''And having taken five minutes, we turn to what happened and why. Always a good lesson. ''
For the Chinese communist equivalent, Frank Dikotter's book 'Mao's great famine' is very good in my opinion.
It brilliantly explains how centralised targets simply don;t work. Millions starved to death, even as China's granaries and rice stores appeared to be full to bursting.
It's fascinating the things one can learn. Following your link, I hadn't realised just how savage Western Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union was, after WWII.
Of course a lot of "Western Ukraine" was previously known as Poland, and other bits were Romania or Czechoslovakian.
I visited Hiroshima a few years ago - as well as a few stone built buildings like the Cathedral, the tram network also survived and has been kept going as a memorial. Both my 12 year old daughter and I found the museum a bit too much and cut out after an hour or so.
In terms of the effectiveness of the nuclear bombs and Tokyo etc - I think the War and Peace parties had equal numbers of war cabinet ministers with the Emperor having a casting vote - the cabinet was in deadlock with no mechanism to get the Emperor into the room to break it. I think it was the fear of Russia invading form the East which finally broke the deadlock and brought about the surrender to the US.
I could be wrong - I'm not an expert on Japanese history - but I think it wasn't until after Japan had decided to surrender that Russia (the USSR) decided to invade, and largely so they could have some input in post-war Manchuria rather than any other reason.
The irony is of course that having declared war on Japan at literally the last minute, the two countries remain officially at war because they've never been able to agree on peace terms.
My memory (and IANAE) recalls differently: the Russians had moved vast numbers of troops east after the fall of Berlin, ready to attack three months after VE day as part of a commitment made at one of the conferences. Yalta, perhaps?
BTW, from what you wrote below, I wish I'd had you as a history teacher.
It was Yalta Agreement, yes. During their brief campaign, the Soviets seized South Sakhalin, the Kuriles (all of them), Manchuria and entered northern Korea.
Fair enough, I was wrong. Does happen. The problem with history is there is simply so much of it. Even within tightly defined areas - e.g. Russia - it isn't possible to know everything. My ideas were based on one conversation some years ago, and I clearly forgot some of the details.
Spot on Mr. J., though I think the conference you refer to was the one at Potsdam. Soviet diplomats were withdrawn from Japan before the end of July and the attack went in on 9th August - the same day as the Nagasaki bomb was dropped.
P.S. Just think if you had had Mr. Ydoethur as a history teacher you might have been seduced over to the dark side and never studied engineering, never met Mrs. J. and your nipper might never have been born. Instead you could have ended up as a crusty old codger at Cambridge, covered in fag ash and holding forth about some obscure protestant sect in Lancashire in the 1640s. There is a reason why God creates most history teachers as boring and useless (though why he make maths teachers in the same image is unfathomable).
HurstLlama, it may surprise you to learn that with three exceptions the maths students on my PGCE course were all extremely attractive young ladies possessed of great vivacity and charm. And of course, professors at Cambridge earn big money and don't seem to have to do lots of work for it aside from talking
I think Mr J was also right about Yalta - hard to see Stalin agreeing to do Truman anything that smacked of a favour.
Why? They're dead. Nothing can hurt them after they're dead.
In the same way, when we apologise to dead people we're not doing anything for them. We're doing it for us - to send a message or to make ourselves feel good about whatever it is we're doing. Very rarely does an apology do any good and then only when it is to those remaining who have suffered because of what's happened e.g. Cameron following the Savile report on Bloody Sunday and to the families of those who died at Hillsborough.
If anything, I think it is good that once people are dead the laws of defamation don't apply because it is usually only then that things which have not been said out of fear of a lawsuit are said e.g. Jimmy Savile, Maxwell etc. Our libel laws are chilling enough as it is without extending them to dead people.
Although there could be cases where an individuals name has become a brand.
If, for instance, John Lennon were accused of something terrible* such that it damaged the value of the Beatles brand, surely there should be some mechanism for redress?
(* apart from bad signing and falsely claiming credit for lyrics, that is)
The remaining individuals might be able to sue. I don't see why the dead person should be able to.
Your last paragraph makes the assumption of course that being able to make an allegation without fear of it being tested by evidence is somehow a good thing. You show scant regard for the families/friends of the deceased.
No - I do not make that assumption. I'm well aware that people can make allegations which have no foundation and I don't think much of anyone who makes unfounded allegations for malicious reasons, whether they do so against live or dead people. I am equally well aware that it could be very distressing for the family and friends of the deceased, just as it is for the family and friends of someone alive accused of something with no opportunity to defend themselves because of, say, illness e.g. Greville Janner.
But I don't accept the premise that the primary purpose of our laws should be to protect people from distress, particularly when they are not those being accused. Other factors matter more and there is always a balancing act. I think freedom to publish - freedom of speech - is more important. I have long thought that the libel laws are far too restrictive. There is a case for some defamation claims but I think that death is a good point at which those protections should end. Pretty much everything else ends at that point as well.
The Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, along with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, combined to break the Japanese political deadlock and force the Japanese leaders to accept the terms of surrender demanded by the allies.
In the "Sixty years after Hiroshima" issue of the Weekly Standard, American historian Richard B. Frank points out that there are a number of schools of thought with varying opinions of what caused the Japanese to surrender. He describes what he calls the "traditionalist" view, which asserts that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans dropped the atomic bombs. He goes on to summarise other points of view.[20]
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[21][22] Others with similar views include The "Battlefield" series documentary,[2] Drea,[17] Hayashi,[18] and numerous others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event.
''And having taken five minutes, we turn to what happened and why. Always a good lesson. ''
For the Chinese communist equivalent, Frank Dikotter's book 'Mao's great famine' is very good in my opinion.
It brilliantly explains how centralised targets simply don;t work. Millions starved to death, even as China's granaries and rice stores appeared to be full to bursting.
It's fascinating the things one can learn. Following your link, I hadn't realised just how savage Western Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union was, after WWII.
Of course a lot of "Western Ukraine" was previously known as Poland, and other bits were Romania or Czechoslovakian.
There was ethnic cleansing on a grand scale throughout Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War, as indeed happened in India over partitioning. There was Ukraine getting rid of most of the Poles, which also involved a number of massacres, but the Poles and the Czechs also expelled all the Germans from their lands (much of what became Poland having of course been part of Prussia/Germany for centuries) and there was a good deal of trouble in France, Holland and Denmark as well IIRC. There was also the removal of the Volga Germans and the Allies making the awful decision to return the Cossacks to the Russians (where they were instantly killed).
The first truly mass migrations? Possibly. Coupled with mass starvation and the threat of a war between the USA and the USSR, the late forties remained a pretty dark decade in Europe and indeed in the wider world.
@lucymanning: Our investigation into Kids Company on BBC at 6. Claims of serious incidents not dealt with, sexual assault, buying drugs with money given.
@lucymanning: Allegations from former Kids Co. client that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by another man using charity. And money used to buy weed.
@lucymanning: Kids Co. client tells BBC on cash handouts "it was easy money, they would pay you out for stupidness" Kids Co says allegations are malicious
Tory MP Tim Loughton caught having signed up as a Labour supporter to vote in its leadership election (I wonder if Cameron has signed up under another name to vote for Corbyn?) Loughton says "In the box at the end of the application it asks: ‘What are your reasons for wanting to become a supporter of the Labour party?’ I put: ‘To vote to Jeremy Corbyn and consign Labour to OBLIVION for a generation’ and then I got a ‘welcome to the Labour party’ email. " http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/05/conservative-tim-loughton-signs-up-labour-supporter-leadership-contest
No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I have always had real problems in understanding why President Truman had any choice but to use the atomic bomb.
