In which year did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor?

BBC - History -   World Wars: Pearl Harbor: A Rude Awakening Print this page Introduction It all happened so quickly. At 7.55am on Sunday 7 December 1941, the first of two waves of Japanese aircraft began their deadly attack on the US Pacific Fleet, moored at Pearl Harbor on the Pacific island of Oahu. Within two hours, five battleships had been sunk, another 16 damaged, and 188 aircraft destroyed. Only chance saved three US aircraft carriers, usually stationed at Pearl Harbor but assigned elsewhere on the day. The attacks killed under 100 Japanese but over 2,400 Americans, with another 1,178 injured. ... the attacks had been slowly brewing for years. Although swift in execution, the attacks had been slowly brewing for years. The US had once looked upon Japanese ambitions with a level of sympathy, even indulgence. Hit hard by the Great Depression of the early 1930s, however, Japanese disillusion with party government grew and moderates gave way to militants. In 1931 Japan occupied Manchuria in northern China. Over the decade conflict intensified and in July 1937 war was declared. As Japanese aggression increased, its relations with the US deteriorated. Occupied Manchuria was rapidly exploited with the establishment of heavy and light industries. This was a practical necessity for Japan. Lacking in natural resources itself, the search for alternative supplies underpinned foreign and military policy throughout the decade and led to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Pacific War. On top of practical economic considerations, early military success and an inherent sense of racial superiority led Japan to believe that it deserved to dominate Asian politics. As with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, this combination bred an aggressive and neo-colonial foreign policy, the 'Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere'. Higher birth-rates and economic considerations required more land; the gene-pool justified it. Top Relations with the US A briefing of Japanese pilots before the attack    © The policy increased in urgency as relations with the US sank further. Historically, Japan had relied on America to supply many natural and industrial resources. Increasingly alarmed by Japanese aggression, however, America allowed a commercial treaty dating from 1911 to lapse in January 1940. In July it followed up by embargoing scrap iron and aviation fuel. Things got worse in September when Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy. It was now a formal member of the Axis alliance fighting the European War. ... Japan knew that a full-scale invasion of South-east Asia would prompt war with America. This posed real problems. Although officially neutral, there was no doubt where American sympathies lay. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had already strained the sinews of neutrality by supplying Britain with money and arms under the 'lend-lease' agreement. The Tripartite Pact meant that supplies to Japan would indirectly be helping Italy and Germany; further embargoes followed. For Japan, embroiled in a long war with China, these were disastrous. Considering its very survival under threat, Japan intensified the search for a permanent alternative. The most obvious target was South-east Asia, rich in minerals and oil. German success in Europe in 1940 had orphaned French and Dutch colonies in the region and they became the focus of Japanese attention. While occupying French Indochina in July 1941, Japan knew that a full-scale invasion of South-east Asia would prompt war with America. It needed a mechanism to buy itself sufficient time and space to conquer successfully crucial targets like the Philippines, Burma and Malaya. The attack on Pearl Harbor was that mechanism; merely a means to an end. By destroying its Pacific Fleet, Japan expected to remove America from the Pacific equation for long enough to allow it to secure the resources it needed so desperately and hoped to crush American morale sufficiently to prompt Roosevelt to sue for peace. Top An ill-prepared America President Roosevelt declares war on Japan following the attack at Pea


In which naval battle did Rome decisively defeat the forces of Antony and Cleopatra?

