Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 August 16

Almost literally, zillions of pages have been written on Hitler's lead role in instigating WWII, his responsibility for the 50 million deaths that resulted, his bizarre racial theories, his virulent anti-Semitism, and his ultimate responsibily for the Holocaust. A enormous amount has also been written about his tactics, his strategies, his diplomatic, political and military victories and failures, as well as a his ambitions concerning Europe and the central role that Germany should have within it.

But what next? What about the rest of the world? Had Hitler succeeded in conquering all of Europe (along with a few nice perques such as a few Asian or African colonies) would that be it? What about the US? Was it his ambition to move on to conquer America? Was it indeed his ambition to go on and conquer every square inch of the world?

It's unfortunate that despite the enormous amount of writing that's been done on this "man", Hitler's "ultimate ambition" is barely, if ever touched upon.

Perhaps some of the answers to these questions can be found in Mein Kampf, but I've yet to figure out a way to 1) Go about obtaining a copy, and 2) Be seen leafing through it in some coffee shop without appearing to be some sort of neo-Nazi lunatic! :--)

Nevermind the extermination of the Jews or the conquest of Europe, those parts couldn't be any clearer. What I'm more interested in is if anyone can offer any evidence as to Hitler's "ultimate ambition". Thanks to anyone who can offer any insight! Loomis 01:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After Mein Kampf, I would recommend The Winds of War by Herman Wouk. Not only is it a good read, it goes deeply into (one opinion of) both the geopolitics and the psychology of the third reich and Hitler. Of course, it is Wouk's opinion, but i've heard he employed a lot of graduate students or something to do research and make sure everything was accurate. Eh. Either way, the way I understand it is that Hitler was a crazy bastard, but his general idea was to create German "living space" in Asia. He was fanatically afraid of the barbarian hordes of slavs which he believed would overrun Europe if he did not crush them first. He also believed that his fictional race of aryans were destined to rule as overlords for the "lower races". I think he was very regretful about going to war with England and the US - he viewed them as natural allies in his ultimate race war against the "inferior races". I think his idea was to kill a lot of slavs and jews, cleanse the earth, and have a merry good time being white and blonde with the americans and british with all the other races bringing them margaritas and fueling up their BMWs. Like I said, he was a crazy bastard. The scary thing is how close he came to his goal. --Bmk 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, I would go ahead and take out Mein Kampf in a coffe shop. It's a good test of whether or not free speech or freedom of thought still exists in whatever country you live. --Bmk 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I don't see how it's possible to come to a fully rounded view of Hitler and his motivations without reading Mein Kampf. If you're serious about researching this part of history, then you have to ignore what people may think of you if you're seen reading it. Anybody who would seriously object to you reading whatever you please, or downgrade their opinion of you because you're reading MK, places themselves in the same moral camp as book-burning Nazis. Anybody who has ever contributed to our articles on Hitler, the Third Reich or related topics, would be equally suspect. I don't think so. JackofOz 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're embarrassed to take Mein Kampf to the coffee shop, you can read the whole thing online. If you want to read that in a coffee shop, you can always wrap the computer in brown paper. ;-) Anchoress 02:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, seriously, I appreciate all of your supportive suggestions, but the whole Mein Kampf reference was a bit of a side point. Perhaps I exaggerated my "embarassment" a bit just to add a bit of levity. And thanks to you especially, Anchoress, I'll definitely take a look at the link you provided. But again, my main question was about Hitler's ultimate ambitions, not about my courage (or lack thereof) to read Mein Kampf in a coffee shop. But thanks anyway, I really appreciate all your supportive comments. Loomis 03:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You also HAVE to look at

Zweites Buch (Hitler's Second Book) written in 1928. An english copy is online here. Hitler actually talks about the whole "conquer the entire world" thing and talks about a future war with the US after taking over Europe. Which, is interesting, because I always had figured it would be something he would do if given the chance, but I hadn't always realized he had explicitly said so. --Alecmconroy 03:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I've read about half of Mein Kampf, but, for the ravings of an insane lunatic, I found them pretty dull, going into his position on every tiny political party at the time. So, if you're going to read it, you should probably do so in a coffee house, as you will need the caffeine. StuRat 05:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want slightly lighter reading try Swastika Night a dystopian novel of what life would be like under after Hitler's victory written before WWII. Nowimnthing 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight answer: Rule the world. B00P 23:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall an article in

Mediterranean and Africa, and the Japanese were to get Asia and the west half of the Americas. I do NOT recall whether this was an actual plan or someone else's interpretation of what was being done. I don't know that Hitler even thought that far ahead - if he was the type to think things through, he wouldn't have tried his luck in Russia... Matt Deres 18:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I would say Hitler would have turned on Japan and Italy, too, as he did on Russia, since neither of those were Aryans, by his definition. And Germany would have had nuclear weapons (maybe by 1950 or so) before either of those countries, which weren't even working on them. Having nuclear weapons alone (assuming the US and Soviet Union no longer existed by then), and being willing to use them, would have made total world conquest a simple thing. StuRat 15:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how do i find out if the apartment that im living in is legal or not—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.80.50.78 (talk • contribs)

