Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< November 21 << Oct | November | Dec >> November 23 >
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

[edit] November 22

[edit] Trying to identify a book bout dirigibles.

I'm trying to locate a book I read about recently. I may have even read about it here on the Reference Desk, but I can't find it in the archive.

If I recall correctly is was either by or about a dirigible pilot describing the experience of piloting a dirigible. That's all I have to go on. I just remember making a mental note to remember this book and try to locate a copy. If anyone could tell me the title or author of the book I'm thinking of, or of something similar, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. APL (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • No idea, sorry, but might it help if you tried to jog your own memory by typing "dirigible pilot" into Google? Add "book" though, or you'll be swamped. Bessel Dekker (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You get a few hits by doing the same thing in www.amazon.com. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forensic Psychology

What is an example of a case in which forensic psychology helped solve a crime? --Candy-Panda (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The key here is determining if the psychological profiling really helped, or not. A good deconstruction of criminal profiling can be found in this recent New Yorker article. Many of the techniques employed are similar to cold reading. -- Kesh (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would look at cases that have involved the Behavioral Analysis Unit of the FBI. Phsychological profiling tends to work best on serial killers. What were those guys called who did those highway shootings in Maryland and Viriginia a while back. I think those were caught using profiling. - Mgm|(talk) 10:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical and legal advice

How can I find/choose/select a lawyer or doctor to get advice (no matter what country)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 01:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry we are not even allowed to give medical or legal advice on how to obtain legal or medical advice according to the rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.162.232 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Try the yellow pages or your local equivalent. —Nricardo (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, I am reformulating the question: how can we assess the quality of services like legal or medical professionals? Of course I could get a list of doctors and lawyer by myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 04:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Best way is to ask around and get some recommendations. If you don't have any friends or colleagues who have used the services of these professionals recently, see if there is a community message board in your area and post a question there asking for recommendations. --Richardrj talk email 09:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, isn't there a better (=> more systematic) way of assessing quality in these professions? I suppose some institution could gather information at least about unprofessional conduct, won/lost processes, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.K. (talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
In many countries there is a restriction on who can practice as a lawyer or doctor. If you want to practice you must register your qualification. If you are uncertain as to a particular practitioner's qualifications, the local registry would be able to tell you if they are registered or not. As to gauging their specific skills, other than incompetence, which would be notable by their being charged with incompetence or having no customers, it is mostly word of mouth that will give you an answer. There isn't (as far as I know) an ongoing skills-testing schema in place anywhere to monitor such things. You can ask a lawyer about his success rate in winning cases, but remember also that the type and circumstances of a case are important, too. A lawyer can win all of his cases if they are all cases of obvious innocence, but a lawyer who takes on challenging cases may be very good at his job, but have a worse record because of the cases he takes. Steewi (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic breakdown of Toronto

Which part of Toronto has the most Arabs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Which part of Toronto has the most Turkishes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that Toronto is multicultural city, but which part of Toronto that has the most numbers of White people and I mean native Canadians? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.214 (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on this map from the 2001 census, you can see that the "whitest" areas of Toronto are the wealthy districts near Yonge Street between Bloor Street and Highway 401, such as Rosedale, as well as the area near the Humber River in southern Etobicoke. The map doesn't differentiate between native-born and immigrant whites, but I think it's fair to say the areas mentioned above also have smaller-than-average immigrant populations for Toronto. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Good thing you have answered my white people question but you haven't answered my Arab(When I mean "Arab", I mean Arabs together like Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian, Omani, Yemeni, Moroccan, Algerian, Tunisian, Libyan, Egyptian, Palestinian, Saudi Arabian, Bahraini, Kuwaiti, Qatari, United Arab Emirates people and Jordanian Arabs) and Turkish people question. Please answer these two.