The Battle of Actium - Sep 02, 31 B.C. - HISTORY.com The Battle of Actium Publisher A+E Networks At the Battle of Actium, off the western coast of Greece, Roman leader Octavian wins a decisive victory against the forces of Roman Mark Antony and Cleopatra, queen of Egypt. Before their forces suffered final defeat, Antony and Cleopatra broke though the enemy lines and fled to Egypt, where they would commit suicide the following year. With the assassination of Roman dictator Julius Caesar in 44 B.C., Rome fell into civil war. To end the fighting, a coalition–the Second Triumvirate–was formed by three of the strongest belligerents. The triumvirate was made up of Octavian, Caesar’s great-nephew and chosen heir; Mark Antony, a powerful general; and Lepidus, a Roman statesman. The empire was divided among the three, and Antony took up the administration of the eastern provinces. Upon arriving in Asia Minor, he summoned Queen Cleopatra to answer charges that she had aided his enemies. Cleopatra, ruler of Egypt since 51 B.C., had once been Julius Caesar’s lover and had borne him a child, who she named Caesarion, meaning “little Caesar.” Cleopatra sought to seduce Antony as she had Caesar before him, and in 41 B.C. arrived at Tarsus on a magnificent river barge, dressed as Venus, the Roman goddess of love. Successful in her efforts, Antony returned with her to Alexandria, where they spent the winter in debauchery. In 40 B.C., Antony returned to Rome and married Octavian’s sister Octavia in an effort to mend his increasingly strained relationship with Octavian. The triumvirate, however, continued to deteriorate. In 37 B.C. Antony separated from Octavia and traveled to the East, arranging for Cleopatra to join him in Syria. In their time apart, Cleopatra had borne him twins, a son and a daughter. According to Octavian’s propagandists, the lovers were then married, which violated the Roman law restricting Romans from marrying foreigners. Antony’s disastrous military campaign against Parthia in 36 B.C. further reduced his prestige, but in 34 B.C. he was more successful against Armenia. To celebrate the victory, he staged a triumphal procession through the streets of Alexandria, in which Antony and Cleopatra sat on golden thrones, and their children were given imposing royal titles. Many in Rome, spurred on by Octavian, interpreted the spectacle as a sign that Antony intended to deliver the Roman Empire into alien hands. After several more years of tension and propaganda attacks, Octavian declared war against Cleopatra, and therefore Antony, in 31 B.C. Enemies of Octavian rallied to Antony’s side, but Octavian’s brilliant military commanders gained early successes against his forces. On September 2, 31 B.C., their fleets clashed at Actium in Greece. After heavy fighting, Cleopatra broke from the engagement and set course for Egypt with 60 of her ships. Antony then broke through the enemy line and followed her. The disheartened fleet that remained surrendered to Octavian. One week later, Antony’s land forces surrendered. Although they had suffered a decisive defeat, it was nearly a year before Octavian reached Alexandria and again defeated Antony. In the aftermath of the battle, Cleopatra took refuge in the mausoleum she had had built for herself. Antony, informed that Cleopatra was dead, stabbed himself with his sword. Before he died, another messenger arrived, saying Cleopatra still lived. Antony was carried to Cleopatra’s retreat, where he died after bidding her to make her peace with Octavian. When the triumphant Roman arrived, she attempted to seduce him, but he resisted her charms. Rather than fall under Octavian’s domination, Cleopatra committed suicide on August 30, 31 B.C., possibly by means of an asp, a poisonous Egyptian serpent and symbol of divine royalty. Octavian then executed Cleopatra’s son, Caesarion, annexed Egypt into the Roman Empire, and used Cleopatra’s treasure to pay off his veterans. In 27 B.C., Octavian became Augustus, the first and arguably most successful of all Roman emperors. He ruled a peaceful, prospero


"Which new policy in 1958 was an attempt to achieve ""true communism"" in China?"

