From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< April 10	<< Mar | April | May >>	April 12 >

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.

Contents 1 April 11 1.1 Solving Murder Cases: A Statistics Source? 1.2 Buddhism death rights [i.e. rites] 1.3 Olympics: What it has done for the world 1.4 The Roman Catholic Church -Not Really Changed? 1.5 Waffen SS 1.6 Dragon Ball 1.7 How Long was the Holocaust? 1.8 I am seeking information or previously published history regarding "baggy pants"

[edit] April 11

[edit] Solving Murder Cases: A Statistics Source?

Where could one find a reliable source of stats regarding solving murder cases by major cities?--JLdesAlpins 00:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are talking about the USA, you might want to try the FBI and download the Uniform Crime Reports from their website. If I remember correctly they have statistics, for the number of cold cases by city, that might give you a good lead on the number of unsolved murders. dr.ef.tymac 03:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism death rights [i.e. rites]

What needs to be done after the death of a person that followed the Buddhism faith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruthmellor (talk • contribs) 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Googling "Buddhist funerals" will give you some ideas, but you need to be aware that there are many different schools of Buddhism and they each have their own traditions. Some of the suggestions you may turn up will apply to just one tradition, so you need to find out what tradition the deceased belonged to. In the East this often depends in which country they live. In the west, it could be almost any tradition. You local Buddhist temple will be able to advise you and refer you to the appropriate tradition. In my own tradition, the funeral service at the temple is flexible to accommodate family and friends who are not familiar with the traditional customs, but it usually consists of a succession of eulogies from friends and family preceded by a short meditation, and followed by a little chanting. The coffin then goes to the crematorium for the committal.--Shantavira 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If you are only interested in a very general sense, an excellent book to get from the library is How to Be a Perfect Stranger (ISBN 1893361675). It tells you what to expect and how to behave in order to avoid offense if you are invited to a religious ceremony of a different faith from your own. Crypticfirefly 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Olympics: What it has done for the world

What effect do the Olympic games have on the world? How does it unite the nations? And how has the ancient olympics helped in this?

My thesis: Although the Olympic Games were originally a way to unite the Greeks, it became a way for all nations around the world to come together.

Lily —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.154.207 (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, let me play the devil's advocate and give some examples where they failed to unite nations. There were the 1972 Munich Olympics (Palestinian terrorism), the 1980 Moscow Olympics (US-led boycott over Afghanistan invasion), and the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics (Soviet-led boycott). StuRat 05:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Ancient Olympic Games were, in the deepest sense, both a celebration of indvidual achievement and a way of honouring the Gods, common to all the Greeks. They overcame political rivalries in pursuit of a greater sense of purpose. The modern Olympics are, to a signficant degree, based on the celebration of the nation state, something the Greeks would not have understood. As festivals of national pride they do far more to divide than unite. Clio the Muse 08:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should have also mentioned the 1936 Berlin Olympics where Hitler predicted that all the winners would be Aryan and Jesse Owens sent that belief down the crapper. bibliomaniac15 05:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Bibliomaniac, when it comes to some of the high profile track and field events; but Germany still won the most medals overall, a fact that Goebbels was not slow to make use of. Clio the Muse 05:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

And, more importantly, Jesse Owens' victory didn't convince Germany to give up their "Aryan superiority" nonsense or prevent WW2, so the Olympics failed to promote peace and understanding, in this instance. StuRat 16:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I have a unique understanding of "promote". To me, the word means to advocate a position. Achievement of that position is something beyond promotion of it. The United Nations has always promoted world peace, even if it has spectacularly failed to achieve world peace. The Olympics have always been all about promoting peace and understanding through friendly rivalry, as a peaceful alternative to killing each other. Wars and conflicts continue nevertheless. That Hitler and his cronies did their shocking deeds cannot be laid at the feet of the Olympic movement, or of the 1936 Games in particular. JackofOz 22:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Roman Catholic Church -Not Really Changed?

