Humanities desk
< March 25	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 27 >

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.

March 26

Holocaust

How did the SA and SS know who was Jewish and where to look for them. Surely if your only a Jew from an ethnic perspective it would make it very hard for them to track you down. And I'm sure that once the leaders of the synagogues realised the precariousness of the Jews' situation they destroyed all their records relating to their congregation. So my question is how did they know. Obviously a few people their neighbours but in the majority of the time this doesn't seem to be the case; also, unless you were a practising Jew they wouldn't have noticed would they? My guess is that people who looked "Jewish", that is to say, semitic, were arrested. Thanks, Hadseys 00:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You assumption is based on a non-centralist census. As far as I can see census information in pre-war Germany was carried out in a centralised way. So it was not based on local religous authourities but local governmental authorities. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh but obviously if you wanna find out whose a jew you see whose coming out the synagogue? So maybe the rabbis encouraged their congregations to steer clear because synagogues keep their own records dont they. --Thanks, Hadseys 00:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This answer to a similar question is unsourced but credible. Marco polo (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did churches really provide fake baptism records for strangers? I hope they did. There was a similar question to this one here some time ago. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a police state, information is severely restricted, as is travel, so they might not have any idea what was happening, until it was too late. Bribing authorities might work for a while, but sooner or later the authorities' greed was likely to exceed the ability to pay. If they tried "passing" for non-Jews, they would need fake documents, as they had to present those periodically to the authorities. Another option was to hide, which required non-Jews who were willing to risk their lives to hide them and bring food and supplies. Escaping to a neutral or Allied nation was another possibility, but, since travel was difficult, this was normally only practical for those near a poorly guarded border. StuRat (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At various points in the Nazi regime, Jews were allowed to emigrate, although after awhile they were essentially "taxed" so heavily that they would have to basically leave almost all of their assets behind if they were to be allowed out. Remember that the "Final Solution" was not fully implemented until 1942 — it wasn't necessarily the only way that the Nazis were going to deal with the Jews. We have a tendency to read the past backwards and say, heck, it's obvious from Mein Kampf that this was going to happen. But it's always a lot harder to figure out what's going on at the time, much less what will happen next. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the book IBM and the Holocaust if you'd like a rather thorough account. It's really rather amazing. They had extremely adequate censuses in Germany, and had done a massive one in 1939 with the express point of identifying who was Jewish. They had the ability to put family records into computers, they could trace name changes, track genealogies, and, if I recall, in many instances they even had the cooperation with many in the Jewish community, which is rather awful in retrospect, but life is complicated like that (it is often the case that oppressed groups "cooperate" on the assumption that the results will be worse for all if they don't — in this case, that turned out not to be the case). It wasn't about "looking" Jewish or other such crudities — it was a very "modern" approach. One of the first really tragic uses of information technology. They could not have pulled off such an organized effort without it. (There are plenty of awful things you can do without IT, of course.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup in France says "Until the German occupation of France in 1940, no roundup would have been possible because no census listing religions had been held in France since 1874. A German ordinance on 21 September 1940, however, forced Jewish people of the occupied zone to register at a police station or sub-prefectures. Nearly 150,000 registered in the department of the Seine, encompassing Paris and its immediate suburbs. Their names and addresses were kept by the French police."

Fear of the consequences of disobedience must have been a motivating factor. Jewish families would have been known in their local communities and possibly distinguished by distinctive surnames or occupations. For many people, suddenly pretending not to be Jewish was not an option. Alansplodge (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My father, when the Nazis invaded his (Polish) village in 1939, was herded into the town square along with all the other males under 65, at which point they were all ordered to drop their pants. An acquaintance of his, who happened to be circumsized (but not Jewish) was led away with the other Jewish men - to God knows where. 121.44.248.32 (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed worth noting that the Nazi's approach in Poland was often much cruder than their approach in Germany and France. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the East they didn't seem to bother with passing laws and keeping records, so, in D&D terms, they were "chaotic evil" in the East and "lawful evil" in the West. StuRat (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the circumcision check is depicted in at least two French films about the era - Au Revoir les Enfants and Un Sac de Billes. Alansplodge (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what people in India did when there were tensions between Hindus and Muslims as well; it's not just the Nazis who resorted to checking for foreskins to determine religion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnenpass has the answer regarding public servants. The Nazis do cared about lineage way before the final solution - on 1942. Anyone working as a public servant would have been labeled as Jewish/non-Jewish. It was simply too late for most for trying to pass as a non-Jew. Quest09 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cases of Jews passing as Aryans (e.g. Europa Europa) are usually those who are completely cut off from their families and traditional communities in some way. This should not surprise us — the entire means of identification (for this purpose or any other) are generally connected to one's embeddedness in society. It's certainly not realistic that entire communities could suddenly give themselves new identities without being recognized, to suddenly disconnect themselves from all of the paperwork that binds them to their history. We tend to think of the 1940s as being a much more "free form" time in terms of papers, records, etc., but it is really not true, especially not in Germany, where the modern bureaucracy was born. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware of the article page: Star of David, under the paragraph: "Holocaust"? Many did escape: "Scarlet Pimpernel", for example, a nick-name given to the one who organised their escape. MacOfJesus (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the Nazis often used a thin end of the wedge tactic. At first they have very minor restrictions, but these got worse and worse. In the days of sparse and controlled media, it woyuld not be easy to guess what was going to happen. 92.15.1.33 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season by Hemisphere

