Humanities desk
< May 23	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 24

Invasion of Spain during Spanish-American War

Did the Americans ever considered invading Spain during the Spanish-American War? KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to War Plans and Preparations and Their Impact on U.S. Naval Operations in the Spanish-American War from the Naval History and Heritage Command, apparently there was no thought of invasion, but a plan made in 1896 by Lieutenant William Kimball (so not very high up the chain-of-command) recommended raids on the Spanish coast. When the Naval War College examined the plan, "The proposed expedition to Spanish waters was thought to be counter-productive as it might harden Spanish resolve and invite unwanted diplomatic pressure from other European countries". Alansplodge (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the same source, I also found; Plan of Operations Against Spain Prepared by Lieutenant William W. Kimball (1896), 6/1/1897. This seems to be a discussion paper rather than an actual war plan. He postulates that a US squadron could operate in the Mediterranean where Spanish coastal towns were less heavily fortified. "The method to apply to towns would be to appear off them, to demand a ransom, and if it were not promptly paid to toss a heavy shell or two into the town itself to show the seriousness of the situation". A big problem would be the provision of coal for the squadron as there were no US bases there; Kimball imagined that this could be solved by sending US colliers under the British flag to Suez and somehow replenishing at sea. Alansplodge (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, the idea of seriously doing this would have been a rather big deal, violating the Monroe Doctrine and potentially provoking a war with other European powers who likely wouldn't appreciate the U.S. attacking European soil. The aim of the war was to seize Spain's colonies, not potentially start a world war. A thought-provoking alternate history scenario, but either the British or Imperial German Navy of the time alone could have annihilated the U.S. Navy if either felt intervention was warranted. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been wildly impractical, logistically speaking. It's very hard to keep a sizable force (much less one able to seize a country the size of Spain) supplied with food, ammunition, etc. across an ocean. The US Navy of that time would in all likelihood have nothing close to the capability to do so. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, coal would have been an major issue. From Norfolk VA to Rota in Spain is 3351 nautical miles; USS Indiana (BB-1) had a range of 4,900 nm so would have been able to get there but not back again. US Navy experiments in 1899 and 1900 with refuelling at sea by winching 800lb bags between a collier and a battleship resulted in the conclusion that not only were specially constructed colliers required, but that the operation was impractical on the open ocean. Naval War College Review (1981) p. 61 The same source notes that in the Far East, Commodore George Dewey was dependant on the goodwill of the British to use Hong Kong harbour for re-coaling, as the Japanese had declared strict neutrality. However he was unable to buy sufficient coal on the open market because the threat of war had caused all the shipping companies in the region to hoard stocks. He was only able to refuel because he used shipping agents to purchase in advance the whole cargo of a collier outbound from the UK. No coal would have meant no Battle of Manila Bay. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Spain had a large conscript army. I can't find figures for 1899 but in 1920 it numbered 500,000. The US Army, by mobilising the National Guard and recruiting masses of volunteers, "managed to expand to 58,688 men by August 1898 (however, most of these men were recruited too late to actually serve during the brief war)". [1] So assuming that a force could be taken across the Atlantic, however large it was, it wouldn't be large enough to fight the Spanish once they got ashore. Alansplodge (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article on Spanish-American War does state: "Madrid sued for peace after two Spanish squadrons were sunk in Santiago de Cuba and Manila Bay and a third, more modern, fleet was recalled home to protect the Spanish coasts." And then it also talks about the Cámara's squadron recalled to defend Cadiz. So it seems there was a fear on the Spanish governmental level that there was a need to defend the coast of Spain from a potential American raid. KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply guessing, but the motivation may have been more to deter other European nations than the U.S. Would need to do some research to see if there's information on what was behind it. In limited wars like this there's also the whole I-know-you-know-that-I-know strategizing. The U.S. may never have seriously planned for an attack on Spain itself, but if Spain had simply left itself wide open to attack, they might have threatened one as a move to gain leverage in negotiations. If the Spanish public had been aware, they might have been fearful of such an attack and pressured the government to accept whatever terms the U.S. wanted. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idiomatic translation

Hi Folk, anybody up for giving me a idiomatic translation of the following German quote:

Und man sollte, ob es uns heute paßt oder nicht, nicht verschweigen, daß es da immerhin auch eine ‚Rote Kapelle‘ gegeben hat: Kommunisten, die faktisch auch in diesem Kampf standen und auch als Opfer des Nationalsozialismus gefallen sind. Welches Geistes Kinder diese alle auch waren und wie man auch von ihren besonderen Absichten und deren Ausführungen heute denken mag: Sie wollten damals nicht dabei sein bei dem, was die Nationalsozialisten wollten, sie wollten ihrem verderbten und verderblichen Regiment eine Grenze setzen, ein Ende machen. […] Hätten sie Erfolg gehabt, so hätte das bedeuten können, daß ein ganz großes Maß weiterer menschlicher und auch materieller Opfer nicht mehr hätte gebracht werden müssen. Sie hatten keinen Erfolg. Und das lag nicht nur an ihnen, sondern doch auch daran, daß in Deutschland so wenige, bevor es etwa ungefährlich wurde, entschlossen und hilfreich neben sie treten wollten, und daß ihnen von außen so gar kein Verständnis und keine sinnvolle Unterstützung zuteil wurde.

Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could offer the following:

And whether we like it or not, it must be said that there was nevertheless also a "Red Band" (Rote Kapelle): communists who were in fact also in this fight and died as victims of National Socialism. Whatever spirit guided them and whatever we might think of their specific intentions and talk today, they didn't want to be part of what the Nazis were planning but rather to draw a line between themselves and the corrupt and pernicious Nazi domination and put an end to it.

[...] If they had succeeded, it could have meant that, to a very great extent, further human and also material sacrifice would no longer have been necessary. They didn't succeed. And that was due not only to them but also to the fact that so few in Germany, before it became reasonably safe, stood ready to help them and absolutely no one on the outside sympathized with them or provided meaningful support.

Jmar67 (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Jmar67: That is grand. Its by Karl Barth. Coolio scope_creep^Talk 01:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rote Kapelle is usually translated as Red Orchestra. 2601:648:8202:96B0:3567:50D5:8BFF:4588 (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Europeans generally more financially well off than Northern Europeans?

After all this time, EU member states apparently still do not seem to agree on the main overall purpose of or why the European Union came into being and continues to exist to begin with. If you have been following the international politics of the European Union in the past decade, you certainly know about the fractious divide between the "frugal" fiscally conservative Northern European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the Baltic states) and the profligate spendthrift heavily indebted Southern European countries (Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain) that flared up during the European debt crisis when the latter threw a huge temper tantrum over austerity (the German foreign minister even recently called it "torture tool/device" Lmao rofl). Now this divide has manifested once more during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic with huge emotional drama over coronabonds with governments of Southern Europe calling for "solidarity" in the form of grants funded by jointly issued EU-wide debt if not outright free money as opposed to loans individually borrowed and paid back by each responsible member country while their northern counterparts have staunchly opposed such proposals citing moral hazard among other reasons. Of course, this dispute is extremely controversial with many people in Southern Europe including government officials claiming that the general public and the media of Northern Europe have a racist stereotypical view of the South even though the current governments of Italy and Spain have been unwilling to make any long-term meaningful deficit-reducing structural reforms to abide by the requirements of the European Fiscal Compact. Anyway, I am not a European but I live in the United States, where citizens still trust their own government enough to purchase its bonds, and so I don't have all the relevant facts on the situation in Europe. To get a clearer understanding of the situation, I need help on clarification and factual confirmation of the following questions:

The latest information from Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Databook seems to indicate that private households living in Greece, Italy, and Spain are overall just as wealthy if nor much more so than those living in Germany and the Netherlands. How true is this? Do Italians actually have more savings than Germans?
Do Northern European governments collect much more taxes from their citizens or have much higher and more aggressive tax-collecting ability than their southern counterparts?
Is home-ownership in Italy and Spain much higher while most people in Germany and the Netherlands are renters?
The Double Irish Dutch Sandwich combo along with other tax haven schemes that cause Italy and Spain to lose tax revenues every year are totally legal according to EU laws and regulations, correct?

StellarHalo (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a statistician, but Mean and median income by household type - EU-SILC and ECHP surveys gives a rather different picture, with Spain, Italy and especially Greece (€7,875 per household) well behind countries like Germany, Sweden and Denmark (€30,097 per household). Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Northern Europe, most people that do not belong to the 1% are happy to pay taxes, knowing that most of it is spent on infrastructure, education, health, and other public services that benefit all, so paying one's due share (from each according to their ability) is considered an act of solidarity. In Greece the infamous fakelaki serves a dual purpose. For the recipients, it is a way of evading taxes. For the payers, it is an unavoidable evil to get access to services needed. Obviously, the payers' tax morale will not be stellar either. In France, avoiding paying tax through legal or less legal means is considered a national sport.^[2][3][4] --Lambiam 12:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the October 2019 Global wealth databook 2019 report by Credit Suisse, wealth – by their definition – per adult in mid-2019 was as follows:

_____________Mean _______Median

Austria ____US$274,919 ___ $94,070

Denmark _____$284,022 ___ $58,784

Germany _____$216,654 ___ $35,313

Ireland _______$272,310 ___ $104,842

the Netherlands _279,077 ___ $31,057

Sweden ______$265,260 ___ $41,582

Estonia _______$78,458 ___ $24,915

Latvia ________$60,347 ___ $13,348

Lithuania ______$50,254 ___ $22,261

Greece ________$96,110 ___ $40,000

Italy _________$234,139 ___ $91,889

Portugal ______$131,088 ___ $44,025

Spain ________$207,531 ___ $95,360

Note that there is no mention of savings, just assets. Those may be yacths, mansions, art, stocks, bonds, real estate, cash, etc. Home ownership rates are in your link (note: [the lack of] tax breaks for home owners is very important in this issue).

As for the entirely separate issue of taxation, Northern European governments collect more tax from individuals than do those in Southern Europe, as shown in your link.

On the third unrelated subject of corporate tax structures, these play a role in why companies chose to locate in one place but not another. The weight of that reason will vary with every single case.

DOR (HK) (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]