Where do you live? The rules for Abkhazia and Zimbabwe are different. --Lambiam^Talk 03:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell are you? Why don't you sign your own post with ~~~~. Ohanian 04:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohanian! Do you need a scolding?? Don't bite the newbies!! — [Mac Davis] (talk)

If you're living in the US for example, you can ask the INS to find out whether your apartment has legal status to be a resident of the US. Otherwise your apartment may be an illegal alien. Most other countries have similar government departments. Loomis 14:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Suppose a person releases an image on his website under a particular Creative commons license today, and I upload it to wikipedia. A few days later, the person removes the license tag from his website. The web archives show the tag to be present on the site around the time I uploaded the image. So can I still have this image on wikipedia, or should I put it up for deletion? TIA. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}07:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this hypothetical, or "based on a true story"? If the person had the right to relinquish the image, with that license, in the first place, they cannot suddenly revoke it, and particularly not if you already used it. They may have a case though, depending on where you are and what law applies, if they can show that their interest in the picture is disproportionately larger than any damage you might have if you give up your rights. Unless you behaved unreasonably, they would have to indemnify you. If they didn't have that right in the first place, you may have acted in good faith but should have the image deleted. This is not legal advice. I don't know what I'm talking about. --Lambiam^Talk 07:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus over on Commons Village Pump seems to be that "revocation" of free licensing has no legal validity worth worrying about, but should be honored for ethical reasons in certain particular cases (not all). AnonMoos 08:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terms of the free licenses generally explicitly say that it is perpetual for the duration of the copyright—see the "Termination" section on all of the CC licenses, for example. Which means that it cannot be legally revoked if it was put upon a work in good faith. That's the legal answer, not necessarily the "what should you do" practical/ethical answer. --Fastfission 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have wondered about something like that. Suppose someone uploads an image and tags it as free, but it is foud that it originally isn't (eg downloaded from some website) and the image is removed. Suppose someone has downloaded in the meantime. They can then distribute a copyrighted image in good faith, but still breaking the law. DirkvdM 10:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, they would be breaking the law, but if it ever came to court, I would blame it on whoever mistagged it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What he said. It would be false representation of copyright. Because we make users attest to the copyright status being accurate it is supposedly their issue. If we completely neglected such things and it was clear we encouraged that, perhaps we'd have a problem (I suspect YouTube will eventually run into this issue), but a lot of time is spent cracking down on that sort of thing for just this purpose. --Fastfission 00:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was indeed "based on a true story". Thanks guys. -- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK}05:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Does the word Rahula mean - a snake, or, a rope, or something which pulls you back?Did Buddha himself, name his son Rahula (as he considered his son's arrival as a Maya - bondage)?? In some articles & books, I noticed that, it's printed as Rahul instead of Rahula(though I doubt it's authenticity)...but then, the meaning of the name changes completely!Is it only a misprint ??? Buddham Sharanam Gachhami , Thanking you,--Pupunwiki 07:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See our articles

Rahula and Rahul. --Lambiam^Talk 07:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Although it is not clear from the article, it depends which language is being used. In Pali and Sanskrit (the languages of many Buddhist texts) the -a is very common, but in modern Hindi -a is a feminine suffix so it is not used for men's names. My name is Pali Sanskrit, but Indian people who are not familiar with the differences between Pali and Hindi insist on calling me Shantavir. --Shantavira 11:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve

Rahula to clarify this, but although the meaning of Rahula as a fetter or tie is well known in Buddhism, I can't find it in my Pali or Sanskrit dictionaries. However, Malalasekera's Dictionary of Pali Proper Names does say it means "bond".--Shantavira 19:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I get your point.Thanks... But now I want an answer to the following question , which is troubling me... What will be the feminine version of your name - in Pali?? --Pupunwiki 13:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. In Sanskrit vira means "man, especially a brave or eminent man" and in Pali it means "manly, mighty, heroic" so it isn't used for women's names at all.--Shantavira 14:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my grandpa told me he wrote a request to washington dc 25--like a department 25--to get info on opening up a buisness--i can't finf anything on this subject. do you know what hes talking about- if it was real and maybe what it's called today.. i've searched al over the web but everytime i enter the #25 thats all i get:numbers. thank you tifanie