During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church told and taught alot of things that weren't true and were not according to the Bible. For example, they said you had to pay indulgences to the Church to get saved. Then, some Christian reformers, e.g. Martin Luther, said and told others and the Church that this and many other Catholic doctrines were false, wrong and unbiblical. They started a Christian movement called the Protestant Reformation which spread to much of Europe and consisted of a big part of Christianity. But the Catholic Church still continued to exist.

But now, the Catholic Church has changed. The Catholic Church is not as bad and un-Christian nowadays as it was back then. Catholics are now also Christians just as Protestants are.

But really? Some Protestants claim that the Catholic Church are still as bad and un-Christian nowadays as it was back then. Catholics are still not really Christians. They say that Catholic doctrine in general has not changed. For example, they say that the Catholic Church still teaches false, wrong, and unbiblical doctrines such as paying indulgences and doing good works for forgiveness of sins, praying to Mary and the saints, and having sources of doctrine other than the Bible such as human tradition and authority. [1] Some people even claim that it is the Whore of Babylon, which means they claim that it has never changed and never will change. Others even claim that it has been part of a conspiracy to deliberately make fake Bibles which support their doctrines (see King-James-Only Movement).

These are my questions:

1. Is that true?

2. If so, then why? Why hasn't it changed???!!!

3. If so, then why do many Protestants think and claim that it has changed?

4. If you are a Catholic, then what do you think about claims that Catholics are not really Christians?

5. Have there been any people, Protestant or Catholic, who have asked the Catholic Church and the Pope why it has not really changed after all these centuries and tell them they should change?

6. If so, then how did the Church and the Pope react and respond?

7. Some Protestants do not think that that Catholics are Christians, but do Catholics think that Protestants are Christians? I mean, does the Catholic Church say that Protestants can still be saved?

The Anonymous One 05:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is part on an answer I gave before on this very subject.

I remember seeing a pocket cartoon in an old political weekly, possibly the New Statesman, published here in England, in which a well-dressed businessman comes across a tramp (a hobo, for the benefit of you Americans!) sitting on a pavement, with a notice beside him reading Prejudices Confirmed-£1.00 only. The said businessman duly drops his coin in the tramp's hat, and receives the following captioned response-Yes, I am on welfare; no, I have never done a day's work in my life. Anonymous One, it has long seemed to me that you are the businessman in search of your own particular tramp; so, for your benefit, let me take on the role, without any request for payment: yes, Catholics are not really Christians; yes, Anti-Christ could sit in the seat of St. Peter, and he would immediately be followed by the uncritical mass; yes, we do not need priests or the Holy Catholic Church, and we should all interpret the Bible for ourselves; yes, St. Peter is not a rock, merely a little stone. And, not to forget the words of the ancient polemic, the Church will never change because it is truly the Whore of Babylon. Does that satisfy you? I could attempt to finish on a slightly more sober note by saying that the Bible is a rich and complex document, that requires intelligent and informed interpretation, and we live in an age where we must all be acutely aware of the dangers of the literal reading of sacred texts. Catholics, moreover, are not Protestants, and will never be Protestants. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but you will simply have to learn some degree of toleration. Am I wasting my energy here? Yes, I probably am. So, it's time for the literal minded among you to get out there and start burning 'All of them Witches.' Clio the Muse 06:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore 1-6 for various reasons, but re: question 7, the official position of the Catholich Church is: yes. '... these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.' Skarioffszky 12:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk, The Anonymous One, you havent by any chance been reading Chick Tracts [2] [3] have you? If so then you already know the answers to your questions, and if not: there you go. As an added bonus its only $0.15 per tract, dramatically undercutting any enterprising English tramps.--38.112.225.84 12:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Catholics and Protestants are both Christians; they just rely on different interpretations of scripture and doctrine. Besides, both of them have done bad things to each other and to other people. It's just that, since Catholicism has been around longer and because it got mixed into corruption and politics, it did most of the things that we now have bad press about. There's no need to judge which was worst: "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) bibliomaniac15 05:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What is a Christian? (rhetorical question) Is it someone who studies and follows the bible, especially the New Testament? Is then David Koresh a christian? To use and throw old (and not so old) corruption and scandals (whatever) of the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church into the face of catholics today is simply old trick: The catholics did that, so they are evil. We are the true followers of Christ. AFAIK Chick and the "venerable" reverend Jerry Falwell are simply well-known examples of this attitude. It is simply easier to do that with the Catholic church because it is a massive and ancient organization (bound to have such things in its past). Flamarande 21:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can claim that their membership of a Christian denomination makes them a Christian ipso facto. If that's all there was to it, they'd be right. But it's the way they live their lives that really matters. Some Christians are Christians in name only. JackofOz 22:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waffen SS

