Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< July 4 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 6 > |
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. |
Which classical composer composed the most compositions? Asmeurer ( talk ♬ contribs) 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly not classical, although few composers can claim to have composed a piece lasting many times their own lifetime: John Cage. As Slow as Possible is currently being performed, so far having completed six years of 639. [1]. Though perhaps that is the longest piece and not the most prolific composer. martianlostinspace 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Have there been any studies on the effects of music on front-line soldiers during combat? Specifically:
Neon Merlin 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Plato felt that playing music in a particular mode would incline one towards specific behavior associated with that mode, and suggested that soldiers should listen to music in Dorian or Phrygian modes to help make them stronger, but avoid music in Lydian, Mixed Lydian or Ionian modes, for fear of being softened.
Clio's answer to the Edward Aetheling question above has raised a question in my mind. Take this fanciful scenario: Queen Elizabeth goes swimming on a secluded Scottish beach, gets caught in a rip and is swept out to sea (à la Harold Holt). After massive fruitless searching, she is declared legally dead. Prince Charles is proclaimed king. Some weeks later, Elizabeth returns - she'd been captured by aliens but was found unworthy of further study and released unharmed (or insert your own explanation for her disappearance). What happens? Is Charles now disenthroned and Elizabeth restored? Can parliament, in such circumstances, alter the law to make the heir's accession to the throne conditional on the original monarch not being later found alive? And would that make Charles a somewhat "lame duck" monarch, at least until such time as Elizabeth might have been expected to die naturally? Or, if he accedes fully and unconditionally, would a further law be required to retrospectively deem him not to have acceded? Or deem him to have now abdicated? I realise there are no modern precedents to go on, and we're not supposed to speculate here, but any thoughts would be welcome. -- JackofOz 04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It just occured to me that there's something we've all missed. There is probably some sort of legal precedent for this already. Not of monarchs obviously but of normal people declared dead who reappear. What happens with inheritance etc? It appears from a quick Google that Tamfang is probably right (indeed thinking of it it sounds right). At least in inheritance, you can reclaim your inheritance from your heirs (not a simple matter obviously) [2] & [3] (also Death in absentia although doesn't say much). You were not dead therefore anything that happened because you were dead would have been invalid/should not have occured. If Elizabeth was never dead then her being declared dead was an error and if she didn't die and didn't abdicate, then she would still be queen. Now obviously if she came back 7 years later after being held by aliens, they would probably want her to prove she was Elizabeth even if she looked right. In this day and age, a simple DNA test would be sufficient. It perhaps could get a little more complicated if she hadn't been abducted but instead had grown bored of her reign and decided to join a commune for 7 years. In this case, it may be determinated that by running away for 7 years she had effectively abdicated the throne. As with what Tamfang mentioned, I would guess a special act of parliament would be needed to confirm this. See also Succession to the British Throne (specifically James II of England) Nil Einne 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A second thing occured to me. If she came back telling people she had been abducted by aliens (unless the aliens came with her) it's unlikely anyone would believe her. Since no one would want an insane monarch, it's rather likely she would be force to abducate or otherwise removed... Or perhaps more likely, Charles would remain regent until she really died (I guess this is what happens if the monarch is incapacitated or insane but remains alive). Indeed, even if the aliens came with her, I'm not sure whether anyone would trust someone who had been held by aliens for 7 years. Of course, this is somewhat against the point Nil Einne 00:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
What is record of earl facial hair and late facial hair? -- Vess 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant early and late facial hair. -- Vess 10:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: |
I previously asked a question here about Martin Heidegger and German university life in the 1930s and got a very helpful answer, with a guide to further research. I am now looking for some detail on the career of Professor Albert Brackmann, another German academic who worked in the same period. There is a page on the German Wikipedia, but nothing in English. Can anyone help? My thanks in anticipation. E. G. A.. Husserl 09:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
While you are waiting for a translation I can help you to travel slightly further along your road with the following information.
Brackmann was one of the leading historians in Ostforschung, a multi-disciplined organisation set up to co-ordinate German research on eastern Europe. In 1913, at the age of twenty-seven, he was appointed professor of history at the University of Königsberg in East Prussia. Originally a specialist in relations between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy, he turned towards the history of the Germans in eastern Europe as a result of his experiences of the First World War. Politically conservative, he was a member of the DNVP during the Weimar Republic, and was joint editor of the prestigious and influential Historische Zeitschrift from 1928 to 1935.
