Humanities desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

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.

November 20[edit]

Mystery Medal[edit]

I'm looking for identification and translation of this medal, possibly dating from WWII:

Images

Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. -- 74.137.105.0 (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I can't say anything, but the golden bit is vaguely kamon-like, but then the factory motive would in this day be most easily associated with Communist China, but could also be an early industrialist Japan motive. Can't say anything about the angel. The wording underneath is, funnily enough, in two styles - the left most character is 章 and written in the regular printed CJKV characters, and the middle and right one are in a stylized "ancient characters" script that I can't read for the life of me - maybe someone else here can do better. Incidentally, I suspect it's highly likely read from the right to the left, and since (at least in Japanese) the character 章 means either chapter in a book or a badge/emblem, I'd say this is the emblem of some society or other. A membership badge or something like it. That's all I can tell for now, maybe someone else can have a go at the seal script - it looks fairly simple and should be readable to someone even vaguely familiar with it. TomorrowTime (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me more like the figure on the Brandenburg Gate or other (neo-)classical victory angel ("Nike") than anything oriental... AnonMoos (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this[1] is "Victory" on the Wellington Arch in London. Looks pretty similar including the laurel wreath and four-horsed chariot. Does anyone recognise the trefoil or Triquetra symbol in the small golden disc? A Celtic knot or a Japonese Mon (emblem)? Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone looked at the second picture and tried to translate the writing on the back? DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

習勤章壹ケ年習勤昭和八年度東洋レーヨソ株式會社滋賀工場 — Medal of hardworking —

One year of learning and practice, The year of 1933, Toyo Rayon Company Limited, Shiga Factory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toray_Industries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiga_Prefecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mon_(emblem) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantaiman2 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chantaiman2. There is an image of the mon on the Toray website at [2]. DuncanHill (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never even realized there was a backside picture :) And there it is, the mystery seal script from the front side: 習勤章. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I see the backside picture? I think 習勤章 is wrong. There's no such word in Japanese. It must be 皆勤章/賞. And 壹ケ年習勤 should be 壱ケ年皆勤. Not レーヨソ, but レーヨン. I think it's a medal given to someone who had a perfect attendance at work in 1933. Oda Mari (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The backside should be available in a link on the frontside's page, however you can access it directly here. -- 74.137.105.0 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all! This has been quite informative. I don't know how the medal got from there to here, but at least I now know what it is. -- 74.137.105.0 (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. I checked a paper dictionary and found out 壹 is a variation of 壱. The meaning is the same. The letters looks like seal script. Maybe that is why 皆 looks like 習 and is different from this font "皆". Oda Mari (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

壹 is the standard Chinese complex version of 一, but I've never seen 壱 in a Chinese context. Steewi (talk) 02:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist's Golden Rule[edit]

Anyone ever hear of the "Atheist's Golden Rule", which is to "Do in the present what you want to remember in the future as having done in the past." --96.252.208.240 (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on the Golden Rule, which discusses it from many perspectives, though not specifically from that of atheism that I could see, except perhaps to some extent in the Criticisms and responses to criticisms section. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am more interested in a comparison of each rule and their criticisms and note in that respect that the Criticisms and responses to criticisms does not mention the easy (and perverted) application of the Golden Rule by pedophiles who apply it to children as meaning that it is okay to touch the ~~gentiles~~ (spelling error corrected) genitals of children because that is what a pedophile wants children to do to them. --96.252.208.240 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all platitudes such as the Golden Rule suffer from analysis; by defintion platitudes work in the general, but tend to break down in the specific. Your personal version of the golden rule you stated above suffers from this as well. One could come up with many situations where your personal rule above could lead a person to do harm rather than good. --Jayron32 02:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although not my rule it does fall into the category of misapplication but if you go further with the Golden Rule than if you misinterpret then misinterpretation will be visited upon (or at least invited to visit) you. --96.252.208.240 (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