Each member of Waffen SS took oath? --Vess 14:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Vess, every member of the Waffen SS took an oath of personal loyalty to Hitler, if that is what you want to know. It went like this: I swear to you, Adolf Hitler, as Führer and Chancellor of the German Nation, loyalty and bravery. I vow to you and to my superiors designated by you obedience to the death. So help me God. It varied slightly from the Wehrmacht oath. Clio the Muse 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Ball

Whar are diferrences of Anime from manga of Dragon Ball (Z and GT too)? --Vess 17:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking the differances between Manga and Dragon Ball Z and Gt? Because Dragon ball is not Manga. The eye shape and movement of the eyes is as well as the shading. The mouth moves in a differant way in some of them than Manga. --Kittycat rox 18:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How Long was the Holocaust?

I'm trying to determine exactly how long the Holocaust lasted- from the time the "Final Solution" was officially adopted by the Nazis to whatever point historians accept as the final day. Is there a way of knowing this with precision? DeepSkyFrontier 18:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not completely clear what should be taken as the date of the official adoption; there was no parliament that passed a law on it or such. One possible date you could take is 31 July 1941, when Reichsmarschall Göring authorized the head of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt Heydrich to start preparing the Endlösung der Judenfrage (the "Final Solution of the Jewish question"). Another possible date is January 20, 1942, the date the Wannsee Conference was held. But the decision was almost certainly effectively taken earlier by Hitler. If I'm not mistaken, Auschwitz was the last extermination camp to be liberated, which was on January 27, 1945.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)The decision to kill all the Jews in Europe was probably made in October of 1941 (the decision had already been made in July to kill all the Jews in Russia). However, it wasn't until the Wannsee Conference on January 20th of 1942 that anything remotely concrete was mapped out. Systematic executions began with Operation Reinhard in the spring of 1942, but the Einsatzgruppen had been operating on the eastern front since the early summer of 1941. At the other end, Jews were still being transported to the concentration camps on the day the war ended (May 8, 1945), and many of the prisoners who were alive when the camps were liberated died soon afterwards. In fact, Jews were still being executed at the end of April, and the guards at Mauthausen attempted to organise the murder about 5,000 Jews on May 5. If you have to, you might map the dates of the as being mid-October, 1941 - May 8, 1945. Carom 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The Chełmno extermination camp, a "pilot project" for Operation Reinhard, began operating on December 8, 1941, so it appears the Holocaust had operationally started already before the Wannsee Conference.  --Lambiam^Talk 20:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about that. It's a tough one to pin down exactly because, as Clio points out below, the Nazis were not initially as organised in their anti-Jewish activities as we tend to think. You could place it as early as June/July of 1941, or as late as December of that year (but I don't know if, in the great scheme, it really matters when the Holocaust "began" - people were being killed all along, whatever we call it). Carom 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is a copy of an answer I gave back in February-slightly adapted-to a question on the difference between concentration and extermination camp, which, in part, touches on this issue.