Favoured by leading Nazis, including Hitler himself, he steadily turned the Ostforschung away from detached academic work towards projects that fed directly into the wider foreign policy and expansionist aims being pursued by the Nazi government. In September 1939, he congratulated himself on heading an organisation that had become the central agency "for scholarly advice for the Foreign, Interior and Propaganda ministries; the army high command and a number of SS departments." He was also an author for the Ahnenerbe, a research body set up under the auspices of Heinrich Himmler, writing papers that questioned the historical validity of Poland as a nation.
After the outbreak of the war, his work also extended to issues of 'Germanisation', and the removal of undesired ethnic elements from German domains. In this particular context he did much to promote the work of Otto Reche, professor of racial studies at the University of Leipzig, and a noted anti-Semite. Responding to Reche's appeal that Germany needed Raum (room), and not 'Polish lice in the fur', Brackmann brought his argument for a strict definition of ethnicity to the attention of a number of different ministries. In essence, Reche argued that the Poles should be pushed eastwards further into the Ukraine, whose population, in turn, would be pushed even further east.
Defeat in the war produced only a temporary halt in Brackmann's academic work. In 1946 he was actively involved in the reconstruction of Ostforschung, and many of his pupils went on to occupy important academic positions in the German Federal Republic, with anti-communism replacing the former fashion for expansionism. Brackmann died in 1952, but the Zeitschrift for Ostforschung went on, amongst other things, to re-publish some of the work of the notoriously anti-Polish Dr Kurt Lück, who served as an SS Sonderführer, before he was killed by Soviet partisans in 1942. The most accessible treatment in English on this whole subject is Germany Turns Eastwards: A Study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich by Micheal Burleigh. Clio the Muse 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Since nobody seems to be interested in translating the German article (which is not very detailed anyway), I copied the text of Clio's reply to Albert Brackmann, so that we could have some article on the subject. I also tweaked Ostforschung accordingly. -- Ghirla -трёп- 20:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Can permanent, veto-holding members of the UNSC veto resolutions aimed at themselves? So could the UK, say, veto a resolution calling for sanctions against the UK? Could they even vote in such an occurence?
Furthermore, there has been much talk about removing the veto from the permanent members of the UNSC. If such a move found sufficient worldwide support, how would it be done? Would it require an amendment to the UN Charter or some other document? If so, how is that done? The General Assembly? And again, would anyone have a veto over it? Batmanand | Talk 10:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
For the existing entry Gabriel and Maxim Shamir, "Shamir" for it does not show up by using "search."
For the new entry Jeremy Langford, the "L" of his family is lowercase in the main title .
Can these be fixed by Wikepedia staff person?
Thanks,
Mel Byars
Is A People's History of the United States worth reading? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
what did thomas crapper not invent. i dont understand.
yes so why my teache3r says something he didnt invent. he must have not invented lots of things.
He is widely (and wrongly) believed to have invented the water closet. DuncanHill 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thankyou
Sounds to me like a homework or perhaps quiz question Nil Einne 08:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just started to read Ulysses by James Joyce and, to put it mildly, I am making slow progress against the current! I can make no sense of this passage from the first section;
"Glorious, pious and immortal memory. The lodge of Diamond in Armagh the splendid behung with corpses of papishes. Hoarse, masked and armed, the planters covenant. The black north and true blue bible. Croppies lie down."
Can anyone interpret this for me? More than this, is there a 'correct' way to read this book? I think I may be doing things all wrong. Thanks, oh brilliant ones! Irishbard 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
"Glorious, pious and immortal memory" is part of a toast used by the Orange Order. It refers to William III DuncanHill 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) I would also recommend "Here Comes Everybody" by Anthony Burgess as an introduction to Joyce for anyone feeling baffled. DuncanHill 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Irishbard, the passage in question has now largely been 'deconstructed' and interpreted for you. All I really need to do is add one or two minor points of clarification. The toast to William of Orange continues "...who saved us from popery, slavery, arbitrary power, brass money, and wooden shoes." (Yes, it does!) The 'Planter's covenant' is a reference to the oath of loyalty to the British crown in return for land grants in Ulster. 'True blue' is an allusion to Presbyterian Rebels in Scotland-the Covenanters-who during the Bishops' Wars adopted the blue cockade as their badge. Many of the Planters in Ulster were, of course, Scots.