96.252.208.240, see gentile - it basically means a person who is not a Jew. Nothing to do with genitals. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Freudian Slip. schyler (talk) 05:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...in the world, not of the word... --96.252.208.240 (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure why that would have to be an exclusively atheist golden rule. Is there anything specifically atheistic in it? And vice versa, I see no reason an atheist shouldn't follow the original golden rule - in fact, I think a lot of atheists do. TomorrowTime (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew 7:12 for reference. I agree with TomorrowTime. This "Atheist's Golden Rule" sounds like avoiding regret to me, which, if one failed to do so, would require something like Repentance. schyler (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least the negative/prohibitive form. Most atheists that I know make a strong distinction between the two forms, probably because they are tired of people assuming that they have the same desire for treatment as everyone else. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

96.252.208.240's formulation is a bit long-winded, too. You could cut it down to: "Don't do anything you'll regret." Also, I found "The Platinum Rule" interesting: "people should treat others as those others would like to be treated." Also, Google turns up a lot of hits for "Atheist's Golden Rule" but no single one seems formally endorsed by "Atheism" as a whole, for whom anyway I suppose it would be better called a "Golden Heuristic" to distinguish it from some supernatural "commandment". That said, I do not see why it would have to be all that drastically different from other, non-atheist formulations. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheists when asked seem to have little other resort except to say that apart from consideration that they themselves are God that time or gravity runs a close second. This rule seems to support the former, namely time. --96.252.208.240 (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atheists don't have/believe in a God, and so would not say that they themselves, time, or gravity is God. Have you read our Atheism article? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with all wiki articles is that the moment after you download and while you are reading the article it can change. Have you read this article? --96.252.208.240 (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly one should never take WP to be the Word of God. ;) That's a nice page at that link, how is it relevant to your OQ and the answers to it so far? (If it is that you are using WP just to push a point-of-view, please don't do that – we have enforceable guidelines about that sort of thing. Thank you.) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...the belief in fact versus fiction. Atheists may not believe in anything specifically as a deity but suggest that belief in logic is superior to belief in God. By our actions for instance few of us would ignore freezing weather and remain outside in such weather without clothes. The article, to a degree, explores the ultimate direction of logical thinking and holding it above a belief in God. Hence, perhaps logic can be thought of as the atheist's God? 96.252.208.240 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some atheists may (implicitly or explicitly) hold such a view, but there are many kinds of atheists. Our Atheism article says:

"Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. In the 20th century, this view fell into disfavor as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity."

So, it is going to depend on what you understand a divinity to be as far as how you conceive what it is that an atheist does not believe in. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article suggests divinity as being that entity "...capable of reducing an infinite number of logical equations having an infinite number of variables with an infinite number of states to minimum form instantaneously and be the first entity to do it..." assuming logic is the ultimate criteria upon which everything is based? In other words, it does not matter what you believe or think or say what you believe in but rather what actions existence forces you to take despite thinking or belief? 17:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC) --96.252.208.240 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking or asserting all that? If asking, you should ask the author of the article at wikia.com what that person meant. If asserting, please see WP:SOAPBOX, and in either case please try to limit discussion in this thread to responses or pertinent follow-ups to the original question. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You say atheist believe in nothing which seems to mean that they only go by facts. So what facts do they go by? The fact that time passes by, that gravity rules the universe or that belief in logic is superior to belief in God or all three? In other words, I'm asking what rules atheists? 96.252.208.240 (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing that rules all people, a mixture of instincts, passion and rationality. To elaborate: You are asking a question that would require excessive generalisation in order to answer it. Atheists are not a homogenous group of people nor are atheism a single school of thought. It varies from individual to individual, much like with most religious people. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may be encumbered by a notion of a hierarchy of known absolute facts, as opposed to something open-ended and network-shaped, like critical rationalism, where all facts are subject to fallibility and of uncertain and context-dependent importance. Hope that made things clearer. :) 213.122.60.193 (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem... I know of no mariners who say, "We do not need a light house for we can tell where the rocks and the shore are by watching for white caps and surf and hearing the sound of breaking waves." 96.252.208.240 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariners today mostly use GPS, which incidentally, like the lighthouse, is a man-made invention. Do you have a point with your analogy, or can we close this one as having moved into the realm of proselytising now? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite satisfied to part with the notion that atheists have no rules to steer them clear of danger and destruction unless of course you or anyone can enlighten me further. 96.252.208.240 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What ever would have given you "the notion that atheists have no rules to steer them clear of danger and destruction" in the first place? There are an awful lot of atheists that seem to do so just about as well as everyone else on a daily basis.