On the central point under consideration, there are a number of things that should to be made clear. First and foremost, there was indeed a clear difference in the Nazi scheme of things between concentration camps and Extermination camps, which were built for one purpose, and one purpose only. Concentration camps were located all over Germany and elsewhere in Europe; but extermination centres were located either in areas annexed from Poland, or in the General Government. The first category included Auschwitz-Birkenau and Kulmhof. To these we should probably add the minor camp of Stutthof near Danzig. The second category includes Majdanek, as well as the main Operation Reinhard camps of Treblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. Why were these camps established where they were? The simple answer is that they were all close to major Jewish population centres. It would have presented much more severe logistical problems to have transported millions of eastern European Jews to, say, France or any other country in the west. Poland, moreover, had good transport links with the rest of the Continent, and people from France, Holland and elsewhere could be taken with relative ease to the east. The main camps were still fairly remote, and the marshes at Auschwitz offered the opportunity of disposing of tons of human ash. Poland had the additional advantage of being more completely subject to the Nazis than any of the other conquered territories, many of which retained some semblance of self-rule. If anyone wonders why there were so many Jewish people concentrated in Poland it was here that they were officially allowed to settle during the Tsarist days, in the area known as the Pale of Settlement.

On the subject of the Holocaust itself, there seem to be a number of misconceptions. It is important to understand that there was a considerable degree of improvisation in Nazi policy towards the Jews; and as late as 1939 mass migration was still the favoured option, with Madagascar being given serious consideration as a likely destination. Only the outbreak of World War Two put a stop to such plans, which had involved Adolf Eichmann, amongst others. From 1940 onwards the favoured strategy became one of 'ghettoization', with the Jews of western Europe being transported to join pre-existing communities in the east. But up to the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 there was no specific plan for mass murder. The mass killings in fact started in Russia, with the introduction of the Einsatzgruppen, following in the wake of the armies. The favoured methods were gas vans and mass shootings. Nazi policy overall was now taking a far more radical turn; and in December 1941 the first gassings started at Kulmhof, where Jews were transported from the nearby Lodz Ghetto. However, the various strategies were still considered to be too ad hoc, and there were also concerns about the rates of mental breakdown among the SS personnel involved in the field executions in Russia. To remedy this-and to ensure maximum co-ordination amongst all government agencies-the Wannsee Conference was summoned in January 1942. It was from this point forward that the Holocaust, in the sense we understand it today, acquires a much more definte and systematic shape, with the major extermination centres coming into gradual operation. The last mass gassings at Auchwitz came in October 1944; but killing continued, in one form or another, until May 1945. If anyone wishes to pursue the matter in a little more depth there are many fine monographs and studies; but amongst the most accessible, in my estimation, is The Holocaust by Martin Gilbert. Clio the Muse 20:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One minor addendum to Clio's statement: The Einsatzgruppen were actually formed in the early summer of 1939, and employed in the invasion of Poland in the autumn of that year, with essentially a free liscense to execute anyone deemed hostile or dangerous, although actual killings were on a much smaller scale than their later operations in the USSR. They also operated in Western Europe in 1940, although I am reasonably certain that their activities there did not involve mass executions. Carom 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I would date the start from Krystalnacht on November 9–10, 1938 and the end to the surrender of Germany in May, 1945. StuRat 04:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I wish to sincerely thank each of you that contributed to answering my question. I am in awe of what Wikipedia represents in people such as yourselves. Bravo.

Here are the calculations based on the various dates suggested:

Krystalnacht on 9-10 Nov 1938 through German surrender on 7 May 1945: 2372 days.

Göring authorizes preparation of the Final Solution on 31 July 1941 through liberation of Auschwitz on 27 Jan 1945: 1277 days.

Wannsee Conference on 20 Jan 1942 through liberation of Auschwitz on 27 Jan 1945 : 1104 days.

Göring authorizes preparation of Final Solution on 31 July 1941 through German surrender and war's end on 8 May 1945: 1378 days.