Ulysses is a marvellous book, Joyce's 'encyclopedia', as he described it, full of rich references to all aspects of Irish culture and history. There are so many ways of reading it, but I, too, would urge you not to get bogged down. However, it looks as if you might need a mentor or a guide through the labyrinth. The version I read based on the original 1922 text, edited and fully annotated by Jeri Johnson, and published by Oxford University Press, is, I believe, among the best available. Clio the Muse 23:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, good for you for reading Ulysses!!! It’s is one of my favorite books in the world! In fact my user name comes from one of the main character in the book. S.dedalus 03:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Bill Pinkney's article claims that he pitched in Negro League baseball for a team called the New York Blue Sox. None of Wikipedia's articles on Negro League baseball mentions this team. I can find nothing in Google about any such team except for repetitions of the claim in Pinkney obituaries. Can anybody verify that there was such a team? Corvus cornix 18:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
hey there everyone, there has been a reoccurring picture in my mind that was popular in newspapers a number of years back (back when i only grazed the newspapers). it was of two decidedly east asian-looking children (possibly vietnamese?), i think they were only about 12, they were brothers i believe, and they were leaders of some military effort. i remember seeing many pictures of them wielding guns and smoking cigarettes but i don't remember who they were or what they were doing. if someone can put together the vague details i've provided it'd be sweet. thanks -- 74.97.142.249 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
In the book, when Patrick steals the Taxi and has the shootout with the police, he mentions that he has a .357 magnum. Later, he claims he reloads by "slipping the clip out". I was under the impression that a .357 was only a round for revolvers. Is this a mistake on Bret Ellis' part?
M0rphz 19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What defence can be made, if any, of Pierre Laval's actions during in Second World War? Captainhardy 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Poor Pierre Laval, most definitely the 'man you love to hate.' Even Marshal Petain, head of the Vichy state, said of him Ce Laval-quel fumier! (What horse shit). In a poll carried out Novelle Litterairies in 1980 on the fairness of his post-war trial, only 2% of the respondents said that he should have been acquitted. Indeed, Laval has become the ultimate scapegoat, the French Judas. There are still those who would excuse Petain, believing he acted for noble if misguided motives. Nobody defends or excuses Laval, who is held to represent the 'unacceptable face' of Vichy. Even his appearance was against him; he seems the very quintessence of the shifty and disreputable politician. He was the ultimate wheeler-dealer, reflected even in his nickname, the 'horse trader.'
What defence can be made? Very little, I suppose, but I will try my best. First and foremost, he set out to preserve his country, not to betray it. He was never in that sense a Quisling, and senior French fascists were kept out of the Vichy administration. His task, as he saw it, was to continue the work of Aristide Briand in ending the emnity between France and Germany. But whereas Briand had Gustav Streseman, Laval had Hitler. He was also mindful of the fate of Poland under the Nazis, and saw active collaboration as a way of preventing a similar fate befalling France, thus ensuring that the country would have a role to play in the post-war settlement. He did not 'believe' in a German victory; but he did expect it. His chief aim was to conclude a treaty that would end the occupation, bring French prisoners of war home, and secure France's overseas empire. His chief failure was that he never really understood that the Germans were not at all intrested in maintaining a 'reasonable relationship', only in securing Frech support in advancing their war aims. Even his scheme to bring the prisoners of war home in return for sending French workers to Germany produced little in the way of practical returns, France giving far more than it received. He did his best to save the French Jews from deportation, but only at the sacrifice of those not of French nationality, which had the effect of turning his horse-trading into the grossest forms of moral turpitude.