During the months around January in the Northern Hemisphere, e.g. around the US, the season is called Winter. In the southern hemisphere, e.g. Australia, during the same month--while they experience warm weather--do they call the season Winter as well, or do they call it summer? Lord Arador (talk) 09:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Australians call the warm months summer and the cool months winter, just like you. They just happen 6 months out of phase with the northern hemisphere. HiLo48 (talk) 09:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about it, words like "wintery" and "summery" denote cold and warm weather respectively. We share (sort of) the same language, so it'd get terribly confusing if "summery" to us meant what "wintery" means to you, and vice-versa. So, as HiLo says, we very sensibly have our summer when it's hot, and our winter when it's cold. But despite this, much of our Christmas paraphernalia down here is about snowmen, fir trees, people all rugged up and cosy in woollen jumpers, chestnuts roasting on open fires, heavy Santa Claus suits and all the rest - which are utterly and completely inappropriate for our climate here at that time of year, which is decidedly hot. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One important point - we don't use the name Fall for the season after Summer. We use the British name of Autumn. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain the first day of spring is traditionally said to be the 21st of March - see Spring (season). However this makes the first day of summer far too late, on the 21st. June, although I understand that this is used in North America. In southern England, at least, May is definately part of summer. Which makes it difficult to split the seasons into four three-month periods, as August is summer too. The way I prefer to spilt the months up is: Spring - February, March, April. Summer - May, June, July, August, September. Autumn - October, November. Winter - December, January. For me, in mild south-eastern England, spring begins on St Valentines Day on the 14th. February, and September is late summer with many fine sunny warm days. In more northerly parts of England, at higher elevations, then these seasons do not hold. The natural markers are: trees leaves going brown - beginning of autumn; trees have lost all leaves - winter; flowers appearing - spring; trees all in leaf - summer. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, May is Spring in southern England however you look at it. May Day is a traditional spring festival. Some trees are not even in leaf by then. Alansplodge (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are where I live. Most of them are in leaf in April. Its warm enough not to wear a coat on 1st. May. In fact I havnt been wearing a coat for the past two or three days, and its still March. Even earlier than that, there was a day warm enought to just wear a t-shirt. Yesterday I noticed that some trees were in bloom with white or pink blossoms - you could not say that that happens during winter. May I suggest going on country walks, to see things at first hand rather than via tv? 92.29.127.59 (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Blackthorn is - as always - the first to blossom. A warm spell in March that brings out the blackthorn is called a Blackthorn Winter. Some ornamental trees such as almonds are out early too. Hawthorn is already in leaf but won't flower until the end of April - hence "mayflower". "Oak is sensitive to temperature and will normally leaf in a warm spring from mid-April to the first week of May, whereas ash tends to leaf in May rather than April." says Dr Kate Lewthwaite of the Woodland Trust.

The climate where I live in northern England must be very different from that of Alan's southern UK because in recent years May has been the sunniest time here, so I tend to regard it as summer, whereas we have known hard frosts at the start of September, and winter definitely started in November last year. Dbfirs 11:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood the logic of the "first day of" a season being the equinox or solstice because, without temperature lag, these astronomical events should be the mid-points of the respective seasons. Americans apparently seem to think that these dates are "official" in some sense, as do some people in the UK, but the meteorological division of the year into groups of three warmest, coldest and "in-between" months is becoming more widespread (with summer in the northern hemisphere being the months of June, July & August). The Scandinavian "spring" is defined in terms of temperature, so its start varies from year to year, and the official start gradually creeps north with the sun. I suppose there are regions of the northern hemisphere (perhaps especially in America) where the temperature lag is around one eighth of a year, and in these areas it makes sense to use the "traditional first day". The Celtic tradition in the UK (and elsewhere) has the equinox (actually ~~May~~ March 20th not 21st) as the middle of spring. Dbfirs 11:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The half-season shift is somewhat arbitrary, but much less arbitrary than using months. Months are completely artificial.

