Humanities desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28

Human seasons

Duuude (or whomever is reading), I was just thinking. The term "mother nature" and father time might have something on them, you know. Because father time and mother nature gave birth to their four children spring, summer, fall and winter. Don't you get it, it's like time combined with nature equals the seasons. Anyways, in case you thought of this too I was wondering if it's predjuiced to say that fall might be the emo, slash sad teenager, in the family and King Winter is the succesful oldest kid (I mean he is "King")? If that's okay then is it okay to say that the summer is a vigorous woman and spring is like her younger sister, who's still mentally-innocent and silly (Just look at the colours when spring comes... or... something).

Anyway I was just wondering about this, and if you guys can research this some more maybe I can start a world-religion based on the concept, (just hopin' I ain't copying them wicca-folks too much).

Thanks a lot, because I can't seem to find anything on the subject and it seems like we have thies names on abstract concepts for a reason right?

I don't know who emo, slash sad teenageer, in the family, and king winter are, but it is okay to say that summer is a vigorous, even fertile woman, and spring is younger and perhaps even silly. As for starting a religion based on the seasons, I'm afraid you've been preempted by several thousand or tens of thousands of years. Search some more, you should be able to find gobs of info on seasons and mythology/religion. There are interesting and easy to find web links on how Christianity is linked to the seasons. Like, how odd is it that Christ was born at, approximately the winter solstice? Then there is stuff about Christ being the "lamb", even the sacrificial lamb, relating to the zodiac. Not to mention his relation to fish (pisces). And Easter being near the the Spring equinox... coincidence? In any case, I'm picking on Christianity, but these sort of things are common to nearly every religion, so you may as well forget about a "new" one! Pfly 07:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in that particular case, Christmas is simply the mass for Christ, and the early church didn't know when Jesus was born. The association with December is part of conscious syncretism on their part. They did it very specifically to coincide with the Saturnalia of Rome, and that, of course, was a nature/fertility thing. Normally, mid-winter is the time of the 'death of Adonis' in fertility cults, so "birth of the savior" is not a logical nature thing. In the case of Easter, that one is much more historical, and it seems to be entirely tied up in when Passover was, because that was necessary for the entry into Jerusalem, the release of a prisoner, and the Sanhedrin's campaign against Jesus. It could hardly have been any attempted or conscious association with nature cults, there. As for why Passover happened then... I cannot say how accurately the Jews had kept the precise dates of their escape for Egypt, and historians have more trouble with Exodus than nearly anything after the flood. Utgard Loki 15:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Fall was more often seen as a mature,fertile woman.Season of mists and mellow fruitfulness etc.hotclaws 10:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Silly season is a peculiarly human one...--Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbit season!--0rrAvenger 20:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vich

What does the word "vich" mean in Punjabi?

According to a Punjabi to English dictionary there is no such word. However, they list vichch as meaning whithin. Rockpocket 03:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, ththat! Bielle 04:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, how much does a legal name change generally cost in court fees?

In the US, how much does a legal name change generally cost in court fees?--Azer Red Si? 02:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It varies by location. Can you tell us what state you are in? (E-mail me if you don't feel comfortable sharing this on-wiki.) Newyorkbrad 02:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Brad says, it varies by State (and county). For example in King County, Washington the "District Court fee for name changes is $100," [1] in Eugene, Oregon the filing fee for a name change is $102 [2] and in Hawai'i there appears to be a $50 filing fee followed by a further $25 paid to the "Bureau of Conveyances." [3] The average appears to be around $100. Rockpocket 02:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it varies by county. With few exceptions, it is generally the county's superior court in which you live who handles name changes. So in your case, just contact the clerk and ask. And for the general case, it's likely to vary with as many counties we have in the US. Llamabr 16:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since usurpation has been practiced regularly, several hundred username changes have, I'd imagine, been performed. I wonder whether we might not have done well to have asked users upon their requesting usurpation if they might be interested in donating (entirely voluntarily) some small sum (US$3-5, e.g., substantially less, it appears, than charge other jurisdictions) in exchange for the username assumption. Perhaps in preparation for SUL we might set up a bounty board at which a user otherwise entitled to a particular username on a given project might surrender it to another user in exchange for the latter's making a donation to the Foundation (as in the purchase by one sportsperson of another's squad number)... 05:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Slovakian Politics