He may indeed have been right, that things would have been worse without him, a defence that he made at his 'trial' in 1945. To the very end he preserved the semblance of an independent French state, and kept his long-standing promise that he would never consent to a declaration of war. The problem was that he simply lost all sight of the big picture, and that the collaboration which he believed would save France forced him into ever decreasing circle of compromise and betrayal. A more prudent politician would have said much and given little. Laval said much and gave even more. Clio the Muse 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< July 4 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 6 > |
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. |
Which classical composer composed the most compositions? Asmeurer ( talk ♬ contribs) 05:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Certainly not classical, although few composers can claim to have composed a piece lasting many times their own lifetime: John Cage. As Slow as Possible is currently being performed, so far having completed six years of 639. [1]. Though perhaps that is the longest piece and not the most prolific composer. martianlostinspace 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Have there been any studies on the effects of music on front-line soldiers during combat? Specifically:
Neon Merlin 02:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Plato felt that playing music in a particular mode would incline one towards specific behavior associated with that mode, and suggested that soldiers should listen to music in Dorian or Phrygian modes to help make them stronger, but avoid music in Lydian, Mixed Lydian or Ionian modes, for fear of being softened.
Clio's answer to the Edward Aetheling question above has raised a question in my mind. Take this fanciful scenario: Queen Elizabeth goes swimming on a secluded Scottish beach, gets caught in a rip and is swept out to sea (à la Harold Holt). After massive fruitless searching, she is declared legally dead. Prince Charles is proclaimed king. Some weeks later, Elizabeth returns - she'd been captured by aliens but was found unworthy of further study and released unharmed (or insert your own explanation for her disappearance). What happens? Is Charles now disenthroned and Elizabeth restored? Can parliament, in such circumstances, alter the law to make the heir's accession to the throne conditional on the original monarch not being later found alive? And would that make Charles a somewhat "lame duck" monarch, at least until such time as Elizabeth might have been expected to die naturally? Or, if he accedes fully and unconditionally, would a further law be required to retrospectively deem him not to have acceded? Or deem him to have now abdicated? I realise there are no modern precedents to go on, and we're not supposed to speculate here, but any thoughts would be welcome. -- JackofOz 04:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It just occured to me that there's something we've all missed. There is probably some sort of legal precedent for this already. Not of monarchs obviously but of normal people declared dead who reappear. What happens with inheritance etc? It appears from a quick Google that Tamfang is probably right (indeed thinking of it it sounds right). At least in inheritance, you can reclaim your inheritance from your heirs (not a simple matter obviously) [2] & [3] (also Death in absentia although doesn't say much). You were not dead therefore anything that happened because you were dead would have been invalid/should not have occured. If Elizabeth was never dead then her being declared dead was an error and if she didn't die and didn't abdicate, then she would still be queen. Now obviously if she came back 7 years later after being held by aliens, they would probably want her to prove she was Elizabeth even if she looked right. In this day and age, a simple DNA test would be sufficient. It perhaps could get a little more complicated if she hadn't been abducted but instead had grown bored of her reign and decided to join a commune for 7 years. In this case, it may be determinated that by running away for 7 years she had effectively abdicated the throne. As with what Tamfang mentioned, I would guess a special act of parliament would be needed to confirm this. See also Succession to the British Throne (specifically James II of England) Nil Einne 00:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
A second thing occured to me. If she came back telling people she had been abducted by aliens (unless the aliens came with her) it's unlikely anyone would believe her. Since no one would want an insane monarch, it's rather likely she would be force to abducate or otherwise removed... Or perhaps more likely, Charles would remain regent until she really died (I guess this is what happens if the monarch is incapacitated or insane but remains alive). Indeed, even if the aliens came with her, I'm not sure whether anyone would trust someone who had been held by aliens for 7 years. Of course, this is somewhat against the point Nil Einne 00:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
What is record of earl facial hair and late facial hair? -- Vess 07:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I meant early and late facial hair. -- Vess 10:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced: |
I previously asked a question here about Martin Heidegger and German university life in the 1930s and got a very helpful answer, with a guide to further research. I am now looking for some detail on the career of Professor Albert Brackmann, another German academic who worked in the same period. There is a page on the German Wikipedia, but nothing in English. Can anyone help? My thanks in anticipation. E. G. A.. Husserl 09:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
While you are waiting for a translation I can help you to travel slightly further along your road with the following information.
Brackmann was one of the leading historians in Ostforschung, a multi-disciplined organisation set up to co-ordinate German research on eastern Europe. In 1913, at the age of twenty-seven, he was appointed professor of history at the University of Königsberg in East Prussia. Originally a specialist in relations between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy, he turned towards the history of the Germans in eastern Europe as a result of his experiences of the First World War. Politically conservative, he was a member of the DNVP during the Weimar Republic, and was joint editor of the prestigious and influential Historische Zeitschrift from 1928 to 1935.