[edit] Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors

Did the title "Roman Emperor", through the inheritance of Ferdinand and Isabel, pass and settle into the Spanish, or the Holy Roman line? When Charles V abdicated, did it go to his brother Ferdinand, in order to append further legitimacy to the Holy Roman title, by uniting the two titles--since while the two titles had been held by two different individuals, it lessened the legitimacy of each one--with the Holy Roman one at a natural disadvantage? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Emperor of the holy Roman empire was actually an elective office, so technically it wasn't inherited at all... AnonMoos (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the best response I've seen to the question. Sorry I missed it! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You answered your own question. Charles V's brother became Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of the Austrian lands while his son Philip became ruler of the Spanish, Italians, and Burgundian lands. Yes, as AnonMoos said, Emperor was an elective office, but the Habsburgs were pretty well entrenched long before Charles died. The early modern office of Holy Roman Emperor was quite unconnected to the Byzantine Empire, or the Roman Empire, and it had very little in common with the empire of Charlemagne or Otto I. Holy Roman Empire is perhaps misleading: it should be read along with translatio imperii. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the selling or willing of the Byzantine title to the Catholic Monarchs, which descended to the Habsburgs. Wikipedia currently shows the title as having gone down permanently with the Spanish Royal Family, but I think that is inaccurate. Charles would have transferred the Byzantine imperial title to his brother Ferdinand, rather than his son Philip. It would unite the two imperial titles for some kind of legitimacy, but User:John Kenney tells me that neither the House of Trastamara nor the Holy Roman Emperors claimed the title of Roman Emperor, of the Byzantine line. Wikipedia has to make sense and it just isn't. I want clarification. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, the last hereditary claimant to the Byzantine imperial throne tried unsuccessfully to sell his title for cash throughout the late 15th C. He died as a pauper in Italy (fittingly enough) sometime around 1500. Dppowell (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why does Wikipedia list the Spanish monarchs as pretenders of the Byzantine version of Rome? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish king claims a whole lot of wacky titles, including king of Jerusalem and Cyprus. The son of the last Byzantine emperor made his way to Italy and sold his (now empty) title to someone or other, and I guess that title eventually passed to Spain, but it is completely meaningless. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, where does any Royal Spanish website or catalogue on the internet state that the old Roman Empire belongs to them, even in theory? The only nutty one that is verified on Wikipedia, is the title to Jerusalem. I'd like to see a coherent claim to Rome from the Spaniards, not some original research on Wikipedia making crazy claims. Wikipedia lists several kings of Spain in succession (until Charles II of Spain), as having this title, but what historical sources have ever showed this? Also, where is it explained on Wikipedia why the claim did not continue with the succeeding Spanish royals (the succession box lists Louis, Dauphin of France (1661-1711) as next, but his own article doesn't have the succession box)? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

24.255, I would urge you not to let this piece of royal trivia detain you overmuch. Crowns tend to attract titles in the way that magnets attract iron. It would take a good few minutes to recite all of the titles and dignities of the last Tsar of Russia! Even if the Spanish crown did acquire the Byzantine title it was, as Adam has said, quite meaningless. The Emperor Charles needed no added legitimacy, and is more than likely have been quite content for the empty honour to pass to his son Philip. There is no earthly reason why Ferdinand would have wanted the title, and I can find no mention at all of this in any of the sources I have on the Holy Roman Empire. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of the titles claimed by the Spanish Crown have some historical or dynastic basis, but rey de Córcega is surprising since Corsica was never attached to any Spanish or Habsburg state so far as I've been able to tell. —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for paying attention to the question--although from your own personal opinion rather than fact, on whether the title to Rome went with Austrian Habsburgs or Spanish Habsburgs after this point. It is obvious that nobody has the answers, because this is original research being bandied about. I'd like to see some source texts that agree with the statements being put into these articles about the devolution of the claim or title, because that is Wikipolicy and due to the lack of following it in this case, I'm confused! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 05:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