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
Max Hastings' book "Nemesis: the Battle for Japan" really is a very good account. US battle casualties were way in excess of anything they suffered in Europe (1m US casualties in the 12 months to July 1945). By August 1945, the Japanese were still in occupation of huge swathes of territory, and enormous military and civilian casualties would have been incurred, dislodging them from it. And, the Japanese commanders were counting on massive Allied casualties, in the event of an invasion of the Homeland, brining them to the negotiating table.
Like you, I find it hard to see any real argument against using the atomic bombs. More people died when Curtis Le May firebombed Tokyo.
My understanding of the total American casualties in the entire pacific war is -- 158,000 I think their European Theatre casualties were 587,000. Then you have to add mediterranean. I do not think we should underestimate the attrition in the NW Europe Campaign. So I am not sure where this million casualties in the pacific comes from. (Official US Report) http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/index.html
In WW2, the Japanese suffered 1,740,000 killed and just 94,000 wounded. Only 41,000 prisoners. Food for thought. I think the Tokyo bombing killed about 100,000
I visited Hiroshima a few years ago - as well as a few stone built buildings like the Cathedral, the tram network also survived and has been kept going as a memorial. Both my 12 year old daughter and I found the museum a bit too much and cut out after an hour or so.
In terms of the effectiveness of the nuclear bombs and Tokyo etc - I think the War and Peace parties had equal numbers of war cabinet ministers with the Emperor having a casting vote - the cabinet was in deadlock with no mechanism to get the Emperor into the room to break it. I think it was the fear of Russia invading form the East which finally broke the deadlock and brought about the surrender to the US.
I could be wrong - I'm not an expert on Japanese history - but I think it wasn't until after Japan had decided to surrender that Russia (the USSR) decided to invade, and largely so they could have some input in post-war Manchuria rather than any other reason.
The irony is of course that having declared war on Japan at literally the last minute, the two countries remain officially at war because they've never been able to agree on peace terms.
My memory (and IANAE) recalls differently: the Russians had moved vast numbers of troops east after the fall of Berlin, ready to attack three months after VE day as part of a commitment made at one of the conferences. Yalta, perhaps?
BTW, from what you wrote below, I wish I'd had you as a history teacher.
Spot on Mr. J., though I think the conference you refer to was the one at Potsdam. Soviet diplomats were withdrawn from Japan before the end of July and the attack went in on 9th August - the same day as the Nagasaki bomb was dropped.
P.S. Just think if you had had Mr. Ydoethur as a history teacher you might have been seduced over to the dark side and never studied engineering, never met Mrs. J. and your nipper might never have been born. Instead you could have ended up as a crusty old codger at Cambridge, covered in fag ash and holding forth about some obscure protestant sect in Lancashire in the 1640s. There is a reason why God creates most history teachers as boring and useless (though why he makes so many maths teachers in the same image is unfathomable).
Avast, Mr Llama, it was at Yalta where the Allies agreed to Stalin's territorial claims against the Japanese Empire in return for striking east, three months after VE Day.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." Admiral William Leahy (per Wikipedia), "the senior-most United States military officer on active duty during World War II. He held multiple titles and was at the center of all the major military decisions the United States made in World War II."
I am the parent of a gay child. I am fine with this. What I am not fine with is the prejudice my child will face from strangers based purely on one characteristic and not on who my child is and how they behave. I am also a Catholic. I do not have any difficulty reconciling the two because I believe that my child was made in God's image and is as sacred as my other children, you, me and everyone else. I am also willing to bet that a Jesus who consorted with prostitutes would have had no issue with gay people, frankly. If some in the church hierarchy think differently that is their problem not mine.
I have had nothing but kindness from people within the church on this and all the rest of my large Irish-Italian family have scarcely batted an eyelid. My child is not the first to come out. In our family flesh and blood matter more. I simply cannot conceive of rejecting my own child. All I want for all my children is that they be happy and have useful lives. And I will do whatever it takes to protect them, including protecting them from the unkindnesses of strangers.
It would be nice to get to a stage where saying any of this is not news or surprising or even seen as particularly courageous.
Spot on Mr. J., though I think the conference you refer to was the one at Potsdam. Soviet diplomats were withdrawn from Japan before the end of July and the attack went in on 9th August - the same day as the Nagasaki bomb was dropped.
P.S. Just think if you had had Mr. Ydoethur as a history teacher you might have been seduced over to the dark side and never studied engineering, never met Mrs. J. and your nipper might never have been born. Instead you could have ended up as a crusty old codger at Cambridge, covered in fag ash and holding forth about some obscure protestant sect in Lancashire in the 1640s. There is a reason why God creates most history teachers as boring and useless (though why he make maths teachers in the same image is unfathomable).
HurstLlama, it may surprise you to learn that with three exceptions the maths students on my PGCE course were all extremely attractive young ladies possessed of great vivacity and charm. And of course, professors at Cambridge earn big money and don't seem to have to do lots of work for it aside from talking
I think Mr J was also right about Yalta - hard to see Stalin agreeing to do Truman anything that smacked of a favour.
I may well have been wrong re Potsdam, I'll have to dig the books out and work out why.
As for the quality of maths and history teachers. I am sure that there are engaging and inspiring individuals in both groups. In fact I know for certain that there are. Just not as many as one would wish, especially when it comes to mathematics.
I don't have many regrets when I look back but one I do sometimes have is that I did not work harder at school. If I had I might have become a Cambridge professor which in the days of tenure must have been as close to heaven on earth as a commoner could wish. Though perhaps being the Dean at one of the older colleges would be even better, even less work and no pressure to publish.
Seriously, is this the most one sided day of Ashes cricket ever?
I don't know about that, but it's certainly not been one of Australia's finest days. Even England in the 1990s usually put up something better than this. Even on their worst day,* they made it to 77.
*Against Oz - the West Indies were a bit of a special case.
EDIT - And Root is now officially twice as good as all the Australians put together. Exceedingly humiliating. Is there a betting market on Clarke resigning tonight and letting Smith lead the side tomorrow?
This Kids Company thing is getting much, much worse.
Their "clients" one would assume should all be children or at least older teens transitioning (from care to work for example). But it appears their clients include "men in their TWENTIES" who were using Kids Company as a pick up service to access teenage girls.
This is just staggering. Were CIB checks done on adults given access to children? I suspect we know the answer.
It also seems the "pocket money" (basically a hand out every Friday - no wonder HUGE numbers of children were self-referring) were used as a slush fund by the recipients for weed.
I don't have many regrets when I look back but one I do sometimes have is that I did not work harder at school. If I had I might have become a Cambridge professor which in the days of tenure must have been as close to heaven on earth as a commoner could wish. Though perhaps being the Dean at one of the older colleges would be even better, even less work and no pressure to publish.
Amen to that, Mr Llama. Believe me, I also wish I had worked harder at school. I didn't really start to work as hard as I could/should have done until I was about 20.
Loughton in Essex is pronounced "L-OW-ton". Just sayin...
Correct Sunil, I went to an organ concert given by a friend there a few weeks ago and I may well move to Epping in the next few months, it is quite a pleasant suburban area and at the end of the tube line
Loughton in Essex is pronounced "L-OW-ton". Just sayin...
Correct Sunil, I went to an organ concert given by a friend there a few weeks ago and I may well move to Epping in the next few months, it is quite a pleasant suburban area and at the end of the tube line
And close to the Epping Ongar Railway - trains now head as far west as just 100 yds from the London Underground boundary fence
''And having taken five minutes, we turn to what happened and why. Always a good lesson. ''
For the Chinese communist equivalent, Frank Dikotter's book 'Mao's great famine' is very good in my opinion.