I would strongly recommend that before discussing this further you read through our article on Atheism – and then, with specific reference to what it says there, ask further questions about atheism here. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What rules did the Epicureanists or other atomic materialists have to protect one's soul from danger and destruction? 96.252.208.240 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha was an explicit atheist, and so was Confucius I think, and they both came up with a Golden Rule different from the one Jesus supposedly did. 66.65.142.101 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

my brother not intrested in studies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.82.96.22 (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked into Alternative education for him? --Jayron32 07:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or a work release program?--Wetman (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant, Wetman? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Study is interesting if what you are interested in is studied. schyler (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And your sibling is your brother if your sibling is male. 84.153.227.35 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

First English child in The New World[edit]

It appears that two people carry the same title. Virginia Dare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Dare) and Peregrine White (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_White) both carry the description as the first English child born in The New World. Which one is the "real" first child.Twokamprs (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article First white child... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Virginia Dare was born in 1587, and Peregrine White in 1620. White was the first born to the Pilgrim Fathers, but they were not the first English settlers - that was the Roanoke Colony, where Virginia Dare was born. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

say you have an eye for real estate and renovation... and $10k[edit]

So, my wife is a real estate and renovation champ. She can always spot an awesome location and bring out a huge amount from it. The owners are so happy they usually waive rent for a few months. But, we're only in our twenties and don't have much capital, like $10k. I was wondering: where in the world could you buy a house for $10k, that has modern cities and infrastructure so that we could put her skills to use? I mean, due to local buying power, that $10k would be more like $150-$300k in real estate buying power. I'm open for anything, though I'd think places like Brazil, or India would be most likely. Even within these locations, which cities are the best candidates?