The Great Leap Forward - History Learning Site The Great Leap Forward Citation: C N Trueman "The Great Leap Forward" historylearningsite.co.uk. The History Learning Site, 26 May 2015. 16 Aug 2016. The Great Leap Forward took place in 1958. The Great Leap Forward was Mao’s attempt to modernise China’s economy so that by 1988, China would have an economy that rivalled America. Card issued to celebrate the Great Leap Forward Mao had toured China and concluded that the Chinese people were capable of anything and the two primary tasks that he felt they should target was industry and agriculture. Mao announced a second Five Year Plan to last from 1958 to 1963. This plan was called the Great Leap Forward. The Great Leap Forward planned to develop agriculture and industry. Mao believed that both had to grow to allow the other to grow. Industry could only prosper if the work force was well fed, while the agricultural workers needed industry to produce the modern tools needed for modernisation. To allow for this, China was reformed into a series of communes. The geographical size of a commune varied but most contained about 5000 families. People in a commune gave up their ownership of tools, animals etc so that everything was owned by the commune. People now worked for the commune and not for themselves. The life of an individual was controlled by the commune. Schools and nurseries were provided by the communes so that all adults could work. Health care was provided and the elderly were moved into “houses of happiness” so that they could be looked after and also so that families could work and not have to worry about leaving their elderly relatives at home. The commune provided all that was needed – including entertainment. Soldiers worked alongside people. The population in a commune was sub-divided. Twelve families formed a work team. Twelve work terms formed a brigade. Each sub-division was given specific work to do. Party members oversaw the work of a commune to ensure that decisions followed the correct party line. By the end of 1958, 700 million people had been placed into 26,578 communes. The speed with which this was achieved was astounding. However, the government did all that it could to whip up enthusiasm for the communes. Propaganda was everywhere – including in the fields where the workers could listen to political speeches as they worked as the communes provided public address systems. Everybody involved in communes was urged not only to meet set targets but to beat them. If the communes lacked machinery, the workers used their bare hands. Major constructions were built in record time – though the quality of some was dubious. The Great Leap Forward also encouraged communes to set up “back-yard” production plants. The most famous were 600,000backyard furnaces which produced steel for the communes. When all of these furnaces were working, they added a considerable amount of steel to China’s annual total – 11 million tonnes. The figures for steel, coal, chemicals, timber, cement etc all showed huge rises though the figures started at in 1958 were low. Grain and cotton production also showed major increases in production. Mao had introduced the Great Leap Forward with the phrase “it is possible to accomplish any task whatsoever.” By the end of 1958, it seemed as if his claim was true. The consequences of the Great Leap Forward However, in 1959, things started to go wrong. Political decisions/beliefs took precedence over commonsense and communes faced the task of doing things which they were incapable of achieving. Party officials would order the impossible and commune leaders, who knew what their commune was capable of doing or not, could be charged with being a “bourgeois reactionary” if he complained. Such a charge would lead to prison. Quickly produced farm machinery produced in factories fell to pieces when used. Many thousands of workers were injured after working long hours and falling asleep at their jobs. Steel produced by the backyard furnaces was frequently too weak to be of any use and could not be used in con


Who was appointed successor to Hitler in 1939 but expelled from the Nazi party six years later?

The Nazi Regime in Germany | Jewish Virtual Library The Nazi Regime in Germany Tweet On January 5, 1919, two months after the conclusion                   of World War I and six months before                  the signing of the Peace Treaties at Versailles, the German Labour Party was brought into existence. In September 1919, Adolf Hitler joined the political party and less than two years later the party's name was officially changed to National Sozialistische                  Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP), thus beginning the infamous history of the Nazi regime in Germany. The Origins & Aims of the Nazi Party On 5th January, 1919, not two months after the conclusion                   of the Armistice which ended the first World War, and six months before                   the signing of the Peace Treaties at Versailles, there came into being                   in Germany a small political party called the German Labour Party.                   On the 12th September, 1919, Adolf                    Hitler became a member of this party, and at the first public                   meeting held in Munich, on 24th February, 1920, he announced the party's                    programme . That programme, which remained unaltered until the                   party was dissolved in 1945, consisted of twenty-five points, of which                   the following five are of particular interest on account of the light                   they throw on the matters with which the Tribunal is concerned: " Point 1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany, on the basis of the right of a self-determination                     of peoples. Point 2. We demand equality of rights for the German people                     in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace                     treaties of Versailles and Saint Germain. Point 3. We demand land and territory for the sustenance                     of our people, and the colonisation of our surplus population. Point 4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member                     of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration                     of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.... Point 22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and                     formation of a national army." Of these aims, the one which seems to have been regarded                  as the most important, and which figured in almost every public speech,                  was the removal of the " disgrace " of the Armistice, and the restrictions                  of the peace treaties of Versailles and Saint                  Germain. In a typical speech at Munich on the 13th April, 1923, for                  example, Hitler said with regard to the Treaty                  of Versailles: " The treaty was made in order to bring twenty million Germans to their deaths, and to ruin the German nation.... At its foundation                     our movement formulated three demands. "1. Setting aside of the Peace Treaty. 2. Unification of all Germans. 3. Land and soil to feed our nation." The demand for the unification of all Germans in the                  Greater Germany was to play a large part in the events preceding the                  seizure of Austria and Czechoslovakia; the abrogation of the Treaty                  of Versailles was to become a decisive motive in attempting to justify                  the policy of the German Governmen