It brilliantly explains how centralised targets simply don;t work. Millions starved to death, even as China's granaries and rice stores appeared to be full to bursting.
It's fascinating the things one can learn. Following your link, I hadn't realised just how savage Western Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union was, after WWII.
Of course a lot of "Western Ukraine" was previously known as Poland, and other bits were Romania or Czechoslovakian.
There was ethnic cleansing on a grand scale throughout Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War, as indeed happened in India over partitioning. There was Ukraine getting rid of most of the Poles, which also involved a number of massacres, but the Poles and the Czechs also expelled all the Germans from their lands (much of what became Poland having of course been part of Prussia/Germany for centuries) and there was a good deal of trouble in France, Holland and Denmark as well IIRC. There was also the removal of the Volga Germans and the Allies making the awful decision to return the Cossacks to the Russians (where they were instantly killed).
The first truly mass migrations? Possibly. Coupled with mass starvation and the threat of a war between the USA and the USSR, the late forties remained a pretty dark decade in Europe and indeed in the wider world.
Norman Davies Vanished Kingdoms highlighted some of this as did Dark Continent Mark Mazower.
Loughton in Essex is pronounced "L-OW-ton". Just sayin...
Correct Sunil, I went to an organ concert given by a friend there a few weeks ago and I may well move to Epping in the next few months, it is quite a pleasant suburban area and at the end of the tube line
Loughton in Essex is pronounced "L-OW-ton". Just sayin...
Correct Sunil, I went to an organ concert given by a friend there a few weeks ago and I may well move to Epping in the next few months, it is quite a pleasant suburban area and at the end of the tube line
Theydon Bois.
Theydon BOYZ, if the Central line automatic lady announcer is to be believed
''And having taken five minutes, we turn to what happened and why. Always a good lesson. ''
For the Chinese communist equivalent, Frank Dikotter's book 'Mao's great famine' is very good in my opinion.
It brilliantly explains how centralised targets simply don;t work. Millions starved to death, even as China's granaries and rice stores appeared to be full to bursting.
It's fascinating the things one can learn. Following your link, I hadn't realised just how savage Western Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union was, after WWII.
Of course a lot of "Western Ukraine" was previously known as Poland, and other bits were Romania or Czechoslovakian.
There was ethnic cleansing on a grand scale throughout Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War, as indeed happened in India over partitioning. There was Ukraine getting rid of most of the Poles, which also involved a number of massacres, but the Poles and the Czechs also expelled all the Germans from their lands (much of what became Poland having of course been part of Prussia/Germany for centuries) and there was a good deal of trouble in France, Holland and Denmark as well IIRC. There was also the removal of the Volga Germans and the Allies making the awful decision to return the Cossacks to the Russians (where they were instantly killed).
The first truly mass migrations? Possibly. Coupled with mass starvation and the threat of a war between the USA and the USSR, the late forties remained a pretty dark decade in Europe and indeed in the wider world.
Norman Davies Vanished Kingdoms highlighted some of this as did Dark Continent Mark Mazower.
Never read Davies. Mazower is the classic work in the field, but I find it pretty heavy going - not that it's exactly easy subject matter, starting as it does with a rough calculation of the numbers of Europeans who died as a result of the first world war, and then endorsing Masaryk's view that Europe became 'a laboratory on top of a graveyard.' Cheerful beginning!
Loughton in Essex is pronounced "L-OW-ton". Just sayin...
Correct Sunil, I went to an organ concert given by a friend there a few weeks ago and I may well move to Epping in the next few months, it is quite a pleasant suburban area and at the end of the tube line
Theydon Bois.
Theydon BOYZ, if the Central line automatic lady announcer is to be believed
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
''And having taken five minutes, we turn to what happened and why. Always a good lesson. ''
For the Chinese communist equivalent, Frank Dikotter's book 'Mao's great famine' is very good in my opinion.
It brilliantly explains how centralised targets simply don;t work. Millions starved to death, even as China's granaries and rice stores appeared to be full to bursting.
It's fascinating the things one can learn. Following your link, I hadn't realised just how savage Western Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union was, after WWII.
Of course a lot of "Western Ukraine" was previously known as Poland, and other bits were Romania or Czechoslovakian.
There was ethnic cleansing on a grand scale throughout Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War, as indeed happened in India over partitioning. There was Ukraine getting rid of most of the Poles, which also involved a number of massacres, but the Poles and the Czechs also expelled all the Germans from their lands (much of what became Poland having of course been part of Prussia/Germany for centuries) and there was a good deal of trouble in France, Holland and Denmark as well IIRC. There was also the removal of the Volga Germans and the Allies making the awful decision to return the Cossacks to the Russians (where they were instantly killed).
The first truly mass migrations? Possibly. Coupled with mass starvation and the threat of a war between the USA and the USSR, the late forties remained a pretty dark decade in Europe and indeed in the wider world.
Norman Davies Vanished Kingdoms highlighted some of this as did Dark Continent Mark Mazower.
Never read Davies. Mazower is the classic work in the field, but I find it pretty heavy going - not that it's exactly easy subject matter, starting as it does with a rough calculation of the numbers of Europeans who died as a result of the first world war, and then endorsing Masaryk's view that Europe became 'a laboratory on top of a graveyard.' Cheerful beginning!
Vanished Kingdoms is a great book. Highly recommended.
No doubt it is a lack of imagination on my part but I have always had real problems in understanding why President Truman had any choice but to use the atomic bomb.
It had been developed at truly staggering expense. It was a chance to finish an exceptionally brutal war and save millions of lives. And was it really that much worse than the fire bombing of Tokyo (or Dresden)?
I have read a few biographies of Truman and I don't think there is much evidence that he gave it a second's thought. And quite right too.
Max Hastings' book "Nemesis: the Battle for Japan" really is a very good account. US battle casualties were way in excess of anything they suffered in Europe (1m US casualties in the 12 months to July 1945). By August 1945, the Japanese were still in occupation of huge swathes of territory, and enormous military and civilian casualties would have been incurred, dislodging them from it. And, the Japanese commanders were counting on massive Allied casualties, in the event of an invasion of the Homeland, brining them to the negotiating table.
Like you, I find it hard to see any real argument against using the atomic bombs. More people died when Curtis Le May firebombed Tokyo.
My understanding of the total American casualties in the entire pacific war is -- 158,000 I think their European Theatre casualties were 587,000. Then you have to add mediterranean. I do not think we should underestimate the attrition in the NW Europe Campaign. So I am not sure where this million casualties in the pacific comes from. (Official US Report) http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/index.html
In WW2, the Japanese suffered 1,740,000 killed and just 94,000 wounded. Only 41,000 prisoners. Food for thought. I think the Tokyo bombing killed about 100,000
I am not sure from where you get the total US casualties in the Pacific Theatre of war was 158,000. The document you link to is for the US army not the total of US forces engaged - it does not include US Marines who did most of ground the fighting in the Pacific islands campaign not the US Navy. Given that the US took 82,000 casualties, at Okinawa alone you might want to reflect that the 158,000 number is not correct.
And with that, I am off to get some food before I watch the highlights. Thank you all for your company all day as I conspicuously failed to get the Year 8 SoW finished and watched with a jaw on the floor at the test.
''And having taken five minutes, we turn to what happened and why. Always a good lesson. ''
For the Chinese communist equivalent, Frank Dikotter's book 'Mao's great famine' is very good in my opinion.