Decision of Wannsee Conference on and after 20 Jan 1942 through German surrender and war's end on 8 May 1945: ~1205+ days.

July 1941 decision to kill Russian Jews through German surrender and war's end on 8 May 1945: ~1400 days.

Mid-October 1941 decision to kill all European and Russian Jews through liberation of Auschwitz on 27 Jan 1945: ~1200 days.

Chełmno extermination camp beginning operation on 8 Dec 1941 through last camp executions in late April 1945: ~1235 days

Mid-October 1941 decision to kill all European and Russian Jews through German surrender and war's end on 8 May 1945: ~1300 days.

Mid-October 1941 decision to kill all European and Russian Jews through last camp executions in late April 1945: ~1290 days.

I certainly am not qualified to choose a definitive answer from the options above. I am torn between two starting points. I feel that because ad hoc killing was already taking place that the Wannsee Conference and the days immediately afterwards- when the now official decision was handed down to those that would implement it- may be the appropriate time period to mark the real beginning of the full genocidal horror of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is easier to understand on an individual scale, but it did not exist as singular executions. It existed as the something far more horrible. I feel that it may be a mistake to include ad hoc murder and execution in our best attempt at an accurate understanding. The Wannsee Conference marks the moment when the Nazis became willfully and entirely complicit.

On the other hand, as I read that the conference lasted only 90 minutes, it's clear that the official decision had already been made by Göring and Hitler prior to the conference. The date for the decision, and the fact that it was being carried out with increasing determination even before the conference took place, causes me to lean towards late October / early November of 1941 as the true beginning. I have the feeling that the Wannsee Conference might have been skipped altogether and the outcome would not have been any different.

The decision to kill Russian Jews, which reveals the full capacity of evil contained in Nazi ideology, still stands at counterpoint to the option of deporting European Jews to Madagascar. This idea, which smells a little like red herring from the vantage of history, seems to have existed in some form until it became unworkable due to delays in conquering England and acquiring their fleet. Was it that unorganized killing was damaging to the morale and psyche of those tasked with carrying it out? Was total genocide considered unworkable even as it was considered morally acceptable? At some point Göring and Hitler seem to have realized that systematized execution using extermination camps was actually workable. As I now understand it, that seems to have been around October or November 1941. That, coupled with the beginning of operations at the Chełmno extermination camp on December 8th, 1941, seems to really place the beginning of the Holocaust in the latter part of 1941.

I feel that the end of the camp executions in late April 1945- and not the planned killings of May 5th or the official end of the war on May 8th- mark the end of what I understand to be properly defined as the Holocaust. Those that died after liberation were killed as a consequence of the Holocaust and can not avoid being included in its number. On the other hand, perhaps it is honorable to call them "survivors," if only to have been able to glimpse the downfall of their oppressors. And truly, in consequence the Holocaust is still happening and will continue until the end of time.

I am satisfied that the answer- if there can be one- is somewhere in the vicinity of 1300 days, give-or-take 100 days in either direction. Thank you again, all of you, for your virtuous dedication to answering such questions. Your spirit- the spirit of Wikipedia and the search for truth- stands as a new monument to human civilization that rivals the pyramids. Oh, and I really mean that. DeepSkyFrontier 06:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a cool and dispassionate mind, DeepSkyFrontier, and I admire the logical way that you have arrived at your conclusions. I do, however, have some additional information and argument that might be of interest to you, all of which I have based upon Laurence Rees' monograph, Auschwitz: the Nazis and the Final Solution., in the edition published by BBC Books in 2005

By the spring of 1940 it was becoming increasingly clear that the policy of of using the General Government as a 'racial dustbin' was causing huge logistical problems. In May 1940 Himmler addressed the issue in a wide-ranging memorandum, in which he rejects 'the Bolshevik method of physically exterminating a people as fundamentally un-German.' (Lees, p.45) He goes on to say that I hope to see the term 'Jews' completely eliminated through the possibility of large-scale emigration of all Jews to Africa or to some other colony. When Himmer discussed this proposal with Hitler he was told that it was gut und richtig (good and correct). But, as you indicate, the tenacity of England effectively put an end to all such notions by the autumn and winter of that same year. The problem in the General Government remained, and got steadily worse with the arrival of additional deportees.