What was ceded to Britain in 1713 as part of the settlement of the War of Spanish Succession?

Utrecht, Peace of Encyclopedia  >  History  >  Modern Europe  >  Treaties and Alliances Utrecht, Peace of Utrecht, Peace of, series of treaties that concluded the War of the Spanish Succession . It put an end to French expansion and signaled the rise of the British Empire. By the treaty between England and France (Apr. 11, 1713), Louis XIV recognized the English succession as established in the house of Hanover and confirmed the renunciation of the claims to the French throne of Louis's grandson, Philip V of Spain. The French fortifications of Dunkirk were to be razed and the harbor filled up, and the Hudson Bay territory, Acadia, St. Kitts, and Newfoundland were ceded to England. By a commercial treaty England and France granted each other most-favored-nation treatment. By a treaty with the Netherlands (Apr. 11, 1713) France agreed to surrender to Austria the Spanish Netherlands still in French hands; these were to be held in trust by the Netherlands until the conclusion of a treaty between the Netherlands and the Holy Roman emperor. A commercial treaty between France and the Netherlands was also signed. France furthermore restored Savoy and Nice to Victor Amadeus II , recognizing him as king of Savoy. France also signed a treaty with Portugal and one with Prussia confirming the kingship of the Prussian rulers. The Anglo-Spanish treaty (July 13, 1713) confirmed the clauses of the Anglo-French treaties relating to the English and French successions. Spain ceded Gibraltar and Minorca to Great Britain and ceded Sicily (exchanged in 1720 for Sardinia ) to Savoy. Britain and Spain signed the Asiento, an agreement giving Britain the sole right to the slave trade with Spanish America. The Treaty of Rastatt (Mar. 7, 1714) between Louis XIV and Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI and the Treaty of Baden (Sept. 7, 1714), which completed the settlement, restored the right bank of the Rhine to the empire and confirmed Austria in possession of the formerly Spanish Netherlands, of Naples, and of Milan. The Third Barrier Treaty (Nov. 15, 1715) regulated trade relations between the Dutch and Austrian Netherlands. See J. W. Gerard, The Peace of Utrecht (1885). The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright © 2012, Columbia University Press. All rights reserved.


Who was the queen of the British king, Charles I?