Basically, this is a finance/economics question, about modern cities with good healthy growth rates (since real estate prices are usually tied most closely to net income) but where $10k will buy you a shabby house you can renovate and flip. Thanks so much!! 84.153.227.35 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to stick to a market you know - you might run into unforeseen problems in foreign markets, plus the return is probably going to be low as well. If you are confident in this, you could consider getting a loan and going into this seriously right where you are. (Incidentally, your post reminded me of The Buddha of Suburbia, a novel by Hanif Kureishi, in which the narrators family does this for a living: they buy a run down flat, redesign it, sell it at a profit and use the profit to buy a new one and to live on for the next year or two, while they redesign this next flat). TomorrowTime (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. Rust Belt there are certainly plenty. Cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Akron, and others have hundreds of houses available for next to nothing; many are foreclosures. In Cleveland alone, according to Zillow this morning, there are 30 single-family houses on the market for between $1,000 and $5,000. Before grabbing one though you'd be advised to look at the local situation in detail. Some of these are likely to rebound in value if the economy improves. Antandrus (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for you help, guys, but I want to clarify two things. First, and most importantly, our most important criteria is a burgeoning local economy with very good job prospects for everyone and high growth rates in the economy. I said this. Why is this so important? Because house prices depend most strongly on salaries and the health of the economy. So, the places with foreclosures and 20% unemployment are the exact OPPOSITE of the kind of market we're looking for!! Let me say this. I'm not interested in the U.S., where a really healthy vibrant fast-growing city where everyone wants a house, means prices are like $150k-$1 million depending on the market. I want a vibrant, fast-growing market, in a country where the purchasing power is much higher (cost of living much lower), such as the "BRIC" economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China). Secondly, I do not want to get into any kind of debt. I want to buy a house outright, do our magic on it, as I've personally seen my wife perform half a dozen times, have the value double, and sell it, all within 3-5 months. This is what we're capable of. If I had $100,000, I would buy a house in California, maybe. But we have $10,000 right now, I'd like to buy a house outright in a place with low unemployment, very high growth, and where that kind of money buys you, say, a very nice house downtown, but one that we see good prospects in improving. Thanks for any actual economic insight you have on the world's thousands of cities not in the United States, Western Europe, Japan or the like. I'm talking South America, or Eastern Europe, or Asia, or northern Africa, or whatever. Thanks again. 84.153.227.35 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting following the herd. But this is likely to mean jumping on the band wagon just before prices crash. The way to make money is to forsee the future: "buy on despair, sell on euphoria". You get the best bargains when nobody else expects things to turn around. When its clear they have turned around and things are improving, then its usually too late, prices have already risen. 92.15.27.119 (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(OP here). Um, that is VERY good advice for any kinds of securities. Buy when theres blood on the streets. What youre missing here is that I am not buying securities, I am planning on investing major work INTO a property. So a better analogy would be, I am an executive and have a chance to get BOTH equity and a salary. I want to know what the prospects of different companies are, so I will get equity that, together with the amazing VP work that I do, will really give me return on my equity. Or, lets say I am a watchmaker, and pick up a shitty watch to repair. Before I spend three months of labor repairing it, I would like to know if I can sell it afterward! So, while your advice is VERY good for equity where you cant make any kind of direct improvement, it does not apply to my question. Thanks for trying. (Sorry about no special characters in this reply such as apostrophes.) --194.196.95.89 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're also forgetting gearing. Use your money as a 10% deposit. When prices rise 10%, you've doubled your money. The "$300000 worth of real estate for $10000" applies to what you find in Detroit, if the details on Zillow are to be believed. They are giving them away. 92.24.181.96 (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest Belgrade as an up and coming business hub of Southeastern Europe, but then I checked real estate prices there, and from a brief glance they seem to be a bit steep for your price range. Oh well, maybe someone else will have a better suggestion. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. This is my experience too, I hear good things about up-and-coming areas of the world, but, in fact, real estate is a bit rich for my blood. Thanks for the tip anyway! Anything anyone else has along these lines is very welcome... 84.153.227.35 (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned finance/economics so this is technically OT but have you really thought this thorough? Someone mentioned culture shock, but more then that, coming up with a list of countries is fine, but have you considered the difficulty of doing what you're trying to do? Many countries restrict what foreigners can do, buying property is often one of those restrictions. A quick search suggests in India if you aren't a citizen or non-resident Indian, you have to be resident in India (meaning for more then 183 days a year) something you can't do without a suitable visa. You may be better off in Brazil where from what I can tell you can own property. But even so, if your wife is doing her wonders, there's a fair chance this won't be allowed on a tourist visa, plus this will limit the amount of time you can stay there whatever the case. If you have enough money or some high demand skills (likely with some good experience to go with it) or whatever you can often get suitables visas to work in most countries if you try hard enough but considering your age and as you agree $10k isn't much, it's probably not going to be easy, if possible with what you have. However brillant your wife is, without something substanial to show for it it's not likely to count for much. Also the culture shock is not just about you adjusting to life there and the problems communicating if you don't know the language/s. Someone already mentioning "stick to a market you know", but beyond not understanding what's good to buy and the possibility of being ripped off when you're in a country with little knowledge; buying materials, negotiating with vendors etc is not likely to be easy. And even what you do to the house to spruce it up is likely to vary from what your wife does where you currently life. Consider that you are to some extent competing with very low cost even if relatively unskilled labour (in Malaysia for example just knocking down a house and building a new one is fairly common). Then there's also those dealings with the lawyers, bureaucrats etc. These will add to your cost and complexity. For example I know in Malaysia you generally have to pay a bribe to the land office if you want them to process any transfer fast and even then it takes about 3 months. (+1 month before you get your deposit, this means it may be about 4 months from selling the house to getting all the money.) IIRC you are originally from Australia but with UK (or Irish?) citizenship and currently resident in Germany, sticking in the EU may be a decent bet. These are only a small set of the pitfalls and problems you're gonna need to consider and I would suggest you consider them before you start to consider what places. Nil Einne (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall seeing a tv programme about someone doing this in Morocco I think, so its not impossible. 92.24.181.96 (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