It brilliantly explains how centralised targets simply don;t work. Millions starved to death, even as China's granaries and rice stores appeared to be full to bursting.
It's fascinating the things one can learn. Following your link, I hadn't realised just how savage Western Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union was, after WWII.
Of course a lot of "Western Ukraine" was previously known as Poland, and other bits were Romania or Czechoslovakian.
There was ethnic cleansing on a grand scale throughout Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War, as indeed happened in India over partitioning. There was Ukraine getting rid of most of the Poles, which also involved a number of massacres, but the Poles and the Czechs also expelled all the Germans from their lands (much of what became Poland having of course been part of Prussia/Germany for centuries) and there was a good deal of trouble in France, Holland and Denmark as well IIRC. There was also the removal of the Volga Germans and the Allies making the awful decision to return the Cossacks to the Russians (where they were instantly killed).
The first truly mass migrations? Possibly. Coupled with mass starvation and the threat of a war between the USA and the USSR, the late forties remained a pretty dark decade in Europe and indeed in the wider world.
Norman Davies Vanished Kingdoms highlighted some of this as did Dark Continent Mark Mazower.
Never read Davies. Mazower is the classic work in the field, but I find it pretty heavy going - not that it's exactly easy subject matter, starting as it does with a rough calculation of the numbers of Europeans who died as a result of the first world war, and then endorsing Masaryk's view that Europe became 'a laboratory on top of a graveyard.' Cheerful beginning!
Vanished Kingdoms is a great book. Highly recommended.
And with that, I am off to get some food before I watch the highlights. Thank you all for your company all day as I conspicuously failed to get the Year 8 SoW finished and watched with a jaw on the floor at the test.
Have a good evening!
You may find that you won't be watching cricket on days 4 and 5.
And with that, I am off to get some food before I watch the highlights. Thank you all for your company all day as I conspicuously failed to get the Year 8 SoW finished and watched with a jaw on the floor at the test.
Have a good evening!
and you. Off to the pub myself for a thorough review of the Corbyn situation.
I visited Hiroshima a few years ago - as well as a few stone built buildings like the Cathedral, the tram network also survived and has been kept going as a memorial. Both my 12 year old daughter and I found the museum a bit too much and cut out after an hour or so.
In terms of the effectiveness of the nuclear bombs and Tokyo etc - I think the War and Peace parties had equal numbers of war cabinet ministers with the Emperor having a casting vote - the cabinet was in deadlock with no mechanism to get the Emperor into the room to break it. I think it was the fear of Russia invading form the East which finally broke the deadlock and brought about the surrender to the US.
I could be wrong - I'm not an expert on Japanese history - but I think it wasn't until after Japan had decided to surrender that Russia (the USSR) decided to invade, and largely so they could have some input in post-war Manchuria rather than any other reason.
The irony is of course that having declared war on Japan at literally the last minute, the two countries remain officially at war because they've never been able to agree on peace terms.
My memory (and IANAE) recalls differently: the Russians had moved vast numbers of troops east after the fall of Berlin, ready to attack three months after VE day as part of a commitment made at one of the conferences. Yalta, perhaps?
BTW, from what you wrote below, I wish I'd had you as a history teacher.
It was Yalta Agreement, yes. During their brief campaign, the Soviets seized South Sakhalin, the Kuriles (all of them), Manchuria and entered northern Korea.
Fair enough, I was wrong. Does happen. The problem with history is there is simply so much of it. Even within tightly defined areas - e.g. Russia - it isn't possible to know everything. My ideas were based on one conversation some years ago, and I clearly forgot some of the details.
Thank you for the kind words Mr Jessop.
Sadly one of the main drivers behind the Japanese surrender to the US was that the Russians would've deposed the Emperor.
That seems like the first good reason I've heard to vote for Sadiq Khan. Fried chicken places, pawn brokers and bookies turn high streets into really grim places.
"Figures shown to Mirror Online suggest there are now around 270,000 fully-fledged Labour members - up more than a third from 194,000 before the General Election.
The numbers do not include another 70,000 or so people who've signed up to vote for Labour's next leader without joining the party itself."
I have just been on the BBC Points of View Messageboard. Virtually a whole page of comments about the Victoria Derbyshire show have been removed as inappropriate. I gather there was a discussion about Kidscape on the show today. It seems strange that so many comments have been deleted. Perhaps a few were libellous. However, it seems that discussions about the charity have touched a nerve with senior figures at the BBC.
''And having taken five minutes, we turn to what happened and why. Always a good lesson. ''
For the Chinese communist equivalent, Frank Dikotter's book 'Mao's great famine' is very good in my opinion.
It brilliantly explains how centralised targets simply don;t work. Millions starved to death, even as China's granaries and rice stores appeared to be full to bursting.
It's fascinating the things one can learn. Following your link, I hadn't realised just how savage Western Ukrainian resistance to the Soviet Union was, after WWII.
Of course a lot of "Western Ukraine" was previously known as Poland, and other bits were Romania or Czechoslovakian.
There was ethnic cleansing on a grand scale throughout Eastern Europe at the end of the Second World War, as indeed happened in India over partitioning. There was Ukraine getting rid of most of the Poles, which also involved a number of massacres, but the Poles and the Czechs also expelled all the Germans from their lands (much of what became Poland having of course been part of Prussia/Germany for centuries) and there was a good deal of trouble in France, Holland and Denmark as well IIRC. There was also the removal of the Volga Germans and the Allies making the awful decision to return the Cossacks to the Russians (where they were instantly killed).
The first truly mass migrations? Possibly. Coupled with mass starvation and the threat of a war between the USA and the USSR, the late forties remained a pretty dark decade in Europe and indeed in the wider world.
Not the first, not even the first in Europe in the 20th Century. Ask any Greek or Turk about the treaty of Lausanne.
The remaining individuals might be able to sue. I don't see why the dead person should be able to.
If you've accepted that the name, in and of itself, has value then surely the estate of the deceased has a right to claim for damages?
It's difficult to think of an example where you have a brand name that is completely associated with an individual.
I could see that the owners of Virgin, for instance, might be upset if someone made false and malicious claims about Richard Branson after his death - but harder to prove damage to a brand where it is one step removed. Conran possibly?
In the case of Edward Heath it's clear that the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Trust will have been damaged, but I think that the objectives are only preservation of his legacy, so it's somewhat of a circular argument.
I am the parent of a gay child. I am fine with this. What I am not fine with is the prejudice my child will face from strangers based purely on one characteristic and not on who my child is and how they behave. I am also a Catholic. I do not have any difficulty reconciling the two because I believe that my child was made in God's image and is as sacred as my other children, you, me and everyone else. I am also willing to bet that a Jesus who consorted with prostitutes would have had no issue with gay people, frankly. If some in the church hierarchy think differently that is their problem not mine.
I have had nothing but kindness from people within the church on this and all the rest of my large Irish-Italian family have scarcely batted an eyelid. My child is not the first to come out. In our family flesh and blood matter more. I simply cannot conceive of rejecting my own child. All I want for all my children is that they be happy and have useful lives. And I will do whatever it takes to protect them, including protecting them from the unkindnesses of strangers.
It would be nice to get to a stage where saying any of this is not news or surprising or even seen as particularly courageous.
Very good post. Normal conditions are resumed. I'm back to agreeing with you.
"Figures shown to Mirror Online suggest there are now around 270,000 fully-fledged Labour members - up more than a third from 194,000 before the General Election.