Well actually the seasons are an arbitrary human construct because temperature does not vary consistently like sunlight, so the least arbitrary is the Celtic definition with the equinox as mid-spring. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant March 20th, right? But you know, the equinox is not a day. It's a (reasonably) precise instant, definable at least to the minute, and varies from year to year. --Trovatore (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did mean March (now corrected). The moment of the equinox is almost always on the 20th, not 21st, especially in America. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Hardiness_zone#Britain_and_Ireland_Hardiness_Zones then some places have better climates than others, and being north or south is not the only thing that matters. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Late Spring Holiday then? Alansplodge (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to all of Britain, and summer is shorter and spring later in Northern England and Scotland (when I visited northern Scotland in August once, people were wearing overcoats and I shivered). Only a minority of UK people live in the south. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, the official start of summer is the Solstice, June 21... but most people think of summer as starting on Memorial Day (which falls on the last Monday in May). The same happens at the end of summer... most people think of summer as ending on Labor Day (first Monday in September) but the season officially continues until the equinox on the 21st. As for the other seasons... the official dates are also around the equinox/solstice, but the "perceived" start/end dates are a bit flexible. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it "official"? HiLo48 (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "official" may be the wrong word... but since every US calendar I have looked at all agree on the date, certainly "approved and accepted" applies. As for who does the approving and accepting (sets the date)... The US Government? Astronomers? The calendar makers? A secret cabal of Freemasons? Blueboar (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find out how this "official" idea started, and I've failed. This pseudo-astronomical definition seems to go back several centuries. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:JackofOz#Happy First Day of Spring! might shed some light on this question. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Do we have any article on Roman seasons? I still don't understand why an astronomical fixed point on March 20th (astronomically mid-season) should give rise to a "first day of spring" on March 21st. Dbfirs 07:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more astrological than astronomical. 21 March or thereabouts (the exact starting point differs slightly every year) is when the Sun enters the sign of Aries, which is traditionally considered the beginning of the astrological year. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 09:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although, early February is the coldest part of the year, so I have always thought of that as being part of winter. Meanwhile June 21st is also midsummer's day. Personally I use the lunar new year as the start of spring, the last new moon before the equinox, it seems to work. 148.197.120.206 (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean June 24th as midsummer? (The solstice is "midsummer" in Celtic and Chinese and some other old traditions). November and December were the coldest months last year where I live, and this February was comparatively warm, but weather patterns vary. The weather does seem to change with the moon, but I don't know why. Dbfirs 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional seasons are based on equinoxes and solstices. There is another concept of the start-and-end of seasons, used by weatherman. See Meteorological winter, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And at least in the American midwest, the midpoint of winter is Groundhog Day, February 2nd, which is one of the coldest times of year. Exactly 6 months later, early August, is one of the hottest times of year. So at least here, the traditional seasons make sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in parts of America (and some other parts of the world), where the temperature lag is half a season, this makes sense, but much of the world has a shorter lag, and the older traditions use insolation-based seasons where the equinoxes and solstices are the mid-points. There is no consistent logical definition, they are all culturally defined and reinforced by confirmation bias. Dbfirs 07:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And for US school kids, "Summer" is defined by vacation time... starting whenever school lets out "for the summer" and ending whenever school resumes. The exact dates vary from State to State. Blueboar (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs' explanation is good. The division of the year into 4 by the solstices and equinoxes is ancient, and still in use today. Rents may be payable on quarter day, for example, academic journals typically come out quarterly. How well the four quarters correspond to meteorological seasons depends where you are and if you actually have four well-defined meteorological seasons. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that the division is ancient, and that the quarter days probably corresponded to the equinoxes and solstices at one time, but that doesn't mean that they were the start of the seasons, just the start of a payment or hiring quarter. In fact the Celts (who are at least as ancient as the Romans) regarded these days as mid-season. Dbfirs 16:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In ancient times, at least in Europe, the spring equinox was March 25, and it was connected with rites of spring and fertility and such stuff as that. It was also the start of the "new year" (and also connects to why Annunciation Day and Christmas Day were assigned as they were). Starting the year on January 1 is a relatively recent decision. In the American midwest, at least, these four dates are nowhere close to "mid-season". They are just about perfect for start-and-end of seasons. But it's also a function of "how long" the seasons last. In the American south, for example, summer is longer and winter is shorter, from a weather standpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept all that, but I still insist that these were the middle of the respective seasons, hence Shakespeare's "Midsummer Night's Dream" with the midsummer festival on June 24th. This is still celebrated in some areas of the UK. Dbfirs 22:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live March 21 isn't anywhere near the beginning of spring - we still have snow on the ground and it was -16 last night. And I suspect that's the problem - where for you it seems ludicrous that a date as late as March 21 should be considered the beginning of spring, to me it's ludicrous to think that spring could ever begin so ridiculously early. March 21 seems a reasonable compromise. --NellieBly (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I appreciate that spring is variable (it begins in February in Florida), so why do we insist of the "first day" concept? Dbfirs 07:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In London, for example, what maybe 2-week period is the hottest of the year, on average? And what 2-week period is the coldest? Whatever they are, those would be the peak of summer and the depth of winter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was the basis of the old "mid-summer" (June 24th) and "mid-winter" (December 25th) festivals. The hottest and coldest period varies from year to year and from place to place, but we could take an average as you suggest. The answer will be different for each region. Dbfirs 07:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how relevant the change of calendars is. According to the internet, midsummer day used to be on the 5th. July. The calendar change may affect other traditional dates too. I recall hearing that Christmas day used to be celebrated in what we would think of as January. 92.15.14.99 (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the claim of July 5th comes from, ( probably a mistaken calculation of 11 lost days from June 24th) but the Wikipedia article on Midsummer says that June 24th used to be the solstice in Roman times, so the Roman tradition seems to coincide with the older Celtic tradition of the solstice being the middle of summer. Dbfirs 18:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Euromillions lottery tickets bought for Friday 25 March 11 draw