Favoured by leading Nazis, including Hitler himself, he steadily turned the Ostforschung away from detached academic work towards projects that fed directly into the wider foreign policy and expansionist aims being pursued by the Nazi government. In September 1939, he congratulated himself on heading an organisation that had become the central agency "for scholarly advice for the Foreign, Interior and Propaganda ministries; the army high command and a number of SS departments." He was also an author for the Ahnenerbe, a research body set up under the auspices of Heinrich Himmler, writing papers that questioned the historical validity of Poland as a nation.
After the outbreak of the war, his work also extended to issues of 'Germanisation', and the removal of undesired ethnic elements from German domains. In this particular context he did much to promote the work of Otto Reche, professor of racial studies at the University of Leipzig, and a noted anti-Semite. Responding to Reche's appeal that Germany needed Raum (room), and not 'Polish lice in the fur', Brackmann brought his argument for a strict definition of ethnicity to the attention of a number of different ministries. In essence, Reche argued that the Poles should be pushed eastwards further into the Ukraine, whose population, in turn, would be pushed even further east.
Defeat in the war produced only a temporary halt in Brackmann's academic work. In 1946 he was actively involved in the reconstruction of Ostforschung, and many of his pupils went on to occupy important academic positions in the German Federal Republic, with anti-communism replacing the former fashion for expansionism. Brackmann died in 1952, but the Zeitschrift for Ostforschung went on, amongst other things, to re-publish some of the work of the notoriously anti-Polish Dr Kurt Lück, who served as an SS Sonderführer, before he was killed by Soviet partisans in 1942. The most accessible treatment in English on this whole subject is Germany Turns Eastwards: A Study of Ostforschung in the Third Reich by Micheal Burleigh. Clio the Muse 00:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Since nobody seems to be interested in translating the German article (which is not very detailed anyway), I copied the text of Clio's reply to Albert Brackmann, so that we could have some article on the subject. I also tweaked Ostforschung accordingly. -- Ghirla -трёп- 20:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Can permanent, veto-holding members of the UNSC veto resolutions aimed at themselves? So could the UK, say, veto a resolution calling for sanctions against the UK? Could they even vote in such an occurence?
Furthermore, there has been much talk about removing the veto from the permanent members of the UNSC. If such a move found sufficient worldwide support, how would it be done? Would it require an amendment to the UN Charter or some other document? If so, how is that done? The General Assembly? And again, would anyone have a veto over it? Batmanand | Talk 10:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
For the existing entry Gabriel and Maxim Shamir, "Shamir" for it does not show up by using "search."
For the new entry Jeremy Langford, the "L" of his family is lowercase in the main title .
Can these be fixed by Wikepedia staff person?
Thanks,
Mel Byars
Is A People's History of the United States worth reading? — Erik ( talk • contrib) - 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
what did thomas crapper not invent. i dont understand.
yes so why my teache3r says something he didnt invent. he must have not invented lots of things.
He is widely (and wrongly) believed to have invented the water closet. DuncanHill 23:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thankyou
Sounds to me like a homework or perhaps quiz question Nil Einne 08:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just started to read Ulysses by James Joyce and, to put it mildly, I am making slow progress against the current! I can make no sense of this passage from the first section;
"Glorious, pious and immortal memory. The lodge of Diamond in Armagh the splendid behung with corpses of papishes. Hoarse, masked and armed, the planters covenant. The black north and true blue bible. Croppies lie down."
Can anyone interpret this for me? More than this, is there a 'correct' way to read this book? I think I may be doing things all wrong. Thanks, oh brilliant ones! Irishbard 18:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
"Glorious, pious and immortal memory" is part of a toast used by the Orange Order. It refers to William III DuncanHill 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC) I would also recommend "Here Comes Everybody" by Anthony Burgess as an introduction to Joyce for anyone feeling baffled. DuncanHill 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Irishbard, the passage in question has now largely been 'deconstructed' and interpreted for you. All I really need to do is add one or two minor points of clarification. The toast to William of Orange continues "...who saved us from popery, slavery, arbitrary power, brass money, and wooden shoes." (Yes, it does!) The 'Planter's covenant' is a reference to the oath of loyalty to the British crown in return for land grants in Ulster. 'True blue' is an allusion to Presbyterian Rebels in Scotland-the Covenanters-who during the Bishops' Wars adopted the blue cockade as their badge. Many of the Planters in Ulster were, of course, Scots.