The numbers do not include another 70,000 or so people who've signed up to vote for Labour's next leader without joining the party itself."
SLAB have added 6,000 supporters and affiliates to their existing 15,500 members - Harman has asked the Labour MPs to check for infiltrators - Mr Murray is going to be busy:
The crazy thing is that SLAB needs to attract other parties supporters, I think they're at risk of turning down genuine switchers based on analysing social media !!
Ah well, I'm wrong then. I think it's dull as dishwater.
More and more Churches are coming to a more liberal view on homosexuality. It is not an issue at my Church at all. It is noteworthy that amongst the many sins that Jesus condemned, homosexuality is not numbered.
I am the parent of a gay child. I am fine with this. What I am not fine with is the prejudice my child will face from strangers based purely on one characteristic and not on who my child is and how they behave. I am also a Catholic. I do not have any difficulty reconciling the two because I believe that my child was made in God's image and is as sacred as my other children, you, me and everyone else. I am also willing to bet that a Jesus who consorted with prostitutes would have had no issue with gay people, frankly. If some in the church hierarchy think differently that is their problem not mine.
I have had nothing but kindness from people within the church on this and all the rest of my large Irish-Italian family have scarcely batted an eyelid. My child is not the first to come out. In our family flesh and blood matter more. I simply cannot conceive of rejecting my own child. All I want for all my children is that they be happy and have useful lives. And I will do whatever it takes to protect them, including protecting them from the unkindnesses of strangers.
It would be nice to get to a stage where saying any of this is not news or surprising or even seen as particularly courageous.
Not to pick a fight, but Jesus clearly thought the woman caught in adultery had sinned, if that's the bit you're referring to.
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
And with that, I am off to get some food before I watch the highlights. Thank you all for your company all day as I conspicuously failed to get the Year 8 SoW finished and watched with a jaw on the floor at the test.
Mr. Eagles, ah, my mistake. It did seem a bit David Milibandesque for Hague.
Mr. F, isn't apostasy (from Islam) meant to be punishable by death?
Exactly the same as it is in Christianity and Judaism from which Islam evolved.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
I think it's a more than theoretical possibility, for Muslim children, even in some Western societies.
Indeed. You can have moderate and intolerant versions of all religions. Sadly, the moderate version of Islam does not seem to be making much way in modern Britain. Apparently, only two of more than one thousand mosques in Britain follow a modernist interpretation of the faith.
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
I have just been on the BBC Points of View Messageboard. Virtually a whole page of comments about the Victoria Derbyshire show have been removed as inappropriate. I gather there was a discussion about Kidscape on the show today. It seems strange that so many comments have been deleted. Perhaps a few were libellous. However, it seems that discussions about the charity have touched a nerve with senior figures at the BBC.
I commented on the Victoria Derbyshire show this morning on PB. Can't remember if it was this thread, or the previous one. But you need to see the interview she did with a "supporter" of CamilaB. If the BBC have taken down the comments, then they must have been a ot stronger than mine!
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
Loughton in Essex is pronounced "L-OW-ton". Just sayin...
Correct Sunil, I went to an organ concert given by a friend there a few weeks ago and I may well move to Epping in the next few months, it is quite a pleasant suburban area and at the end of the tube line
And close to the Epping Ongar Railway - trains now head as far west as just 100 yds from the London Underground boundary fence
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
That horse bolted long ago. Many "charities" now are no more than pressure-groups or cults.
There is nothing wrong with being shameless, it worked for Cameron and Blair. The golden rule of politics is you move to your base to win the nomination, but leave enough room to swing back to the centre for the general election. As the Romney campaign said 'you etch a sketch' (OK, maybe not the best example!)
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
Or perhaps it merely reflects the reality of the bulk of charities, particularly ones of this nature "social interventionists".
I just re-listened to the R4 Today interview. She's actually claiming she personally was on the phone to this person she says was about to jump on railway tracks.
Loughton in Essex is pronounced "L-OW-ton". Just sayin...
Correct Sunil, I went to an organ concert given by a friend there a few weeks ago and I may well move to Epping in the next few months, it is quite a pleasant suburban area and at the end of the tube line
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
I'm not even surprised about the sexual abuse allegations. We've seen so many times how predators get into positions of trust to gain access to victims.
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
Or perhaps it merely reflects the reality of the bulk of charities, particularly ones of this nature "social interventionists".
I just re-listened to the R4 Today interview. She's actually claiming she personally was on the phone to this person she says was about to jump on railway tracks.
It's just comical.
It must be a matter of time that she will claim to have ended the Cold War, persuaded De Klerk to release Mandela, & stopped sectarian chants at Old Firm matches since 2012.
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
I'm not even surprised about the sexual abuse allegations. We've seen so many times how predators get into positions of trust to gain access to victims.
I would have thought that an organisation seemingly so lax on financial matters is unlikely to have robust child protection.
Loughton in Essex is pronounced "L-OW-ton". Just sayin...
Correct Sunil, I went to an organ concert given by a friend there a few weeks ago and I may well move to Epping in the next few months, it is quite a pleasant suburban area and at the end of the tube line
Theydon Bois.
Home of the 'Avenue of Trees'
Hadn't twigged that it was named until this evening, but have seen those trees many times.
Having checked again, on US casualties in the Pacific, I get 111,000 dead and 260,000 injured. But, if Filipino casualties are added (the Philippines then being ruled by the US) the number goes up to 1.5m.
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
If it's receiving large quantities of taxpayers' money it can't really be described as a charity.
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
I'm not even surprised about the sexual abuse allegations. We've seen so many times how predators get into positions of trust to gain access to victims.
I would have thought that an organisation seemingly so lax on financial matters is unlikely to have robust child protection.
Mr. Eagles, ah, my mistake. It did seem a bit David Milibandesque for Hague.
Mr. F, isn't apostasy (from Islam) meant to be punishable by death?
Exactly the same as it is in Christianity and Judaism from which Islam evolved.
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
I think it's a more than theoretical possibility, for Muslim children, even in some Western societies.
Indeed. You can have moderate and intolerant versions of all religions. Sadly, the moderate version of Islam does not seem to be making much way in modern Britain. Apparently, only two of more than one thousand mosques in Britain follow a modernist interpretation of the faith.
It's possible you could find some really extreme Jewish or Christian fundamentalists who'd kill their children if they apostasised, but they'd be on the fringe of the fringe.
There is nothing wrong with being shameless, it worked for Cameron and Blair. The golden rule of politics is you move to your base to win the nomination, but leave enough room to swing back to the centre for the general election. As the Romney campaign said 'you etch a sketch' (OK, maybe not the best example!)
The biggest problem in any primary or leadership contest (or any election) is how do you convince people that once elected you will represent their views instead of your own.
Burnham is simply convincing people that once elected he will dump the people who support him at the first opportunity.
Having checked again, on US casualties in the Pacific, I get 111,000 dead and 260,000 injured. But, if Filipino casualties are added (the Philippines then being ruled by the US) the number goes up to 1.5m.
The best part of 400,00 casualties sounds about right, different sources quote different numbers so its hard to pin down (e.g. some sources include those withdrawn from action suffering from combat stress as wounded and some do not). They would have been service casualties, of course, does the number of Filipino casualties include civilians?
What seems to be undeniable is that the number of combat losses rose the nearer the action got to the Japanese home islands. Given that and the plans that we know were made for the defence of the homeland projections of massive allied casualties, into the hundreds of thousands, were probably not unrealistic.
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
I'm not even surprised about the sexual abuse allegations. We've seen so many times how predators get into positions of trust to gain access to victims.