Biography of King Charles the First » Biographies » King Charles I King Charles the First, 1600-1649 King of England, Scotland and Ireland whose refusal to compromise over complex religious and political situations led to civil war, his own execution and the abolition of the Monarchy. The second son of James VI of Scotland and Anne of Denmark, Charles Stuart was born at Fife in Scotland on 19 November 1600. His father succeeded Queen Elizabeth I and came to the throne of England as King James I in 1603. Charles was created Duke of Albany at his baptism (December 1600) and Duke of York in 1605. He was placed in the care of Lord and Lady Fyvie until the age of four, then moved to England where he was brought up in the household of Sir Robert and Lady Carey. As a child, Charles suffered from weak ankle joints that slowed his physical development. Attempts were made to strengthen his physique by making him wear heavy boots reinforced with iron. Charles was also slow in learning to speak and never completely overcame a slight stammer. His education was overseen by Thomas Murray, a Scottish Presbyterian who later became Provost of Eton. Despite his physical disabilities, Charles was a serious-minded student who excelled at languages, rhetoric and theology. Vivat Rex Charles was overshadowed by his brilliant elder brother Prince Henry, to whom he was devoted, but Henry died of typhoid when Charles was eleven years old. With Henry's death, Charles became heir to the throne of the Three Kingdoms: England, Scotland and Ireland. The death of Prince Henry prompted a succession crisis. King James and Queen Anne were too old to have more children and the sickly Charles was not expected to survive to adulthood. A proposal was made that in the event of Charles' death, the succession would pass to James' daughter Princess Elizabeth and her husband the Elector Palatine Frederick V, which would mean the Wittelsbach dynasty acceding to the throne of the Three Kingdoms. However, by strength of will, Charles worked to overcome his physical weaknesses. He followed a self-imposed regimen of hard physical exercises that led to rapid improvements in his health and physique. Charles became a good horseman, excelling at tournament sports and hunting. He developed sophisticated tastes in the arts and earnestly applied himself to his religious devotions. Created Prince of Wales in 1616, Charles was instructed by King James in every aspect of ruling a kingdom. With a profound belief that kings are appointed by God to rule by divine right, Charles succeeded as the second king of the Stuart dynasty in 1625. Charles came to the throne amid pressure from English Protestants for intervention against Spain and the Catholic powers in the religious wars raging in Europe (the Thirty Years War, 1618-48). He allowed England's foreign policy to be directed by the unpopular Duke of Buckingham , who masterminded a series of disastrous military expeditions against Spain and France intended indirectly to assist the Palatinate . Charles dissolved his first two parliaments when they tried to impeach Buckingham but he was forced to call a third because he needed funds to pursue his warlike policies. In 1628, Charles' opponents formulated the Petition of Right as a defence against the King's arbitrary use of his powers. Charles grudgingly accepted the Petition in the hope that Parliament would grant him subsidies, but in practice he ignored its provisions. Personal Rule Emblem of the Stuart dynasty After the assassination of Buckingham in 1628, critics in Parliament turned their attention to Charles' religious policy. Resentful of parliamentary interference in matters which he believed were his concern alone, Charles angrily dismissed his third Parliament in 1629. Furthermore, he imprisoned several of his leading opponents, and declared his intention of ruling alone. The eleven-year period of the King's Personal Rule was also described as the "Eleven Year Tyranny". It was initially successful and during the turmoil of the civil wars, many people looked back upon it as


Where did George Washington's army endure the winter of 1777-78?