Moving further down the line to the summer of 1941, when mass killings were already underway in Russia, we have Göring's memo to Heydrich of 31 July, asking for a blueprint for 'the execution of the intended Final Solution of the Jewish question.' However, as Lees says (p.84), the discovery of a document in the Moscow Special Archive casts some doubt on the particular significance of Göring's memorandum. This contains a note from Heydrich, dated March 26 1941, in which he says With respect to the Jewish question I reported briefly to the Reich Marshal and submitted to him my new blueprint, which he authorized with one modification concerning Rosenberg's jurisdication, and then ordered for resubmission. This document has to be taken in the context of the coming invasion of the Soviet Union-which was expected to collapse in a few weeks-and the continuing deadlock with the British in the west. In other words, the new destination for the Jews of Europe was no longer Africa, but parts of conquered Russia, including areas expected to be under the jurisdiction of Alfred Rosenberg. It seems clear that the 31 July document should be read against the background of forced migration, rather than mass murder as such, though in practical terms the end result would have been just the same, as most of the deportees are likely to have frozen to death in the east with the onset of the Russian winter. However, it was the specific actions of the Einsatzgruppen-particularly in the shooting of women and children-that raised yet another set of problems, and a further quest for solutions. The decisive moment here, it might very well be argued, came in August 1941, when Himmler visited Minsk, and saw the work of the killing squads at first hand.

The Minsk killings, and the complaints, amongst others, of Lieutenant-General von dem Bach-Zelewski, that the sheer personal horror involved was having a severe psychological impact on the men in the Kommandos, pushed Himmler along the path of a less 'bloody' solution to the whole issue. He already had before him one possible 'clinical' way out: mass-killing had already been tried and tested in the euthanasia programme, with poison gas being used to kill as many as ten thousand people in mental hospitals in Wartegau and West Prussia between October 1939 and October 1940. The need for new killing techniques-soon to be explored in places like Auschwitz-,the continuing build up of Jewish deportees in the ghettos of Poland, and the unexpected stubbornness of Soviet resistance, demanded that the whole issue be re-examined from top to bottom. Amongst others, Josef Goebbles, the Propaganda Minister, was lobbying Hitler for more radical solutions, urging the expulsion eastwards of all the Jews of Berlin to already grossly overcrowded ghettos, like that at Lodz. The way out of this deadlock was the authorisation of the first mass gassings at Chelmno, close to Lodz, in late 1941.

Given Hitler's method of working, and his dislike of committing himself to paper, we will never know for certain when outright murder took the place of deportation as the favoured solution to the Jewish question. If I were pushed to choose a specific time-frame, on the basis of the evidence as it presents itself, it would be October 1941. By then the decision had been taken to send all of the Reich's Jews to the east, even though the war with Russia showed no sign of ending. In November, in a conversation with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler said that he wanted all Jews, even those not under German control, 'to be destroyed.' (Lees, p. 110) Here, in essence, is the agenda of the Wannsee Conference, where the populations detailed for elimination included those living in areas not even under German control, including England. The following month the gas vans of Chelmno began their work.

Against this whole drift of events and policy, the Wannsee Conference has been allowed to carry far too much weight. The decision on mass extermination, it seems highly likely, was conveyed by verbal insruction alone by Hitler to Himmler sometime in October. Wannsee was merely a forum for ensuring maximum bureaucratic complicity. Those who attended, with the exception of Heydrich (and even he was not yet in the uppermost ranks of the party leadership) were by and large men of the second-division, like Martin Luther from the Foreign Ministry, representing Ribbentrop; senior bureaucratic funtionaries, in other words, implementers of policy, rather than formulators.