The BBC report makes it sound more like an introduction service rather than anything being circumvented.
It just boggles belief they had (presumably) unvetted men in their twenties as clients when they are supposed to be providing a service for vulnerable children.
Good history discussion today. I think the first mass migrations were of Africans involuntarily across the Atlantic.
Hiroshima. Sometimes it is assumed in its justification that the occupation of the home islands was an absolute historic necessity, but it wasn't. After all, as I think Sir Humphrey noted, the point of the war was to liberate Poland from tyranny - so the war goals were flexible.
As for winning the war, the Japanese reputation for resilience, earned earlier in the war, was no longer applicable. They were collapsing; in particular they were about to be absolutely swept away in Manchuria before the Red Army, who by August 45 had battle-ready armies twice the size of the Japanese in North-East Asia, and who had exponentially more fighting capability than the other Allies, even to the point of having prepared invasions of France and Italy before learning about the Manhattan Project. (According to Beevor.)
The Reds took almost a million Japanese prisoners in the second week of August. (Also Beevor.) Perhaps that was the real point - Japan being defeated by the Western Allies alone. I strongly suspect that as it happened they surrendered because of the bomb rather than the Soviet invasion.
After the bombing, information that would have usefully helped survivors was suppressed; discussion was discouraged because it might have been critical of the USA; almost nothing was done for the survivors during the decade of US occupation; eventually, hundreds of thousands died due to those two bombs. The bombs are probably the reason why Japan can legitimately see itself as a victim and, in turn, the victim mentality explains why its relations with its neighbours are more poisonous than Germany's.
Having checked again, on US casualties in the Pacific, I get 111,000 dead and 260,000 injured. But, if Filipino casualties are added (the Philippines then being ruled by the US) the number goes up to 1.5m.
The best part of 400,00 casualties sounds about right, different sources quote different numbers so its hard to pin down (e.g. some sources include those withdrawn from action suffering from combat stress as wounded and some do not). They would have been service casualties, of course, does the number of Filipino casualties include civilians?
What seems to be undeniable is that the number of combat losses rose the nearer the action got to the Japanese home islands. Given that and the plans that we know were made for the defence of the homeland projections of massive allied casualties, into the hundreds of thousands, were probably not unrealistic.
It was the Battle of Iwo Jima that convinced the US to drop the bomb rather than invade.
on topic. Mike, I think that there is another aspect to popular policies - like overweight people and desserts, you can recognize that you like them but perhaps shouldn't indulge them - at least not all of them all the time.
It is rather clear that Andy Burnham is now in hoc to the hard left of the party.
Not entirely, he still supports a 3rd runway at Heathrow, has said he would not raise the top rate above 50%, did not oppose the welfare bill and backs airstrikes on ISIS unlike Corbyn and has said Labour spent too much unlike Cooper
on topic. Mike, I think that there is another aspect to popular policies - like overweight people and desserts, you can recognize that you like them but perhaps shouldn't indulge them - at least not all of them all the time.
You can indulge peanut butter pie all the time - it's the law!
Does this sorry excuse for humanity require two assistants to do an interview?
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
"We had a kid jumping off a bridge and the police had to grab him out of mid air"
Colour me sceptical
She is an utter fantasist (amongst many other things).
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
The trouble with this case is that it does immense damage to the concept of charity as a whole.
I'm not even surprised about the sexual abuse allegations. We've seen so many times how predators get into positions of trust to gain access to victims.
The BBC report makes it sound more like an introduction service rather than anything being circumvented.
It just boggles belief they had (presumably) unvetted men in their twenties as clients when they are supposed to be providing a service for vulnerable children.
Yes, you'd have thought they'd have done CBR checks - unless they did, and those checks didn't pick up anything dodgy. I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case, either.
Tonight's debate - one of the intriguing things is that if you attack another candidate by name, that candidate gets 30 seconds to respond.
The Republican National Convention will be in Cleveland next year.
Thanks, Tim, for picking up on that. It creates a great chance for gaming the system. Two candidates who are not vying for the same slice of the GOP electorate could team up to lay into each other by name, thereby increasing the time both get relative to the other 8. I wonder if we'll see any of that. Or indeed, if 9 will not mention Trump once.
There is nothing wrong with being shameless, it worked for Cameron and Blair. The golden rule of politics is you move to your base to win the nomination, but leave enough room to swing back to the centre for the general election. As the Romney campaign said 'you etch a sketch' (OK, maybe not the best example!)
The biggest problem in any primary or leadership contest (or any election) is how do you convince people that once elected you will represent their views instead of your own.
Burnham is simply convincing people that once elected he will dump the people who support him at the first opportunity.
No, he has still given enough red meat eg on rail renationalisation, protection of comprehensive schools, opposition to tax credit cuts etc to keep the base on board in my view
Good history discussion today. I think the first mass migrations were of Africans involuntarily across the Atlantic.
Hiroshima. Sometimes it is assumed in its justification that the occupation of the home islands was an absolute historic necessity, but it wasn't. After all, as I think Sir Humphrey noted, the point of the war was to liberate Poland from tyranny - so the war goals were flexible.
As for winning the war, the Japanese reputation for resilience, earned earlier in the war, was no longer applicable. They were collapsing; in particular they were about to be absolutely swept away in Manchuria before the Red Army, who by August 45 had battle-ready armies twice the size of the Japanese in North-East Asia, and who had exponentially more fighting capability than the other Allies, even to the point of having prepared invasions of France and Italy before learning about the Manhattan Project. (According to Beevor.)
The Reds took almost a million Japanese prisoners in the second week of August. (Also Beevor.) Perhaps that was the real point - Japan being defeated by the Western Allies alone. I strongly suspect that as it happened they surrendered because of the bomb rather than the Soviet invasion.
After the bombing, information that would have usefully helped survivors was suppressed; discussion was discouraged because it might have been critical of the USA; almost nothing was done for the survivors during the decade of US occupation; eventually, hundreds of thousands died due to those two bombs. The bombs are probably the reason why Japan can legitimately see itself as a victim and, in turn, the victim mentality explains why its relations with its neighbours are more poisonous than Germany's.
There are plenty of examples of mass deportations before the Atlantic slave trade. The Jewish exile in Egypt then later in Babylon being obvious examples. I suspect mass atrocities and deportations are as old as time. And of course go to the present day, as per the migrant crisis.
It may have been possible to besiege Japan after destroying its Navy and airforce. Conventional bombing and starvation may have been worse than Hiroshima though. Possibly 750 000 German civilians died in the 1918-19 economic blockade of Germany for example. There were probably about a million excess deaths in the sanctions period between Iraq wars too. Anyone who thinks that sanctions are preferable to war needs to reconcile these figures with their conscience.
Loughton in Essex is pronounced "L-OW-ton". Just sayin...
Correct Sunil, I went to an organ concert given by a friend there a few weeks ago and I may well move to Epping in the next few months, it is quite a pleasant suburban area and at the end of the tube line
Theydon Bois.
Home of the 'Avenue of Trees'
Hadn't twigged that it was named until this evening, but have seen those trees many times.
Good history discussion today. I think the first mass migrations were of Africans involuntarily across the Atlantic.
Hiroshima. Sometimes it is assumed in its justification that the occupation of the home islands was an absolute historic necessity, but it wasn't. After all, as I think Sir Humphrey noted, the point of the war was to liberate Poland from tyranny - so the war goals were flexible.