Hi,
I'm participating in a mock UN security council meeting thing; representing Slovakia. I've had a quick look on the article on Slovakian politics but couldn't really find any relevant info so thought it would be a good idea to post this question here where it might be read by real Slovakians. What I'm asking is how do Slovakian's view Climate change and things like the Kyoto Protocol which aims at reducing carbon emissions. Also, do Slovakian's favour the idea of a Palestinian State? Thanks for any responses, --Fir0002 10:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Sites such as Slovak Permanent Mission to the UN or Slovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs might be useful. --Brand спойт 10:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article Foreign relations of Slovakia AnonMoos 14:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia is not a state that has much of an ability to extend an independent foreign policy. As such, its exercises foreign policy goals through the collective framework of the European Union. Especially on issues like Palestine and Climate Change. May I recommend you get to know the other 26 mock UN-ers who will be representing your Bloc, so you may offer a united front. Ninebucks 19:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell assassination plot

Are there any details on the assassination plots against Oliver Cromwell? Martinben 13:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only assassination plot against the Lord Protector that I am aware of, Martinben, was that of Edward Sexby and Miles Sindercombe, and it came not, as one might expect, from the Cavalier and Royalist right, but from the Leveller and Republican left. Sexby and Sindercome were, in effect, Cassius and Brutus in an English guise, determined on the destruction of the new Caesar. Sexby was to publish a pamphlet before his death, under the title Killing, Noe Murder, a detailed justification of tyrannicide.

Sexby, a former officer in the New Model Army, and an ardent republican, was the driving force behind the whole plot. He had been deeply angered by the coup of April 1653, which saw the end of the Commonwealth of England and the eventual elevation of Cromwell into the semi-regal position of Lord Protector. From this time forward Sexby plotted to remove the 'apostate', as he referred to Cromwell, by one means or another. His hatred of the English dictator led him into the oddest of alliances. In 1655 he left England after one of his intrigues went wrong, immersing himself in a variety of cloak-and-dagger schemes among spys and plotters of all kinds, even making contact with the court of the exiled Charles Stuart. Sexby initially wanted to lead a military invasion of England, but realised that such a thing would never work in view of the military strength of the Protectorate; so the murder of Cromwell became the key part of his whole strategy, which was to create a political vacuum into which he and his colleagues could step. As he noted to a correspondent "either I or Cromwell must perish." To further his aims he even tried to persuade his Royalist contacts that he himself favoured a restoration of the ancient monarchy.

While in Flanders, Sexby made contact with Sindercombe, a former Leveller, and a man just as passionate in his hatred of the usurper. Sexby promised to provide arms, ammunition and money, and, in return, Sindercombe promised to arrange the assassination, returning to England in 1656. It was then that things started to go wrong, for one reason or another. One scheme failed because Cromwell, whose usual practice was to leave town at the weekends for Hampton Court, decided to remain in Whitehall because of pressure of business. Others followed, which also came to nothing, either because of a failure of nerve or an absence of opportunity. As is usual with these things, the more people who became involved, the more difficult it was to keep matters secret, and John Thurloe, Cromwell's secretary and spy-master, picked up the rumours. As a last act of desperation, the plotters planned to burn the Palace of Whitehall, killing Cromwell and everyone else, guilty and innocent alike. In the fashion of Guy Fawkes, the terrorists-and it now seems fitting to use this word-planted a device in the palace chapel in January 1657. All the while they were being watched by Thurloe's men, who now made their move. Sindercombe eventually killed himself while a prisoner in the Tower of London, but not before revealing Sexby's part in the plot.

Not long after, Killing, Noe Murder appeared on the streets of London, in justification of Sindercombe's actions, and arguing that if Cromwell really wanted to serve his country he should do so by dying as quickly as possible. Three hundred copies of this seditious pamphlet were seized in the city on 27 May alone. Sexby himself came to England in disguise, only to be captured, dying of disease in the Tower in January 1658. His real legacy was in his theoretical defense of political murder, which still has some resonance today. For Sexby tyrants had placed themselves beyond the law, and therefore the scriptural precepts and ethical imperatives against murder no longer applied. In the place of God and the morality Sexby substituted political necessity. He did not invent political assassination; for that is as old as human history. He did, rather, provide a theoretical defense for the indefensible, and an abiding notion that, in certain circumstances, the ends will always justify the means. Clio the Muse 01:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sexby: Poor regime-changer, mediocre grammarian, good logician. Edison 17:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall Jackson

I would be interested for some insight into the qualities, particularly the religious qualities, that went towards making Thomas J. Jackson such a commanding presence on the battlefield. Many thanks. General joffe 18:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would go so far as to say here that it would be almost impossible to understand the great Stonewall Jackson, either as a man or as a soldier, without some appreciation of his views on religion. In a letter of 1863, Daniel Harvey Hill, a fellow Confederate general officer, wrote of Jackson, "The striking characteristic of his mind was his profound reverence for divine and human authority. I never knew of any one whose reverence for Deity was so all pervasive, and who felt so completely his entire dependence upon God." Moses Hoge, a Presbyterian cleric, was even more direct, "To attempt to portray the life of Jackson while leaving out the religious element, would be like undertaking to describe Switzerland without mentioning the Alps."

