Hitler] had a certain instinct for operational problems, but lacked the thorough training" Not much of a surprise. He was a mere Gefreiter in World War I and had no experience in leading operations. But he was placed in charge of the field marshals and generals in World War II. Not a recipe for success. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Hitler is a jumped-up Bohemian corporal" according to Paul von Hindenburg. The success in the Battle of France led Hitler to believe that he was a military genius, when his actual role had only been to back the right horse, Heinz Guderian against the wishes of his more traditionally-minded high command. The outcome of the Fuhrer Halt Order may have convinced him that listening to sound professional advice was a bad idea and that he should trust his own intuition. Alansplodge (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The second para of Adolf Hitler#Leadership style provides a summary of recent views on the topic, along with references. Recent works in this field are much better than older ones given that the historiography has changed considerably over the last 20 years (with modern historians now dismissing the post-war claims of German generals that Hitler was to blame for all Germany's defeats while they were blameless and powerless). As I understand it, the general view of modern historians is that while Hitler was doomed to defeat because he could never achieve his war aims (the conquest of Europe and genocidal extermination of much of its population), his performance as a military commander was uneven across the war. The generals now get lashings of criticism for their part in Germany's defeat as well. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

What if Turnbull refused to hold a spill?

Dear All,

I, a Brit, have been getting news reports lately of the Australian Liberal Party's latest leadership battles. As I understand it the PM, Malcolm Turnbull, is under pressure from internal rivals. According to Wikipedia pages on previous leadership elections (or 'spills', which is definitely a cooler name for them) the rules are as follows:

1. Any Liberal MP/Senator can propose a spill, any other member can second it*;

2. The PM/Party Leader must then hold a meeting to discuss the spill;

3. If they feel there is sufficient support for the spill at the meeting then they hold a vote;

4. If they win the vote they stay, if not there is a leadership election to replace them (which they can run in).

• (I'm not clear exactly when the seconding happens, it may be at the meeting).

My question is this: Have I misunderstood the rules? And if not, does this not allow a leader to simply refuse to allow a leadership vote (by exercising their judgement at point #3)? If this is possible, has it ever been tried and what mechanism exists to overcome it?

Sorry if I've missed something obvious, as mentioned above I'm not familiar with Aussie politics. 165.225.88.86 (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I suspect this would be more a matter of internal party rules rather than anything constitutional. Australia's Labor Party went through similar leadership dramas a decade ago, finally realised the political damage they had caused, and subsequently changed its rules to make leadership challenges more difficult. Sorry, don't know the details. It's a good question though. HiLo48 (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

See 1975 Australian constitutional crisis when Prime Minister Gough Whitlam refused to hold an election. While that is not the same set of circumstances as the current case, it does show the power that the Governor General wields in being able to remove a Prime Minister, and is probably the most notable example of the checks and balances built into the Westminster style of government. Akld guy (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me anything like that is necessary. First let's remember in the 1975 case, the government had not lost an explicit motion of no confidence in the house of representatives. They were just unable to get their budget passed in the Senate. Whitlam felt calling a half senate election to try and break the deadlock was an acceptable course of action, Kerr felt it was not. The situation likely to arise in this case would seem to be different. If the leader refuses to resign and their MPs want them out, they always have the option of supporting an explicit Motion of no confidence#Australia which is after all the classic way to get rid of a PM in most Westminster style governments. Assuming the party have a more than one seat majority and all their MPs want this, it's not really something the PM has any real ability to block. Well okay I'm not an expert on how motions come up in the Australian house but I assume it's the speaker not the PM which control them. In this case, since the party doesn't have a majority theoretically the PM could hang around despite everyone else in their party not wanting them but realistically if it did happen Labor at a minimum would support it like they did with the one a few days ago. Of course what happens after may get a little complicated and where the Governor General's reserve power could come in to play. The PM could try and dissolve the house and call for an early election (actually whether before or after they lose the no confidence motion). The Governor General, if they are aware that the only reason it came to this is because the PM was refusing to resign even though their whole party wanted them gone, may refuse to do so and instead invite whoever will be able to command the confidence of the house to form a new government. If the Liberals really have nothing in their party to force out a leader who refuses to resign, the MPs (and Senators) have the option of resigning from the party. Australia has no legislation preventing party switching#Australia AFAIK. Now these MPs would need to secure the support of the Nationals and the others willing to support the Coalition government so it's complicated although there's always a risk that the later could decide 'screw this, let's just have an election' or 'Labor would be better than this shit' anyway even if it happens entirely within the normal Liberal process. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I missed that you were only using the 1975 case as an example of the checks and balances so the initial part of my response doesn't address what you said so well. But my wider point is similar to HiLo48's namely that this internal party stuff is in many ways an aside to the Westminster system especially in countries without MMP or something that makes a clearer link between a party and the voter. While it's developed as a key part in the modern era, people are still voting for specific MPs and the stuff in parliament (and that the government does) is what matters. The internal party stuff is generally largely constitutionally irrelevant. If the MPs aren't happy with how their party rules handle the selection of leaders, they can simply resign and in many ways this isn't so much a 'check and balance' but more that having parties isn't an explicit requirement. Forcing out an unwanted PM is a 'check and balance' although on of the most basic one. And practically, ignoring party requests are one thing; ignoring that you're going to lose (or have lost) a motion of no confidence is another. Nil Einne (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