As for winning the war, the Japanese reputation for resilience, earned earlier in the war, was no longer applicable. They were collapsing; in particular they were about to be absolutely swept away in Manchuria before the Red Army, who by August 45 had battle-ready armies twice the size of the Japanese in North-East Asia, and who had exponentially more fighting capability than the other Allies, even to the point of having prepared invasions of France and Italy before learning about the Manhattan Project. (According to Beevor.)
The Reds took almost a million Japanese prisoners in the second week of August. (Also Beevor.) Perhaps that was the real point - Japan being defeated by the Western Allies alone. I strongly suspect that as it happened they surrendered because of the bomb rather than the Soviet invasion.
After the bombing, information that would have usefully helped survivors was suppressed; discussion was discouraged because it might have been critical of the USA; almost nothing was done for the survivors during the decade of US occupation; eventually, hundreds of thousands died due to those two bombs. The bombs are probably the reason why Japan can legitimately see itself as a victim and, in turn, the victim mentality explains why its relations with its neighbours are more poisonous than Germany's.
I think you are being a tad harsh to say that the Japanese reputation for resilience was no longer applicable. Their defence of Okinawa, which only ended about six weeks before the bomb was dropped strongly suggests otherwise. Perhaps resilience isn't the right word when it came to the Japanese defence of their home turf. Fanatical might be better.
Tonight's debate - one of the intriguing things is that if you attack another candidate by name, that candidate gets 30 seconds to respond.
The Republican National Convention will be in Cleveland next year.
Thanks, Tim, for picking up on that. It creates a great chance for gaming the system. Two candidates who are not vying for the same slice of the GOP electorate could team up to lay into each other by name, thereby increasing the time both get relative to the other 8. I wonder if we'll see any of that. Or indeed, if 9 will not mention Trump once.
Another intriguing thing is that for the 5pm 'losers' debate, there will be no audience in the Q.
Good history discussion today. I think the first mass migrations were of Africans involuntarily across the Atlantic.
Hiroshima. Sometimes it is assumed in its justification that the occupation of the home islands was an absolute historic necessity, but it wasn't. After all, as I think Sir Humphrey noted, the point of the war was to liberate Poland from tyranny - so the war goals were flexible.
As for winning the war, the Japanese reputation for resilience, earned earlier in the war, was no longer applicable. They were collapsing; in particular they were about to be absolutely swept away in Manchuria before the Red Army, who by August 45 had battle-ready armies twice the size of the Japanese in North-East Asia, and who had exponentially more fighting capability than the other Allies, even to the point of having prepared invasions of France and Italy before learning about the Manhattan Project. (According to Beevor.)
The Reds took almost a million Japanese prisoners in the second week of August. (Also Beevor.) Perhaps that was the real point - Japan being defeated by the Western Allies alone. I strongly suspect that as it happened they surrendered because of the bomb rather than the Soviet invasion.
After the bombing, information that would have usefully helped survivors was suppressed; discussion was discouraged because it might have been critical of the USA; almost nothing was done for the survivors during the decade of US occupation; eventually, hundreds of thousands died due to those two bombs. The bombs are probably the reason why Japan can legitimately see itself as a victim and, in turn, the victim mentality explains why its relations with its neighbours are more poisonous than Germany's.
Mass deportation by the victor is as old as history, as the Jews can attest.
The Kwantung Army in Manchuria was a shadow of its former self. The best divisions had been transferred to other parts of the Japanese Empire. Perhaps, the rest of the Japanese armed forces were about to collapse, but all the recent Allied experience was that Japanese soldiers died very hard indeed.
There's no doubt that the quality of Japanese leadership had deteriorated badly. Generals and Admirals only seem to have tried to sell their lives dearly, rather than win battles. Leyte Gulf was an open goal for the Japanese Navy and they still managed to miss it.
Having checked again, on US casualties in the Pacific, I get 111,000 dead and 260,000 injured. But, if Filipino casualties are added (the Philippines then being ruled by the US) the number goes up to 1.5m.
?? When do Filipino's count as US? That still does not make them US military casualties. Its rubbish to talk about 1 million US casualties in 1 year in the pacific, as was suggested. This does not mean it was not the right thing to drop the bomb.
Tonight's debate - one of the intriguing things is that if you attack another candidate by name, that candidate gets 30 seconds to respond.
The Republican National Convention will be in Cleveland next year.
Tonight is the start of the first of 3 major hurdles for a Trump primary victory.
If the dynamic of the first debate develops favourably for Trump then I expect him to coast easily on first place till Christmas.
- and the other two hurdles?
Gaffes and Scandals.
Trump's entire campaign can be conventionally called a gaffe by ordinary political standards, however because he actually says the same stuff that common republican voters say as well he hasn't been hurt by them (see McCain).
The Scandals are the thing that of course can derail a "man of the people" candidate, and Trump has probably done many shifty business deals as a property tycoon, however he has probably done many of those with powerful politicians who will also be caught in any scandal, and Trump has a lot of baggage for many politicians who asked for money or favours from him all these decades and he is all too happy to divulge it if he feels so. Imagine if Chris Christie attacks him and Trump reveals embarrassing if not criminal information about Christie asking him money in exchange for favours for Trump's Atlantic City casinos. That is why I believe why no one has dared to even stage proper attack adds or uncover scandals about him, Trump knows where the bodies are buried.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)
I think Mr J was also right about Yalta - hard to see Stalin agreeing to do Truman anything that smacked of a favour.
But I don't accept the premise that the primary purpose of our laws should be to protect people from distress, particularly when they are not those being accused. Other factors matter more and there is always a balancing act. I think freedom to publish - freedom of speech - is more important. I have long thought that the libel laws are far too restrictive. There is a case for some defamation claims but I think that death is a good point at which those protections should end. Pretty much everything else ends at that point as well.
In the "Sixty years after Hiroshima" issue of the Weekly Standard, American historian Richard B. Frank points out that there are a number of schools of thought with varying opinions of what caused the Japanese to surrender. He describes what he calls the "traditionalist" view, which asserts that the Japanese surrendered because the Americans dropped the atomic bombs. He goes on to summarise other points of view.[20]
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off a US invasion from the South, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the North. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[21][22] Others with similar views include The "Battlefield" series documentary,[2] Drea,[17] Hayashi,[18] and numerous others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War_(1945)
fiftherfourthumthirdhmm second day....The first truly mass migrations? Possibly. Coupled with mass starvation and the threat of a war between the USA and the USSR, the late forties remained a pretty dark decade in Europe and indeed in the wider world.
Meanwhile...
@lucymanning: Our investigation into Kids Company on BBC at 6. Claims of serious incidents not dealt with, sexual assault, buying drugs with money given.
@lucymanning: Allegations from former Kids Co. client that she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by another man using charity. And money used to buy weed.
@lucymanning: Kids Co. client tells BBC on cash handouts "it was easy money, they would pay you out for stupidness" Kids Co says allegations are malicious
I think their European Theatre casualties were 587,000. Then you have to add mediterranean.
I do not think we should underestimate the attrition in the NW Europe Campaign.
So I am not sure where this million casualties in the pacific comes from.
(Official US Report)
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/index.html
In WW2, the Japanese suffered 1,740,000 killed and just 94,000 wounded. Only 41,000 prisoners. Food for thought.
I think the Tokyo bombing killed about 100,000
Admiral William Leahy (per Wikipedia), "the senior-most United States military officer on active duty during World War II. He held multiple titles and was at the center of all the major military decisions the United States made in World War II."