There are, I believe, strong parallels between the lives of Oliver Cromwell and Jackson. Both men shared the same Calvinist ethic; both underwent a kind of spiritual crisis; and both emerged with a single-minded determination that they were following a path prescribed by God. It was this conviction, as well as natural ability, that made them both such formidable soldiers. Jackson's search for commitment in faith took him through various church denominations in the period after the Mexican War in 1847, till he eventually alighted on Presbyterianism, with its stress on individual morality and personal salvation. Like all Calvinists he loved God with all of the frevour of his singular character, and hoped that God loved him in return. Belief in predestination was the natural corollary of this commitment. With the approach of the Civil War, he told a minister that dissolution of the Union, which he personally opposed, 'can come only with God's permission.' His first political loyalty, though, was to Virginia, the Old Dominion; and it was Virginia he followed in April 1861.

Once in arms faith and soldiering walked side by side. The great catastrophe that descended on the country was, in Jackson's view, a judgement from God. The Civil War was, therefore, in his mind, akin to a religious crusade to regain the favour of the Almighty. Christian faith and the Confederate cause were thus one and the same thing. In pursuit of this belief he was to become utterly ruthless in the field, driving his men as hard as he drove himself. After one of his victories he said to an aid 'He who does not see the hand of God in this is blind, sir, blind!' Confident of God's grace, he became a soldier of extraordinary brilliance, and the Valley Campaign of 1862 still counts as one of the supreme achievments in all of military history. Afterwards, in his official report, he wrote, 'God has been our shield, and to His name be all the glory.' After the Valley, the 'Army of the Living God', as he himself expressed it, marched east to drive the Union forces away from Richmond in the Seven Days Campaign, where he established his unique partnership with Robert E. Lee. Jackson's accidental death in 1863, after the great flanking march at the Battle of Chancellorsville was probably the most serious single blow ever suffered by the Confederacy. Clio the Muse 02:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I am in your debt, Clio. Now, let us cross the river and rest in the shade of the trees! General joffe 10:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been an effort for great men, having said their Famous Last Words like those joffe quoted of Jackson, to refrain from asking for a drink of water or the bedpan. Edison 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Last words" is another topic. There is a long tradition to the genre. Anyone who purchased Tom Waits's Orphans will see a CD sleeve of a reproduction of a 19th century collection of FLW's. Generally, the audience collected the last words other than the routine. Goethe's "mehr licht" is nice, but so is Joel Chandler Harris's response to yet another person asking him how he was, "I believe I am the breadth of a gnat's eyelash better." He was wrong about that. Utgard Loki 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"K" for Contracts

(I made a title to separate this from Stonewall, above,)

Why does the law field appreviat a "K" for contracts. Where did it originate and why?

What does appreviat mean? And which country or legal jurisdiction are you interested in? -- JackofOz 21:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he meant "abbreviate"--0rrAvenger 22:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "K" to abbreviate "Contract" most likely originated from Law students, many of whom find it necessary to use many abbreviations to quickly summarize principles from a dizzying panoply of byzantine, turgid, and obtusely written precepts found in tomes known as casebooks. (sometimes rendered as "CB").

The letter "K" is sufficiently obscure (in the legal profession anyway), and the term "contract" is sufficiently prevalent, to make the former a suitable and fairly unambiguous indicator of the latter. The same holds for the greek "Delta (letter)" for "Defendant" and "Pi (letter)" for "Plaintiff". The letter "C" is already encumbered by enough of its own baggage; "Contract" would have been one straw too many for the back of that particular Camel. (go see "C" under List of legal abbreviations). dr.ef.tymac 01:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

guantanamo

I have just been reading Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Surely the US government is breaking it's own constitution with the goings-on there? Doesn't the treatment of the illegal prisoners at guantanamo constitute 'cruel and unusual' punishment? MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 21:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the morass of legal mumbo-jumbo that is the Bush administration and the Justice Department under Alberto Gonzales. Agrument goes that Constitutional protections (or even perhaps Geneva conventions?) do not apply to Guantanamo prisoners, because they are not US citizens. Its a grim era for human rights. —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the argument that Guantanamo Bay is not United States territory? Because the amendments apply to everyone in the United States, not just Americans. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, the common argument goes like this...