Before the introduction of the current ZIP Code system, major cities were broken down into postal zones with one- or two-digit designations. See ZIP Code#Background. I suspect that your grandfather was writing to some agency that had an office in zone 25, so that its address was in "Washington 25, D.C." If so, the "25" became obsolete when the old postal zones were eliminated in favor of ZIP Codes. I doubt that "25" was the designation of any department. JamesMLane t c 09:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might try the U.S. Small Business Administration Marco polo 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That would have been the the Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office, Washington 25 DC. I wonder if mail to there would still work? Anyway, now that's http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ -- and they still carry a lot of the same stuff. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me if there's a specific term for the moment in a saint's life when he/she is lifted up to heaven, or undergoes some kind of miraculous deliverance from his/her martyrdom? I was thinking 'apotheosis', but it doesn't seem quite right; 'deliverance' might be closer, but I was wondering if there's a more specifically hagiographic term (if hagiographic is a word, that is). Thanks in advance Adambrowne666 12:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you mean 'assumption' as in Mary's assumption into heaven? I think that involves the body being taken too, and is considered extremely uncommon among those who believe in it, even for saints. Skittle 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is a term for this, but I don't think "deliverance" is it. "The deliverance of St. Peter", for example, does not refer to his martyrdom, but to the time when an angel freed him from Herod's prison. David Sneek 14:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Christian saints? From what do you derive the idea that there is such a moment in a saint's life? Most saints are not martyrs, but if routinely miraculously delivered from martyrdom there wouldn't be any martyrs left. --Lambiam^Talk 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my ignorance is showing - I guess I thought martyrdom was one of the prerequisites for Christian sainthood. In the case of the Rapture, I see 'rapture' itself means 'caught up'; can it be used as a verb? 'to be raptured'? Or is there another term? Maybe 'assumption' is the term I'm looking for? If the Rapture happened, would all the people borne into heaven be undergoing an assumption? Thanks for your answers Adambrowne666 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might help in finding the right term if we had a better idea what it is you're looking for a term for. As far as I'm aware "Assumption" is only used for the Virgin Mary, and is part of Roman Catholic doctrine, not general Christian doctrine. It refers to a process of sanctification and admission of her body to Heaven; the rest of us will have to wait for the bodily part till the Resurrection of the Dead, and until then be content with only our souls being in Heaven (or Hell, as the case may be). "Rapture" refers to the end times, and only plays a role as an important concept in certain predominantly U.S. Premillenial sects. A saint is essentially any person admitted to Heaven upon death; the Roman Catholic process of canonization is like a certification process, proclaiming that we can be certain the admission indeed took place. --Lambiam^Talk 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to section 614 of the

Where would I find the statutes? I've tried looking up the GPO website, but a search gets me nowhere! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas is the place to search for laws. This table of recently amended laws probably has what you are looking for. (Patriot Act was passed in 2001). Nowimnthing 16:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Step by step (you probably know most of this already): From Thomas (I haven't checked to see if that is different than the link above), click on Public Laws under Find More Legislations. Click on 106. Then, select 106-101-106-250 and click on View. Next to 113, click on H.R.3194. After Last Major Action, click on Text to see the whole text of the law. Search for 1501A-20 and you will see that statute in the law. --

(talk) 16:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

There's a few issues there. The Jews lived in the land of Goshen; presumably the most direct route out of Egypt from Goshen took them by the route of the Red Sea.

In terms of timing, the crossing of the Red Sea takes place at the start of

Philistines

lived there and He was concerned that the slave-people would be afraid.

Futhermore, there was 40 years of wandering before the Israelites entered the land. When they did so, they crossed the

river Jordan from East to West, opposite Jericho, which is a 90 degree angle from the southern approach from Egypt. --Dweller 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

They were also being pursued by an army, who may have got between them and the normal crossing-point. DJ Clayworth 16:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't going to Goshen, because they weren't Jews. According to our article the exodus was the departure of Hebrew slaves from Egypt, under the leadership of Moses and they were headed for Canaan. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you call them "Jews" or "Hebrews", (my use was anachronistic), you've misread what I wrote. They lived in Goshen (see Exodus 8:18 and 9:26 among others) before the Exodus. Goshen was in Egypt. --Dweller 09:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - I think the idea is that the Egyptian army was hot on their heels, once the Pharaoh reneged on his promise to Moses to "let my people go". They needed a quick escape, and God provided for his chosen people (or so the story goes). --68.64.100.100 17:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also heard that Red Sea is a matter of bad translation; instead of being the Red Sea it should be translated into

Passage of the Red Sea, its is explained in greater detail. Flamarande 18:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Correct. The Bible calls it "Yam Soof", Sea of Reeds. --Dweller 09:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally thought that the "Red Sea" of the Bible was actually the

• "why moses crossed the red sea??" To get to the other side. B00P 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be quite a few folks here who are knowledgeable about printing, so hopefully one of them will be able to answer this. I've noticed that in most books, the first line of the opening paragraph of a chapter is not indented. Why should this be? Subsequent paragraphs are always indented, so surely the first paragraph should be as well. I'm not talking about cases where the first letter, word or few words are given some kind of special typographical treatment such as capitalisation. Rather, the first line begins right at the left hand margin of the page. Thanks. --