Washington at Valley Forge [ushistory.org] Valley Forge Washington's army had spent the summer of 1777 fighting a string of losing battles. The Americans harassed the British army in skirmishes and minor battles for much of the fighting season. In the fall, the Americans showed pluck at the Battle of Brandywine in September and the Battle of Germantown in October. Yet the Americans were unable to keep the British out of Philadelphia. In December, Washington marched his tired, beaten, hungry and sick army to Valley Forge, a location about 20 miles northwest of British-occupied Philadelphia. From Valley Forge, Washington could keep an eye on General Howe's British army ensconced in Philadelphia. At Valley Forge, there were shortages of everything from food to clothing to medicine. Washington's men were sick from disease, hunger, and exposure. The Continental Army camped in crude log cabins and endured cold conditions while the Redcoats warmed themselves in colonial homes. The patriots went hungry while the British soldiers ate well. Terms of enlistment were ending for many soldiers in Washington's army. The General wondered if he would even have an army left when the spring thaw finally arrived. Washington under Siege Great events generate great legends. Did an Oneida woman named Polly Cooper, really ease the suffering of Washington and his troops at Valley Forge? Historians may never know for sure, but the legend lives on. General Washington was upset that local farmers were hoarding much-needed food waiting to earn higher profits in the spring. Some farmers even sneaked grain into Philadelphia to feed the British army, who paid in gold or silver. With each passing night came more desertions. Washington grew privately disgusted at the lack of commitment of his so-called patriot fighters. Then there was the grumbling of some in Congress and among some of Washington's own officers. Washington's leadership skills were openly questioned. Many said General Horatio Gates was better-suited to leading the army. After all, hadn't he scored a major victory in October at the battle of Saratoga.? Within the environment of cold, deprivation, and rebellion, how long could Washington and his army endure? Conditions at Valley Forge Head Quarters, Valley Forge, February 16, 1778 Dear Sir: It is with great reluctance, I trouble you on a subject, which does not fall within your province; but it is a subject that occasions me more distress, than I have felt, since the commencement of the war; and which loudly demands the most zealous exertions of every person of weight and authority, who is interested in the success of our affairs. I mean the present dreadful situation of the army for want of provisions, and the miserable prospects before us, with respect to futurity. It is more alarming than you will probably conceive, for, to form a just idea, it were necessary to be on the spot. For some days past, there has been little less, than a famine in camp. A part of the army has been a week, without any kind of flesh, and the rest for three or four days. Naked and starving as they are, we cannot enough admire the incomparable patience and fidelity of the soldiery, that they have not been ere this excited by their sufferings, to a general mutiny or dispersion. Strong symptoms, however, discontent have appeared in particular instances; and nothing but the most acitive efforts every where can long avert so shocking a catastrophe. Our present sufferings are not all. There is no foundation laid for any adequate relief hereafter. All the magazines provided in the States of New Jersey, Pensylvania, Delaware and Maryland, and all the immediate additional supplies they seem capable of affording, wil not be sufficient to support the army more than a month longer, if so long. Very little been done to the Eastward, and as little to the Southward; and whatever we have a right to expect from those quarters, must necessarily be very remote; and is indeed more precarious, than could be wished. When the forementioned supplies are exhausted, what a terrible crisis


Whom did Charles V confront at the Diet of Worms in 1521?

Martin Luther's Hearings Before the Diet at Worms (1521): An Account The Trial of Martin Luther: An Account (Luther's Hearings Before the Diet at Worms on Charges of Heresy) by Douglas O. Linder (2010) Historians have described it as the trial that led to the birth of the modern world.  Before the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and the Diet of Worms in the spring of 1521, as Luther biographer Roland H. Bainton noted, "the past and the future were met."  Martin Luther bravely defended his written attacks on orthodox Catholic beliefs and denied the power of Rome to determine what is right and wrong in matters of faith.  By holding steadfast to his interpretation of Scripture, Luther provided the impetus for the Reformation, a reform movement that would divide Europe into two regions, one Protestant and one Catholic, and that would set the scene for religious wars that would continue for more than a century, not ending until the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.  Martin Luther's long journey to Worms might be said to have begun in 1505 on a road near his home town of Erfurt in Saxony (now part of Germany), when a bolt of lightening knocked Luther to the ground .  Luther took the lightening to be a call from God, and--to the disappointment of his father, who hoped he would become a lawyer--, took vows at an Augustinian monastery to begin a profoundly Christian life.  Luther impressed his superiors at the Erfurt monastery.  By 1507, he was an ordained priest and had offered his first mass.  By 1508, he had earned a degree in Biblical studies from the University of Wittenberg and become an instructor at that Augustinian institution.  Questioning the Sale of Indulgences A trip to Rome in 1510 caused Luther to begin to seriously question certain Catholic practices.  The opportunity for the trip arose when Luther was selected as one of two Augustinian brothers to travel to the Eternal City to help resolve a dispute within the order that called for resolution by the pope.  What Luther saw in Rome disillusioned him.  As he watched incompetent, flippant, and cynical clergy performing their holy duties he began to experience doubts about the Catholic Church.  He wrote after his journey that he had "gone with onions and returned with garlic." Those early doubts concerning Rome and its ways would blossom over the next several years after Luther earned the prestigious post as Doctor of the Bible at Wittenberg University and undertook a thorough review of  the source book of his religion. Luther's study led him to the theology of Paul and his belief in the possibility of forgiveness through faith made possible by the crucifixion of Christ.  In Paul's theology, which Luther would largely adopt as his own, there was no need to look to priests for forgiveness because, to those who believed and were contrite, forgiveness was a gift of God. Luther's understanding of Paul's theology led him to view skeptically the Catholic Church's reliance on the practice of selling indulgences as its major source of revenue.  (An indulgence was a remission of temporal punishment after a confessor revealed sin, expressed contrition, and made the required contribution to the Church.) In sermons in Wittenberg beginning in 1516, Luther argued that forgiveness came from within, and that no one--whether a priest or a pope--was in position to grant forgiveness because no one can look into the soul of another.  He also questioned whether the pope could, as he claimed, deliver souls of a confessor's dead loved ones from purgatory.  By lashing out at the sale of indulgences, Luther was striking at the heart of the Church's array of money-raising tools and confrontation was inevitable. Matters began to come to a head the next year when Pope Leo X launched an indulgence-driven campaign to raise funds for construction of a grand basilica of St. Peter's in Rome.  The practice of the time was to grant the privilege of selling indulgences to various bishops, who would retain for themselves and their purposes a portion of the raised funds.  Albert of Brandenburg, granted an ind