I have had nothing but kindness from people within the church on this and all the rest of my large Irish-Italian family have scarcely batted an eyelid. My child is not the first to come out. In our family flesh and blood matter more. I simply cannot conceive of rejecting my own child. All I want for all my children is that they be happy and have useful lives. And I will do whatever it takes to protect them, including protecting them from the unkindnesses of strangers.
It would be nice to get to a stage where saying any of this is not news or surprising or even seen as particularly courageous.
As for the quality of maths and history teachers. I am sure that there are engaging and inspiring individuals in both groups. In fact I know for certain that there are. Just not as many as one would wish, especially when it comes to mathematics.
I don't have many regrets when I look back but one I do sometimes have is that I did not work harder at school. If I had I might have become a Cambridge professor which in the days of tenure must have been as close to heaven on earth as a commoner could wish. Though perhaps being the Dean at one of the older colleges would be even better, even less work and no pressure to publish.
*Against Oz - the West Indies were a bit of a special case.
EDIT - And Root is now officially twice as good as all the Australians put together. Exceedingly humiliating. Is there a betting market on Clarke resigning tonight and letting Smith lead the side tomorrow?
Their "clients" one would assume should all be children or at least older teens transitioning (from care to work for example). But it appears their clients include "men in their TWENTIES" who were using Kids Company as a pick up service to access teenage girls.
This is just staggering. Were CIB checks done on adults given access to children? I suspect we know the answer.
It also seems the "pocket money" (basically a hand out every Friday - no wonder HUGE numbers of children were self-referring) were used as a slush fund by the recipients for weed.
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/67
As Bairstow finally throws it all away - but not before he's scored 25% more than Australia's eleven best cricketers.
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/review-vanished-kingdoms-history-of.html
One of the assistants gets called out mid-interview by either a BBC employee or possibly a third assistant. This creature has a bigger entourage than most pop stars.
Test Cricket is NOT the most boring sport in human history
And with that, I am off to get some food before I watch the highlights. Thank you all for your company all day as I conspicuously failed to get the Year 8 SoW finished and watched with a jaw on the floor at the test.
Have a good evening!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mp-caught-trying-register-6200037
"Figures shown to Mirror Online suggest there are now around 270,000 fully-fledged Labour members - up more than a third from 194,000 before the General Election.
The numbers do not include another 70,000 or so people who've signed up to vote for Labour's next leader without joining the party itself."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-party-membership-soaring-fastest-6207338
It's difficult to think of an example where you have a brand name that is completely associated with an individual.
I could see that the owners of Virgin, for instance, might be upset if someone made false and malicious claims about Richard Branson after his death - but harder to prove damage to a brand where it is one step removed. Conran possibly?
In the case of Edward Heath it's clear that the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Trust will have been damaged, but I think that the objectives are only preservation of his legacy, so it's somewhat of a circular argument.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13576946.Scottish_Labour_signs_up_6000_leadership_voters_as_Harman_warns_of_possible_infiltration/
The crazy thing is that SLAB needs to attract other parties supporters, I think they're at risk of turning down genuine switchers based on analysing social media !!
Colour me sceptical
https://twitter.com/CalumSPlath/status/629342216331370496
It's very difficult to find someone that actually believes or supports popular policies and the media likes him.
She needs called out on this. And other things.
This whole thing is the type of thing that makes me despair about society, the way it allows this sort of creature to flourish and prosper and the way it actually victimises peopled as "vulnerable". Personally, any politician who uses the phrase "vulnerable people" should be barred from public office (along with those who say "hardworking families".
There is nothing wrong with being shameless, it worked for Cameron and Blair. The golden rule of politics is you move to your base to win the nomination, but leave enough room to swing back to the centre for the general election. As the Romney campaign said 'you etch a sketch' (OK, maybe not the best example!)
I just re-listened to the R4 Today interview. She's actually claiming she personally was on the phone to this person she says was about to jump on railway tracks.
It's just comical.
The Republican National Convention will be in Cleveland next year.
Burnham is simply convincing people that once elected he will dump the people who support him at the first opportunity.
If that is 'charity' in the sense it has unfortunately come to mean in recent years, then that can only be a good thing
If the dynamic of the first debate develops favourably for Trump then I expect him to coast easily on first place till Christmas.
The best part of 400,00 casualties sounds about right, different sources quote different numbers so its hard to pin down (e.g. some sources include those withdrawn from action suffering from combat stress as wounded and some do not). They would have been service casualties, of course, does the number of Filipino casualties include civilians?
What seems to be undeniable is that the number of combat losses rose the nearer the action got to the Japanese home islands. Given that and the plans that we know were made for the defence of the homeland projections of massive allied casualties, into the hundreds of thousands, were probably not unrealistic.
It just boggles belief they had (presumably) unvetted men in their twenties as clients when they are supposed to be providing a service for vulnerable children.
Hiroshima. Sometimes it is assumed in its justification that the occupation of the home islands was an absolute historic necessity, but it wasn't. After all, as I think Sir Humphrey noted, the point of the war was to liberate Poland from tyranny - so the war goals were flexible.
As for winning the war, the Japanese reputation for resilience, earned earlier in the war, was no longer applicable. They were collapsing; in particular they were about to be absolutely swept away in Manchuria before the Red Army, who by August 45 had battle-ready armies twice the size of the Japanese in North-East Asia, and who had exponentially more fighting capability than the other Allies, even to the point of having prepared invasions of France and Italy before learning about the Manhattan Project. (According to Beevor.)
The Reds took almost a million Japanese prisoners in the second week of August. (Also Beevor.) Perhaps that was the real point - Japan being defeated by the Western Allies alone. I strongly suspect that as it happened they surrendered because of the bomb rather than the Soviet invasion.
After the bombing, information that would have usefully helped survivors was suppressed; discussion was discouraged because it might have been critical of the USA; almost nothing was done for the survivors during the decade of US occupation; eventually, hundreds of thousands died due to those two bombs. The bombs are probably the reason why Japan can legitimately see itself as a victim and, in turn, the victim mentality explains why its relations with its neighbours are more poisonous than Germany's.
It may have been possible to besiege Japan after destroying its Navy and airforce. Conventional bombing and starvation may have been worse than Hiroshima though. Possibly 750 000 German civilians died in the 1918-19 economic blockade of Germany for example. There were probably about a million excess deaths in the sanctions period between Iraq wars too. Anyone who thinks that sanctions are preferable to war needs to reconcile these figures with their conscience.
The Kwantung Army in Manchuria was a shadow of its former self. The best divisions had been transferred to other parts of the Japanese Empire. Perhaps, the rest of the Japanese armed forces were about to collapse, but all the recent Allied experience was that Japanese soldiers died very hard indeed.
There's no doubt that the quality of Japanese leadership had deteriorated badly. Generals and Admirals only seem to have tried to sell their lives dearly, rather than win battles. Leyte Gulf was an open goal for the Japanese Navy and they still managed to miss it.
Trump's entire campaign can be conventionally called a gaffe by ordinary political standards, however because he actually says the same stuff that common republican voters say as well he hasn't been hurt by them (see McCain).
The Scandals are the thing that of course can derail a "man of the people" candidate, and Trump has probably done many shifty business deals as a property tycoon, however he has probably done many of those with powerful politicians who will also be caught in any scandal, and Trump has a lot of baggage for many politicians who asked for money or favours from him all these decades and he is all too happy to divulge it if he feels so.
Imagine if Chris Christie attacks him and Trump reveals embarrassing if not criminal information about Christie asking him money in exchange for favours for Trump's Atlantic City casinos.
That is why I believe why no one has dared to even stage proper attack adds or uncover scandals about him, Trump knows where the bodies are buried.