India? Goa? Costa Rica? Morocco? Tunisia? "Have the value double" is the difficult part - my guess would be that this only happens in an affluent country with high prices, where consumers have the luxury of buying based on appearances rather than fundamentals. I think you are going to have a lot of culture shock - the rest of the world is very different to the US. On the other had, you could try a country that is starting to open up to Holiday home tourism, like Morocco or Tunisia, buy a run-down house and after renovation and modernisation sell it to a tourist as a holiday home. You are likely to be asking for the impossible - all the attributes you've listed do not exist in one place. 92.15.27.119 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a few parts of France you could pick up a derelict barn to convert. But only in a few parts, and only just. Expect to spend many more thousands renovating, but at your own pace. Just getting an architect to do the plans will cost at least 1K euros. Wouldn't it be better if one of you worked and earned enough to borrow on a mortgage, then you can buy in the UK for, say £60K (Stoke-on-Trent? Hastings?), and gradually work your way up? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we on the ref desk knew where to buy real estate that would double in value in 3-5 months, I think most of us would be out buying properties right now instead of answering questions. Googlemeister (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or doing both. 92.15.6.86 (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of culture shock up there reminded me of one more thing to look out for - people in a completely different part of the world might not appreciate your work the way people in your country do. There's no accounting for taste. I remember watching American Chopper quite regularly, because I enjoyed seeing the construction of the bikes in action (didn't care all that much for all the make believe drama, but hey), and while the process was fascinating, I almost always hated the finished product - the bikes were (to me) just plain tacky and really cheap looking with all the unnecessary bells and whistles. And talking to my friends about this, I was far from the only one to feel that way. But since apparently they sell well in Orange County, I figure the people over there just feel differently about what makes a chopper look cool. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you know that that's Orange County, New York, not the more famous west-coast "OC". And I doubt whether they sell many of their fancy prestige motorcycles locally... AnonMoos (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss military[edit]

Switzerland is always neutral, so why do they need an army? --75.33.217.61 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well to state the obvious, Switzerland is unlikely to be neutral if someone tried to invade them. Nil Einne (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they do hope for some measure of deterrence.

Our Military of Switzerland article says: "Because of a long history of neutrality, the army does not take part in armed conflicts in other countries, but is part of several peacekeeping missions around the world."

There also seems to be a sizeable group of people, the Group for a Switzerland without an Army, who support a Switzerland without an Army. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetrality is not a guarantee that you won't be attacked. Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Denmark, Norway and Greece were all nuetral in 1939/1940 but were invaded anyway. The USA was nuetral when the Pearl Harbor attack started. Alansplodge (talk) 21:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

("Neutral.") From the Japanese point of view, the US was not neutral except by name. They were doing all sorts of things that made it clear whose side they were on, even though Congress had not declared war. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but it works both ways. Spain's nuetrality clearly favoured the Axis (they even sent a division of volunteers to fight the Soviets in 1941) but they weren't attacked by the Allies. Switzerland made sure they were useful to the Axis by providing no-questions-asked financial services. Alansplodge (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poland was member to Franco-Polish alliance (1921) and Anglo-Polish military alliance. The latter may be viewed as a last-minute attempt to deter Germany, but still it's far from being neutral. East of Borschov 20:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See armed neutrality (although the article is very stubby). Neutrality does not imply pacifism. -- 174.24.198.158 (talk) 20:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland during the World Wars details many of the actions of the Swiss military in armed neutrality. They believed they were defending Swiss sovereignty, presumably, by not letting anyone who wanted just ignore the fact they were there. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica has no military either, but that didn't prevent them from sending in "armed police" to the territory that Honduras declared theirs, the other day. Corvus cornix_talk 20:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]