You appear not to understand the meaning of the word "claim". The statement "A has a claim on B" does not imply "A has a right to B". The first may be a verifiable fact, even when the second is obviously just an opinion. This is particularly evident when several different people have a claim on the same title.  --Lambiam 08:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
A case in point of the "empty titles"? Fidei Defensor - defender of the faith, given by a grateful Pope to Henry VIII. The same Henry VIII who went on to split the English church from Rome. The title remains in use to this day (it's the FD on British coinage, for example), despite the fact that almost every monarch since Henry has been Protestant and Catholics are prevented by law from becoming monarch. Still, it's a nice title... pithy, strong, even if it's not understood by very many because it's a) in Latin and b) usually reduced two obscure letters. --Dweller (talk) 10:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope. The Pope withdrew the title, and Parliament meekly granted it afresh, so England's monarch is Defender of the Anglican Faith by authority of the Crown-in-Parliament rather than Defender of the Roman Faith by Papal authority. —Tamfang (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It occurs to me that I don't know whether the relevant Act of Parliament attached the title to the Crown, or made it hereditary at all. Could be that Henry VIII was the only authentic bearer of the title; or that it descended to some line other than that of the subsequent monarchs. —Tamfang (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, all I'm calling for is, reliable sources that agree with Wikipedia's articles, or Wikipedia should fall in agreement with such sources. How come everybody here is ignoring Wikipedia precepts? I call for integrity and you lot go on these insanely tangential rants! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}! I've done List of Byzantine Emperors. If you see such tangential trivia anywhere else without references, be bold and remove it. Don't forget to use an edit summary or you'll likely be reverted by the overzealous MMORPG-players. If you feel so inclined, you can leave a note on the article talk page saying why you removed it (because it was unreferenced). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wanting to know the source text, so I can judge for myself the legitimacy of these claims. Are readers not to know the reasons why Wikipedia asserts certain things? Is not Wikipedia supposed to dispense verifiable knowledge? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, readers are supposed to know the reasons, that's why Wikipedia:Five pillars says: "Unreferenced material may be removed". The references tell the reader where to look to judge things for themselves. In this case, your best bet would be to read through the books and articles cited in Andreas Palaiologos. Without page numbers that's a rather big job, hence the preference for footnotes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll forgive the wretched state of the related articles and maybe check Google Books. Thanks for the directional approach, well mannered that it is. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the origin of wishing upon a star?

When did the tradition start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitalistroadster (talk • contribs) 09:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It certainly goes back as far as this song from Walt Disney's Pinocchio (1940), but it may well predate that. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course it predates that Disney song! The "Star light, star bright" nursery rhyme goes back to at least the 19th century.

[edit] Niggas vs. Black People

I've seen footage of this routine. It's hard to laugh and have one's mouth hanging open in shock at the same time, yet I managed it. Anyway, I am curious what impact (if any) it had on African-American society? I presume at the time some black community leaders were outraged at the characterisation and some nodded sagely and agreed that comedy is a mirror on life and Chris Rock had made some good points. Am I right? What kind of response was there from the black community? And, now that some time has passed, has the routine made any kind of impact? Has anything changed? If he were writing the routine today, would Chris Rock omit any of the characterisations because they're no longer accurate (if indeed they ever were)? --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Never mind. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eishin Ryu Mon?

Not sure whether this question goes under humanities or misc, but here goes:

I've noticed that this mon seems to be worn by quite a few Eishin Ryu iaidoka. Why is this? What's the history of it? How did it become associated with Eishin Ryu? Thanks! 81.11.148.226 (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the Cold War

I've been highly encouraged by the superb and erudite responses to my questions on international relations, so much so that I shall risk another. Would it be true to say that the Cold War arose from a series of mutual misunderstandings, or was one side more at fault than the other? Did the Soviet Union really aim at ideological expansion after 1947? I look forward to your responses. Many thanks. Mustapha Fag (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Cold War was in essence a struggle for power and a struggle to maintain or expand spheres of influence. It did not arise from misunderstandings but from conflicting interests. The Soviet Union wanted to maintain a buffer territory under its domination in eastern Europe and aimed to bring nations in Africa, Latin America, and Asia (many of them newly independent) into its camp partly to gain trade partners, partly out of ideological evangelism, partly to limit the power of the West. Meanwhile, the West aimed to contain and roll back the Soviet sphere of influence in Europe and to prevent the expansion of their influence in the Third World (a term that originated during the Cold War for the parts of the world that were neither part of the West, or First World, nor of the Soviet sphere, or the Second World). The Soviet Union did aim for "ideological expansion", but this was secondary to its aim to project and augment its geopolitical power. Marco polo (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
George Kennan's "Long Telegram" may provide you with some answers. Of course, it is not a third party perspective to the conflict, but it was written before the conception of the Cold War. Communism's ambition (just like any other grand narrative of the 20th century)to concur the world is beyond speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyeditor (talk • contribs) 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you have misread or misunderstood the Long Telegram. It does not say that Communism's ambition was world conquest. It says instead that the USSR had legitimate security interests at heart, was essentially weak, and could be economically contained without a massive military build up. Even Kennan agreed that the eventual Cold War policy taken by the USA—as set forth in NSC-68—had little to do with Kennan's assessment or suggestions. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