Doesn't Guantanamo violate the Constitution?

Specifically what at Guantanamo is violating the Constitution?

I don't know. But there must be something because Bush is evil.

Rarely do you see an argument that brings up specifics about treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. But, it does come down to the fact that they are not in U.S. territory and they are classified as Prisoners of War, not criminals awaiting trial. It is up to the lawyers to break down the legal loopholes that allow Guantanamo to be considered "not U.S. territory" and the prisoners to be classified as "POWs". --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are specifically not classified as POWs, which would require that they be guaranteed some basic human rights and protections. They're enemy combatants. --TotoBaggins 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logic is of no use in these cases, except the logic of the stick. However, they have done some amazingly frightening things in their arguments. An "enemy combatant" is a person engaging in terrorism, and they are treated however and by whatever means because they are in the legal limbo of a prisoner in custody who has not yet been processed. In previous wars, an enemy might be captured, bound, and then sent off to immediate processing as a POW. The right to a speedy trial was assumed to be operative, and so the branches of the military regarded it as their duty to process as quickly as possible and to charge these people. It only works, however, if they are captured on the "battlefield" and not, for example, in a capitulated city. I.e. it can only apply in the case of a captured soldier who was soldiering at the time. Since there is an (undeclared by Congress) "war on terror" (which isn't constitutional since the President can't declare war), and since "terror" is terrorism, the "battlefield" is any place at all, peaceful or hostile, domestic or foreign, where the terrorist is "fighting" by being terroristic. The administration has chosen to say that there is no need for speedy processing, so they pretend that these prisoners are "bound and awaiting processing" indefinitely, without habeas corpus. They can only hold without charge indefinitely if they do not allow the prisoners onto US soil, and Guantanamo is an interzone, and so perfect: it's a military base that is merely rented.

To say that it violates the US Constitution is an understatement of epic proportions. Utgard Loki 15:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legal nit-pickers might also look at the text of the agreement between the U.S. and Cuba which allows us a continuing presence on that island. It states that the agreement continues in effect only as long as the U.S. uses the land exclusively as a naval base. What part of "naval base" includes "prison for illegal combatants from around the world." Is it somewhere under "anchoring ships," or perhaps "fuel storage?" Edison 17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Constitution is what gives the US Government conditional permission to exist and function, to deny the local applicability of any jot or tittle of its terms is to deny the USG any authority there. But then we already know that I'll never be appointed to the Supreme Court, whose job is to rationalize whatever the President and Senate want to do. See Insular Cases. —Tamfang 06:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in a popular song??

Can you tell me more about this, now very popular, song thats going something like "Play that fuckin music, white boy"?

And init the most specific form of racism, so present in the British society today? How is it possible that songs such as this are not banned, but many other are, even though they are not anywhere near as offending as this song? Unsigned comments by IP 77.105.51.120

reply Its play that funky music white boy!!! —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This song is "now very popular"? The song was written in 1976, the last version of it was released a year ago. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be remembering wrong here, but wasn't it sung by a white person? As in, it is a statement about themselves, and inherently cannot be racist? Pastordavid 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the cliché is that white people have no rhythm, so it's actually going against racial stereotypes to say that a white boy can play funky music. -88.109.226.73 22:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, every song offends someone. We would live in a world without music all together if we banned every song that was considered by someone to be offensive. Even completely innocent songs, like "Itsy Bitsy Spider" can be offensive to someone overly sensitive to songs about small things or usage of phallic words like "water pipe". --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that song was actually written by a white dude Play_That_Funky_Music. There was a radio piece telling how some blacks hated the song because it made them cringe (the song was supposedly inspired by the request of a black person to a white, go read the article).

As an aside, my old roomate used to have a rather odious habit of changing popular "peaceful" songs to sound racist (e.g., c'mon nigga now, smile on the wetback every body hug a paki, try to love all the Guidos right noww...". Needless to say, he had a penchant for offensive "humor". NoClutter 23:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A popular song that, with the best intentions, uses language that would make pretty much anyone cringe these days is Blue Mink's #3 hit the UK 1969 Singles Chart, Melting Pot:

Take a pinch of white man / Wrap him up in black skin / Add a touch of blue blood / And a little bitty bit of red Indian boy / Curly Latin kinkies / Mixed with yellow Chinkees, yeah / You know you lump it all together / And you got a recipe for a get along scene / Oh what a beautiful dream.

