Humanities desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

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.

September 17[edit]

Downton Abbey[edit]

In Episode 1 of Season 1 of Downton Abbey, one of the butler is seen ironing the morning's newspaper. He goes on to explain that this is done so that the ink completely dries and so does not get on the hands of the reader.

Is this historically accurate? By which I mean, are where any reliable sources attesting that butlers from this period (or earlier) indeed does iron out the newspaper for their clients? Mũeller (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not just historical - here is some fairly recent guidance on how to do it. [[1]] Wymspen (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar scene in The Remains of the Day. It's almost become a trope about English butlers by now. --Xuxl (talk) 15:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Downton Abbey is the reason why Britishisms are now creeping into American speech. 86.133.58.126 (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'"The only reason we iron them is to keep the print on the paper," Rick says. "You knew that though, didn't you? That's the only reason the papers are ironed."' School for Jeeves by Georgina Pattinson, BBC News. Those of you who remember oil-based newsprint and the resultant grubby hands (before about 1990?) will understand. Alansplodge (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The unspoken possibility, which Alansplodge's quotation is alluding to, is that the butler might iron the newspaper to conceal the fact that he's already read it himself (thereby creasing it) before handing it on to his employer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.172.36 (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Perry in her novel Whited Sepulchres mentions en passant a butler ironing the newspaper for his master. No reason is explicitly given but the context seems to suggest that people of superior taste and manners would not read a newspaper with traces of folding. 194.174.73.80 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC) Marco Pagliero Berlin[reply]

Although, it may be that Anne Perry doesn't actually know why newspapers were ironed. We have a reference from somebody who trains people to be butlers. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's both reasons [2]. Here's a step-by-step guide [3]. 92.8.178.228 (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic bombers[edit]

I was wondering what nuclear bomber crews during the cold war era were to do once they carried out their mission. Were they supposed to just turn around and find an airbase in friendly territory? I recall watching an interview with a RAF Vulcan pilot who suggested he would have kept on flying to Mongolia after bombing his target, or that general direction at least. Were there any large scale contingency plans dealing with the return of strategic bombers and how feasible were they? What did different militaries expect its crews to do after carrying out their mission in a full scale nuclear war. And perhaps also, how much were any of those plans purely for morale of the crews? In the event there surely would have been little to come back to and few to care if one did, but i am curious what the orders and/or plans were. 37.138.236.209 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the date. For the middle period of the Cold War, the main principle was that of Mutually Assured Destruction. Bombers were not there to bomb anyone, but were there so that no-one (on either side) would be bombed. This wasn't a good fit for the operation of manned bombers, and so this was a relatively short period ('60s) before land-based and submarine-launched ICBMs took over this role.

If anyone actually took off to go bombing, the whole situation had failed. The world (or at least, its established government) was over. No-one knew what happened next, but the idea of “Keep flying east, and hope to settle down with a nice warm Mongolian woman.” was certainly a popular one. The idea was to find somewhere isolated, sufficiently to avoid any remaining military forces and also to keep a good distance from the drifting fallout from attacks on major targets. This gives rise to a whole theme of fatalist fiction around this time, Neville Shute's On The Beach being one of the best.

Before this period there had been the idea of fighting a nuclear war against the non-nuclear Soviet bear. There was an early CIA plan for a pre-emptive strike on the USSR in the 1940s. It wasn't proceeded with, because the US (for a surprisingly long time) had no more than half a dozen completed weapons.

Afterwards, from the 1970s onwards, the idea of actually fighting a war in Europe developed. The Soviets developed plans for how a conventional tank-driven advance through Germany could be achieved, later a nuclear version (which seemed oddly focussed on flattening Austria), and the NATO response was to start thinking about small, usable, battlefield nuclear weapons. This was a very dangerous disturbance to MAD and very nearly led to the 1983 war. The Reagan era was one of great hazard, where the first cruise missiles and Pershing II deployed in Europe were a profoundly destabilising influence. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the plan was to bomb the target, starting from a friendly base then return to a friendly base with midair refueling if necessary. It is usual to have an extraction plan in a military operation, even if –the bomber is likely to be shot down before reaching the target, the friendly base will have been nuked, and the refueling plane’s base or carrier will have been destroyed. Having an official extraction plan lets the crew comfort their families and themselves that it is not a definite suicide attack. Edison (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Reddit thread the Mongolian option mentioned by the OP was just a joke: '...in theory there were return routes but (according to Osprey's Vulcan Units of the Cold War) one Squadron Leader suggested that "Your best bet, young man, is to keep on flying east, come down somewhere deep in the country and settle down with a nice Mongolian woman".' Alansplodge (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually thinking of adding that i was not sure how tongue in cheek the statement actually was, cannot even recall exactly where i seen it. Now, that there were return routes is surely a given. But any aircraft setting off from the UK, as a random example of a smaller country, will presumably have had no bases to return to, at least within the isles itself. Was that 'triviality' just ignored in such 'flight plans' to give the impression of a potential return and ease of mind? Anyways, thanks for the input so far. 37.138.236.209 (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a side observation to this topic, I have been told by a military acquaintance that the on-board scenes set on the B52 bomber in Dr Strangelove . . . were procedurally as well as structurally very true to life, more so than any other fictional depiction. The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.208.172.36 (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]