Anyway, that's it. Sorry to have gone on at such considerable length, but you have raised issues worthy of a thoughtful and detailed response. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with. Clio the Muse 10:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To you, Clio the Muse, I feel such immense gratitude. That you have gone to such great length in fleshing out the path to answering this difficult question. Your apology for doing so is perfectly lovely- like a rose apologizing for it's perfume. You've distinguished yourself among the billions and I hope you live forever. I would hope to live forever too, so that I might see what you can do.

It's a psychological riptide to go from feeling such gratitude to considering the question at hand. I'm trying to find 'Auschwitz: the Nazis and the Final Solution' so that I might read it. It doesn't appear on Amazon, which doesn't bode well for my library having it.

Regarding the Wannsee Conference. I understand a little more about why the Wannsee Conference may be considered of such high importance. The fact that Hitler was not present at the meeting and perhaps the fact that the full genocidal horror-to-come was not specifically spelled-out, seems to have fueled the argument that there was no deliberate policy from the top- a favorite argument of Holocaust deniers. I find the opposite argument to be far more believable- that Hitler's absence only confirms that it was already an official policy. The lack of specifics merely means that specifics had already been determined.

Yes, I am seeing more clearly, with your help, that the official policy of genocide predates Wannsee- and with it the most logical date for the start of the Holocaust. I lean much more strongly towards an October date. November and December seem to contain confirmations that something changed in October.

I do feel that Wannsee deserves to retain its place of great historical importance if for no other reason than the fact that we have data on it- whereas the private conversations and decisions of the highest ranking Nazi officials are relatively opaque. It may be a tendency for those of rudimentary understanding to attribute the Holocaust exclusively to Hitler. Just as dangerous is the mistake of laying blame on the Germans. Perhaps, by focusing on Wannsee, something useful is illuminated- how the few may infect the many when there is a willingness to set morality aside; to place ends above means. Wannsee represents the moment when an already fatal virus mutated into an epidemic.

I once asked a historian to describe how the Jews had managed to survive as a landless nation since the fall of Jerusalem in the 1st Century. The story is incredible. There is not another like it in the history of the world. If the Nazis had heard the story as it was told to me, they could not have considered anything short of annihilation.

The gassing of Jews at Chełmno starting in early December tells me that the Holocaust had already begun- and that it began with the decision to pursue the direct and immediate destruction of all Jews- as opposed to the deportation of Jews to deadly places. The fact that Wannsee was meant to take place earlier and was delayed by the entrance of the U.S. into the war tells me the same thing.

So, here is the answer I am most satisfied with:

Mid-October 1941 decision to kill all European and Russian Jews through last camp executions in late April 1945: ~1290 days.

Reminding you again of how grateful I am for your beautiful and generous spirit is like coming up for air. I hope you don't mind.

I most certainly do not mind, and your tribute overwhelms me, to say the very least. Besides, I too hope I live forever! Clio the Muse 11:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am seeking information or previously published history regarding "baggy pants"

I am seeking information for input to verify the origin of the baggy pants look common among the hip hop generation. Where did the style originate. I believe it has subculture connotations? Originally associated with identifying men who were available while in the penitentiary for sexual favors. Secondly, it became a indicator for gang members who carried guns, thereby making the pants droop. I am looking for some definitive information to confirm, either or disprove either suggested theory. Thanks.

According to the article on Hip hop fashion, "West Coast gangsta rappers adopted the style of Los Angeles' cholos (Chicano gangsters) including baggy pants". The source given is Rap Music and Street Consciousness by Cheryl Keyes. According to Sagging (fashion) it "began in prisons, where ill-fitting uniforms and rules forbidding belts resulted in falling-down pants". Source: Snopes, which says the sexual explanation is false. Skarioffszky 20:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)