Those were different times alright. And to think the guys that wrote those lyrics also penned I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing. I think the execs from Coke chose the right song. Rockpocket 08:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn´t the Allied forces bomb the train rails going to Auschwitz II?

I don´t understand why the British/Americans didn´t bomb the train lines leading to concentration camps such as Auschwitz to cut off this terrible transport. I´m sure they had sufficiently penetrated German air space at this point (even as far as Gdansk was bombed in 1944 - ?) and surely the Allied intelligence knew what was going on there, no? I heard an Auschwitz survivor in a documentary saying she sometimes heard planes overhead and hoped they would bomb the rail tracks, so why not? --AlexSuricata 22:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mission was to defeat the Axis forces. How would bombing the rails be a more effective means of defeating the Axis forces than bombing the military outposts, military factories, and military supply chains? How can you make an answer to that question that a military officer would understand (and agree with)? --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good review of a book of essays about it that brings up some of the relevant issues. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hugely controversial topic, Alex, which I do not suppose will ever be resolved to any satisfactory degree. Anyway, you should also look at Auschwitz bombing debate and The Abandonment Of The Jews for some additional information. Clio the Muse 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration

This question inspired an article to be created or enhanced:

Moments of Reprieve

Please consider contributing

,

Further to the above excellent answers, Auschwitz was bombed (it seems by accident) on one occasion, brilliantly described from an inmate's perspective by Primo Levi. From memory, the incident is in his peculiarly ignored masterpiece Moments of Reprieve, although it's possibly in the more celebrated If This Is a Man - maybe both. The redlink (as I write) shows how overlooked the former book is. Perhaps I'll turn it blue. Levi spent the precious interlude of the air-raid sitting inside a pipe, swapping folk tales with another inmate. --Dweller 09:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The practicalities of bombing rail lines is pretty arguable, even had a conscious decision been made to do so. Modern airpower could do it - but even daylight strategic bombing, in WWII, usually got as far as "we can hit the right city". (Night bombing, of course, was "we can hit the right county"). Transportation interdiction was usually either done on the tactical level by short or medium range aircraft patrols attacking individual truck convoys or trains; or on the strategic (long-range) level, where it concentrated on attacking large, static, transport hubs such as canal basins or railway marshalling yards.

Whilst you could have tried to use strategic airpower to break bridges or rail lines, what you'd probably do was waste 99% of the effort on ploughing fields and cause a few breaks which could be repaired relatively easily; a lot of your effort expended on something they can fix fast, whilst if you go for transport centres (themselves usually in city centres), your target is over a large area and easier to hit (and any bombs which miss are going to hit something they have to rebuild...)

Tactical airpower was usually deployed in direct support of the ground units (and thus not easily divertible to strategic roles like this), but more to the point was medium range - it could be used for precision work which didn't have a strict military role, such as famous things like Operation Jericho, but only really in western Europe - anywhere else was just too far.

So, in short - the planes that could do it well couldn't reach, and the planes that could reach couldn't do it well. They could have made attempts, but even with hindsight they wouldn't have been very effective - the question becomes, in hindsight, did hastening the end of the war do more or less to help the camp inmates than redeploying the strategic airpower to attack the Holocaust infrastructure directly would have done? And therein lies a thousand doctoral theses. Shimgray | talk | 12:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have personally done railroad line construction. Gravel, crossties, spikes. Nothing very high tech. I can envision the next transport being ordered out of the cars to lay rails and quickly having the damage repaired, unless a bridge or tunnel were destroyed, in which case the transportees could be force-marched to a point where a transport train could shuttle them to the camp. Many would doubtless have died from the effort required to repair the tracks or from the effects of fording a river or climbing over hills. Certainly forced labor could repair a tunnel or bridge, or die in the effort. A similar question might be asked as to why planes did not drop food to starving civilians. The military planners may not have seen it as the most effective way to bring the war to the quickest end. Edison 17:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They did, though only by the point at which the strategic bomber wing was effectively surplus to requirements. Operation Manna, last month or so of the war in the Netherlands. Shimgray | talk | 17:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To bomb Aushwitz the allies would first have to know that death camps existed. The Polish resistance AK and specificly Jan Nowak-Jeziorański delivered proof about the nazi "final solution" but nobody wanted to listen. Mieciu K 00:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naal

What does "Naal" mean in Punjabi?

I think this is a question for the Language reference desk. JackofOz 00:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]