Does anyone know? I'd like to calculate if you ever get a positive expected value with UK tickets. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12867793 Thanks 92.29.127.59 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That news report and Camelot's prize report for that draw would suggest that sales were normal and the temporary glitch hardly affected anything. This report from the Spanish lottery shows that the sales for the 25 March draw were €192,122,304, meaning the number of tickets sold was 96,061,152 (the ticket price is €2). It might be difficult to find out how many of those tickets were sold to UK players.

If you really want to do your own calculation, you will need to seek out the report from each of the lottery partners to get the number of winners in each winning category for that draw. You then apply the prize fund division rules to the €96,061,152 prize fund (50% of sales). The jackpot is handled differently because that receives extra funds from previous week's rollovers. Bear in mind that all calculations are in Euros and there are special rules concerning the rounding that occurs - though I can't remember what they are.

I'm unsure what you mean by a "positive expected value" with UK tickets, but if you mean do UK players get a fair chance of winning the jackpot, then they certainly do. There have been several UK jackpot winners (see Euromillions#Notable wins). However, certainly in the early days of Euromillions, many of the winners were from France. The simple reason for this was that the majority of the players were from France. Nowadays, the proportion of players from the UK is much closer to that of France relative to their respective populations. Astronaut (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Positive expected value" means that the total prize money for a particular draw, divided by the total number of tiickets bought, then minus the cost of a ticket, gives a value greater than zero. Although the lottery organisation takes a proportion of the ticket money for charity costs and overheads, so that normally each ticket has a negative expected value, what I was wondering was if the amount of extra prize money from "rollovers" etc is sometimes enough to put things into a positive expected value rather than the usual negative. That draw was "a six-time rollover".

If the total europe-wide ticket sales were 96,061,152 and the price per ticket is two euros or equivalent, then all I need now is the total prize money to calculate the expected value of each ticket. Or, since your link gives that total prize money for the UK, then if I knew the total number of ticket sales in the UK I could calculate the expected value of just the UK tickets.

I should not have said "in the UK" but I was thinking of how US lotteries sometimes have a positive expected value.

Calculating the expected value of a ticket in each particular draw would be of great interest - the lottery organisation likes to keep this quiet. 92.29.119.112 (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

when do you get new options?

For a stock I've been following, the latest (most in the future) available options on the market have been the January 2013 options - this has been true for more than a year.

When will there be april/may 2013 or any 2014 or later options?

The stock is Apple, you can see what I'm talking about on this page. 89.132.119.207 (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill as an author

What books by Winston Churchill are good reading? I would either be interested in autobiography, or books about his involvement in or explaination of events after 1914, as earlier history means nothing to me. Thanks. 92.29.127.59 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He did not write an autobiography per se, but his history of World War I (The World Crisis) and his six-volume history of World War II (The Second World War) are both largely focused on his particular role. The World War II history is considered his masterpiece, and won him the Nobel Prize for Literature. But in general he was an excellent writer, and many of his works are good reading, including A History of the English-Speaking Peoples and his multi-volume biography of his illustrious ancestor the Duke of Marlborough (although the last of these is pretty biased). Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) He wrote "The Second World War, vol 1" which would seem to fit your point about explaining later events, although I really enjoyed reading "My Early Life", which despite Looie's assertion is an autobiography! Regardless of what you know (or not) of late 19th century history, I'd recommend reading that. --TammyMoet (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article about Winston Churchill as writer. I assume the OP asks about the British prime minister and not his grandson nor the American novelist, both of whom share the name Winston Churchill. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]