One early irritant in the immediate aftermath of WW2 was that Stalin didn't keep his promise, made by him personally to Roosevelt, to allow free elections to be held in Poland. Of course, Stalin never had any intention of keeping that promise... AnonMoos (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to chalk it up to just "misunderstanding"—Stalin was not willing to trust the US (and with good reason), and the US was not willing to trust Stalin (again, with good reason). I think both sides understood quite well that what was in the interest of one was not likely in the interest of the other. The US had drawn up plans to drop atomic bombs on the Soviet Union even before World War II had really ended (of course, they didn't have enough bombs to drop, but that's a different story); it was not exactly like either side had a whole lot of reason to trust the other or that either side was assuming good faith (and with good reason). If a misunderstanding is to be had, it was mutual: both sides saw the other side as wanting nothing more than the destruction of their country and way of life (an essentially offensive view of the other). In reality I think both sides were more interested in their own security than anything else (an essentially defensive view), and could have obtained that through less drastic measures if they were able to work out protocols for doing so, but the lack of trust by both sides made anything like that impossible. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You ask what the Cold War arose from. Here is a map of the final positions of the front lines upon Germany's surrender in 1945. Here is a map showing the Iron Curtain. Swap the Czechs for the Austrians, and there it is. No, there was no misunderstanding. America had "sphere of influence" after the war, the Soviet Union had a vast prison. The people of eastern Europe understand better than I do, though. I hope to hear from them here. --Milkbreath (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed; there is really no other way to explain the sudden emergence of the Cold War other than by a process of misjudgement, misunderstanding and missed opportunities. There may have been some in the west-I think of Churchill in particular-who were attuned to the dangers of new forms of 'ideological imperialism'. But Stalin in every sense was more Bismarck than Lenin, a practitioner of realpolitik in its purest form, rather than a Communist crusader. His policy in eastern Europe after 1945 is, in many respects, simply a grander model of that pursued from 1939 to 1941 during his partnership with Hitler. Above all things, he was determined to increase his security in the west, which meant, of course, establishing a permanent Soviet presence across the region. Local Communist parties were encouraged and nurtured when they served this basic end; otherwise they were discarded in a quite cynical fashion. Although Churchill in 1946 was warn of an 'Iron Curtain' descending across Europe he himself had in discussions in 1944 entered into a 'devil's bargain' with Stalin, conceeding Soviet domination of the Balkans in return for British control of Greece. Stalin had at least fulfilled his side of this understanding by abandoning the Greek Communist Party.

Remember, too, as far as the security issues are concerned, setting aside the case of Poland, by far the most contentious issue, all of the other countries occupied by the Soviets had been German allies or client states to some degree or other. Yes, Stalin agreed that the peoples of these 'liberated' countries had the right to determine their own fate in free and fair elections, but his increasing distrust of the west-and the huge extension of American power conferred by atomic weapons-put an end to this prospect at an early stage. Stalin was not the kind of man who could be readily trusted, that much is true, but it is just possible that more would have been achieved by steady and patient diplomacy, particularly in relation to the German and the Polish questions. But then came Churchill at his sabre-rattling best! True, he was not in government when he made his famous speech in Fulton, Missouri, but Harry Truman was, and he shared the same platform.

How were the Soviets to take this other than an indication of a new, more hostile direction in western policy, subsequently enshrined in the Truman Doctrine? Why, by returning the same basic model, the promotion of the view that the world had indeed divided into two distinct camps, the dangers and the threats all being on one side, and the peaceful intentions all on the other. This was the Soviet Fulford, a speech given by Andrei Zhdanov in September 1947 at the first meeting of Cominform, the real beginning, it might be argued, of the Soviet Cold War.

Growing suspicion in the west over Soviet intentions, and growing anxiety in the east over future security, meant that there could be no agreement over the political shape of Germany, now and in the period to come. It was to be, rather, the new front line in the Cold War, symbolised by the creation of two separate states in 1949, divided by ideology, divided by politics, divided by economics...and divided by fear. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is Maltese and how valuable is it?

Between 1523 and 1530 the Knights of Hospitaller lacked a permanent home, until Charles V of Spain offered them Malta and Gozo in return for one maltese falcon sent annually to the Viceroy of Sicily and a solemn mass to be celebrated on All Saints Day.