One part of the OPs question was, "...does this not allow a leader to simply refuse to allow a leadership vote (by exercising their judgement at point #3)? If this is possible, has it ever been tried and what mechanism exists to overcome it?"

My answer was intended to convey, that, yes it has been tried, and the mechanism to overcome it was the power of the governor general to remove the prime minister. I'm not suggesting for one moment that the current situation will degenerate to that level of intervention, but the power to remove still exists if it's ever necessary. Akld guy (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

But as I understand it, Whitlam was refusing to hold a general election rather than an internal party vote, the latter being beyond the purview of the Governor General. Alansplodge (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The end result of such an unresolved breach in the party room would be the loss of a no-confidence vote. If the prime minister let things go to such an extreme, I suspect the Governor-General is going to let an election decide things, and if the Liberals do not have their leadership in order, it would be their own responsibility.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

But the OP asked what would happen if the prime minister refused to allow an election. Scroll up to where he/she said "My question is this:" and read what they then said. We should stick to answering question(s) as posed. Akld guy (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't read it the same way you do. I read it as relating to spills.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

And if the PM refused to allow a spill? What happens, as asked by the OP? Wouldn't the government become paralysed by internal conflict, with the only option being dismissal by the governor general? Akld guy (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem likely the government would become paralysed by internal conflict. There could be many paths from there. The party could split. That's been suggested as a possibility in the Australian situation, and things are not over yet. A party split could lead to a motion of no-confidence in the Prime Minister in the House. This might pass or fail. Many possibilities..... HiLo48 (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

For-profit hospitals and abortion: Are the big hospital companies abortion providers?

Companies like Hospital Corporation of America and Community Health Systems own many hospitals of various sizes, and I was wondering, how would one know if these companies own facilities that perform abortions without spending hours researching the issue? What percentage of these companies profit likely comes from such procedures? 66.192.139.114 (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The OP's IP address 66.192.139.114 is registered to Hospital Corporation of America, an American for-profit manager of 177 hospitals and 119 free-standing surgery centers in the United States and United Kingdom. In the USA, Planned Parenthood (PPFA) is the largest single provider of reproductive health services, including abortion. In their 2014 Annual Report, PPFA reported seeing over 2.5 million patients in over 4 million clinical visits and performing a total of nearly 9.5 million discrete services including 324,000 abortions. Its combined annual revenue is US$1.3 billion (including approximately US$530 million in government funding such as Medicaid reimbursements). One can seek further information at the PPFA website that provides downloadable financial reports. DroneB (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The first hit of an obvious google search[1] was a worldnetdaily article saying HCA did abortions in 2002 and there was a controversy about Bill Frist's financial involvement at that time.[2] I leave RS evaluation and further google searches to you, but this doesn't seem hard. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)