I'm not entirely sure if there's a specific precedent for that, but I don't believe so. I know that in most of the magazines I work on, we usually don't indent first paragraphs of any story or subsection as a stylistic thing. On the first page of a book, it's probably just to pull the reader in. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for indenting is to visually offset the next paragraph from the preceding one, which is particularly needed if that ended with a full line. The first paragraph has no preceding one and doesn't need to be thusly offset. --Lambiam^Talk 16:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... any more than the adverb thus needs an adverbial suffix. —Tamfang (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for a breakbeat song. It's a very known breakdance song. Some phrases from the lyrics are "Mash up the place", "Roughnecks" and "Freestylers". Can't seem to find the song using Google though. I'm sorry that I can't be more specific than this. Thanks in advance.

Did you try Musipedia ? Any (musical, not word) hint may help. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What existing nations are generally reconized as dictatorships? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs)

Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? DirkvdM 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ones under the people in the List of dictators may or may not be dictators depending on your definition. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quick clue: countries with "Free," "Democratic," or "People's" in their names. B00P 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Orange Free State? Are you saying it was a dictatorship or do you agree with the most logical conclusion that is was completely free of oranges? Loomis 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my mother seem to dislike me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs)

Probably because you ask so many questions. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(To clarify, this was a comment on the fact the anon IP who posted this question also posted a bunch of others at the same time, on a diverse range of questions. This was not meant to be snarky or mean or anything.)Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A mother shall love her child and still dislike some little odds, is it so hard to feel ? Are you a boy or a girl ? How old are you ? Symptoms (your impressions about her attitude) may vary. -- DLL ^{.. T} 19:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is (or claims to be) a 25-year old man who finds sex boring, has never had a date with a girl, and connives to have a threesome with Enya and Jo Swinson (at least he spells her name right now). He also wants to get a job interview with Jimbo Wales, and become a secondary school administrator. In the meantime he wonders who the last living Boer War veteran was, and what the mandatory retirement age is for British Generals. If I was his mother, sure, I'd love him, but... little odds... what can I say? --Lambiam^Talk 07:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's most likely your perception which is faulty, especially if you are a teenager. At a certain age almost anything a parent does is taken as a sign of hatred: "My mom bought me a new shirt, and it's bigger than my old shirts, this must mean she thinks I'm fat and hates me." StuRat 21:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any child will confirm they dislike their parents for years, sometimes decades, at a time. And any parent can confirm that there are times when they don't like their children either. The important thing is that parents love their children unconditionally, most particularly when (a) they don't like them, or (b) they don't seem to deserve their love. JackofOz 23:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? DirkvdM 06:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Shangrala and Shambala the same place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs)

Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? DirkvdM 06:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La. Shambhala. You tell us. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shangri-La seems to be a composite of a number of real and legendary places, including Shambala.

Is the US a police State? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs)

Research it at Police state and make your own judgement. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One requirement of a police state is that the police are not subject to law - giving them the authority to try and convict anyone at will. I don't know about the whole U.S., but where I live the police have more laws governing how they do their jobs that I have governing how I do mine. There are many people who try to loosen the definition of a police state in order to argue that the U.S. is a police state and, because so, Bush is evil. But, redefining terms to prove your point doesn't prove anything. --

(talk) 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Where I live the police also have laws governing their jobs, they just have the option of ignoring them. That's not to say that there are no laws governing them, for instance if a police officer discharged his or her weapon into a crowded subway car during rush hour killing 12 people and spilling a cup of coffee, I'm sure, someone in the mayors office would make sure that such an officer was given a ticket for uncovering a hot beverage in a subway during rush hour, that's against the law you know--152.163.100.72 18:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. A police officer killed 12 people in a subway in your town and wasn't punished? Or - are you just making up things that haven't actually happened because you can't find anything that really did happen that is bad enough to justify your position? I can do better: President Bush came to my town and, for no reason, stopped by my house while I was at work and ate my hedgehog. I tried to complain, but the secret service threatened to exile me to Iraq. Damn Patriot Act!!! --

(talk) 23:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If you're trying to belittle the serious threat of coffee spillage, it's not going to happen. Unless you're trying to have a serious conversation here, which seems doubtful--205.188.117.12 00:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, spilled coffee represents an enormous threat, especially to

McDonalds. :=) StuRat 05:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Could you please stop asking wildly random questions and start signing your posts? DirkvdM 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AOL, AOL gives out proxies on a per page basis, instead of a per user basis, so all AOL edits to the same page, come from the same IP, no matter who makes them, I certianly always sign my posts, the above being an example of a post that isn't mine--152.163.100.72 13:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]