What is maltese and how valuable is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.32.75 (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A Maltese Falcon is a a bird of the genus Falco peregrinus brookei, the Mediterranean region subspecies of the Peregrine Falcon. As to their worth, it has been estimated that the value of a Falcon in early mediaeval Britain was £4,800. Those falcons which are not endangered and appear on the open market fetch prices today of £500 for a male and £500-1000 for a female (depending on pedigree). 86.21.74.40 (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Our article on Peregrine Falcons in popular culture also states that - "The Mediterranean Peregrine Falcon, was the annual rent required by Holy Roman Emperor Charles V when he donated the Island of Malta to the Knights Hospitaller in 1530." As Malta is part of a large number of birds' migratory patterns, the capture and sale of birds has been a long practised art. When I last visited Valletta in 2001 during market day they still had two/three streets purely selling captured birds. Foxhill (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Precisely zero. The Maltese Falcon is a fictional story, and the object was made up for it. It does not exist, nor are there real legends about such an object. Since then, several facsimilis have been created and sold, either for the amusement of the buyer or by unscrupulous dealers taking advantage of someone. -- Kesh (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Just in case you weren't aware, Maltese is an adjective that derives from the name Malta, ie it's describing a xxxxxx that comes from Malta. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Such as Corto Maltese! Keria (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The Maltese Falcon was a MacGuffin. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 23:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stab in the back

In 1918 the German army claimed that it had lost the war because it had been stabbed in the back by political opponents at home. did the generals really believe this and could they have gone on fighting?86.151.241.98 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In 1918, Germany was practically a military dictatorship ruled by Hindenburg and Ludendorff. Thus it was the generals that decided to make peace. They decided to first hand over power to a civilian government which would have to sign the actual armistice expressly so that civilians could be seen as to blame for the defeat. See Stab-in-the-back legend. Algebraist 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a convenient excuse, a way of passing responsibility for surrender on to the civilians, though both Hindenburg and Ludendorff were well aware of the strategic realities. The Spring Offensive of 1918 had been their last great gamble, the one hope of breaking the Allies in the west before American reserves arrived in even greater numbers. As early as 7 August the Kaiser said to Ludendorff that "We have reached the limits of our capacity. The war must be ended." At that stage it was still hoped that it would be possible to do so on the crest of some military advantage. But the position continued to deteriorate day by day, so much so that at the meeting of the Imperial Council at Spa on 14 August Ludendorff recommended immediate peace negotiations.

The situation in the west grew steadily worse throughout September. In early October both Hindenburg and Ludendorff were pressing for an immediate truce, telling the Kaiser that the army could not wait for another forty-eight hours. To this Max von Baden repled that if the situation was so desperate it was for the army 'to raise the white flag in the field'. Ludedorff raised no white flag, but he sent a telegram to Berlin on 2 October, saying that the heavy losses of the last few days were impossible to make good, and an armistice was therefore imperative, " to spare the German people and its allies further useless sacrifice." Later in the month, as the Allied advance slowed, his nerve steadied somewhat, and he was even talking of the possibility of another offensive in the west in 1919. It was fantasy, of course. The collapse of the Salonika Front put the supply of oil from Romania at risk, without which the German army could only fight for another six weeks, as General Heinrich Scheüch, the War Minister, pointed out. The game was played and lost before a single red flag had been raised. The stab was in the front, not the back. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin and De Gaulle

What was Stalin's attitude towards General de Gaulle? Pere Duchesne (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a lot better than Roosevelt's attitude! Stalin had originally denounced the Free French as 'British mercenaries' during his honeymoon with Hitler. Much had changed, though, by the time De Gaulle came to Moscow in December 1944 for their one and only meeting. For Stalin France was a useful 'window on the west', a way breaking the Anglo-American monopoly. The two countries also shared important security concerns, and looked to one another for future mutual assurance, in effect a revival of the old Franco-Russian Alliance of 1894-1917. Stalin was well aware how uneasy De Gaulle's relationship was with both Roosevelt and Churchill and took full advantage. As early as September 1941 he had recognised the French leader in far more fulsome terms than the British or the Americans ever did. By the autumn of 1944, already preparing for the shape of post-war Europe, De Gaulle was a useful ally. Though there were differences, notably over Poland, the two men established a reasonably good understanding. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)