Ulysses is a marvellous book, Joyce's 'encyclopedia', as he described it, full of rich references to all aspects of Irish culture and history. There are so many ways of reading it, but I, too, would urge you not to get bogged down. However, it looks as if you might need a mentor or a guide through the labyrinth. The version I read based on the original 1922 text, edited and fully annotated by Jeri Johnson, and published by Oxford University Press, is, I believe, among the best available. Clio the Muse 23:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow, good for you for reading Ulysses!!! It’s is one of my favorite books in the world! In fact my user name comes from one of the main character in the book. S.dedalus 03:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Bill Pinkney's article claims that he pitched in Negro League baseball for a team called the New York Blue Sox. None of Wikipedia's articles on Negro League baseball mentions this team. I can find nothing in Google about any such team except for repetitions of the claim in Pinkney obituaries. Can anybody verify that there was such a team? Corvus cornix 18:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
hey there everyone, there has been a reoccurring picture in my mind that was popular in newspapers a number of years back (back when i only grazed the newspapers). it was of two decidedly east asian-looking children (possibly vietnamese?), i think they were only about 12, they were brothers i believe, and they were leaders of some military effort. i remember seeing many pictures of them wielding guns and smoking cigarettes but i don't remember who they were or what they were doing. if someone can put together the vague details i've provided it'd be sweet. thanks -- 74.97.142.249 19:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
In the book, when Patrick steals the Taxi and has the shootout with the police, he mentions that he has a .357 magnum. Later, he claims he reloads by "slipping the clip out". I was under the impression that a .357 was only a round for revolvers. Is this a mistake on Bret Ellis' part?
M0rphz 19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What defence can be made, if any, of Pierre Laval's actions during in Second World War? Captainhardy 20:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Poor Pierre Laval, most definitely the 'man you love to hate.' Even Marshal Petain, head of the Vichy state, said of him Ce Laval-quel fumier! (What horse shit). In a poll carried out Novelle Litterairies in 1980 on the fairness of his post-war trial, only 2% of the respondents said that he should have been acquitted. Indeed, Laval has become the ultimate scapegoat, the French Judas. There are still those who would excuse Petain, believing he acted for noble if misguided motives. Nobody defends or excuses Laval, who is held to represent the 'unacceptable face' of Vichy. Even his appearance was against him; he seems the very quintessence of the shifty and disreputable politician. He was the ultimate wheeler-dealer, reflected even in his nickname, the 'horse trader.'
What defence can be made? Very little, I suppose, but I will try my best. First and foremost, he set out to preserve his country, not to betray it. He was never in that sense a Quisling, and senior French fascists were kept out of the Vichy administration. His task, as he saw it, was to continue the work of Aristide Briand in ending the emnity between France and Germany. But whereas Briand had Gustav Streseman, Laval had Hitler. He was also mindful of the fate of Poland under the Nazis, and saw active collaboration as a way of preventing a similar fate befalling France, thus ensuring that the country would have a role to play in the post-war settlement. He did not 'believe' in a German victory; but he did expect it. His chief aim was to conclude a treaty that would end the occupation, bring French prisoners of war home, and secure France's overseas empire. His chief failure was that he never really understood that the Germans were not at all intrested in maintaining a 'reasonable relationship', only in securing Frech support in advancing their war aims. Even his scheme to bring the prisoners of war home in return for sending French workers to Germany produced little in the way of practical returns, France giving far more than it received. He did his best to save the French Jews from deportation, but only at the sacrifice of those not of French nationality, which had the effect of turning his horse-trading into the grossest forms of moral turpitude.
He may indeed have been right, that things would have been worse without him, a defence that he made at his 'trial' in 1945. To the very end he preserved the semblance of an independent French state, and kept his long-standing promise that he would never consent to a declaration of war. The problem was that he simply lost all sight of the big picture, and that the collaboration which he believed would save France forced him into ever decreasing circle of compromise and betrayal. A more prudent politician would have said much and given little. Laval said much and gave even more. Clio the Muse 02:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)