What was the name of the Libyan king deposed by Colonel Kaddafi in 1969?

BBC ON THIS DAY | 1 | 1969: Bloodless coup in Libya 1969: Bloodless coup in Libya King Idris of Libya has been deposed in what appears to have been a bloodless coup. A group of military officers have seized power and declared the country a republic. But the king, who is in Turkey, has dismissed the coup as "unimportant". According to reports from the capital, Tripoli, troops and tanks converged on the city in the early hours of the morning. Within two hours they had taken key positions and the royal palace, military and security headquarters were surrounded by 0500. All communications with the outside world were cut and a curfew was imposed. Britain's good relations In Libya the king's heir, Crown Prince Hassan, has announced his support for the new regime, which the military junta has renamed the Libyan Arab Republic. News of the coup came as a surprise to the British Government but officials said it would not harm Britain's good relations with Libya. Egypt and Iraq have announced recognition of the new regime. The Revolutionary Command Council which has now taken over running the country, has issued a statement declaring the aim of the revolution is "unity, freedom and socialism". However, it also gave a warning that any attempt to overthrow the revolutionaries would be "crushed ruthlessly and decisively". The coup appears to have been led by an Army officer called Colonel Saad ed-din Bushweir. But it is not clear whether he has any political backing. King Idris has conducted recent purges against Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese and Syrians. He has also tried to purge the country of Baathists for conspiring against the state. Britain is involved in extensive engineering projects in Libya and is also the country's biggest supplier of arms. The United States also has a large airbase in Libya.


Which US president ended his country's participation in the Vietnam War? View the step-by-step solution to: Which US president ended his country's participation in the Vietnam War? This question was answered on Jun 08, 2016. View the Answer Which US president ended his country's participation in the Vietnam War? WmLittle                                                   posted a question · Jun 08, 2016 at 6:58am Top Answer The way to answer this question is ... View the full answer {[ getNetScore(29995166) ]} lewismrk557 answered the question · Jun 08, 2016 at 6:59am Other Answers president Gerald Ford .... The end of the Vietnam War on April 30, 1975, was a much-anticipated and emotionally fraught event... View the full answer {[ getNetScore(30005967) ]} View Full Answer or ask a new question Related Questions The late 1960s and 1970s were turbulent years both at home and abroad for the United States. Evaluate the failures and successes of the Nixon presidency during Recently Asked Questions Need a World History tutor? mathtutor1983 3 World History experts found online! Average reply time is                       less than an hour Get Homework Help Why Join Course Hero? Course Hero has all the homework and study help you need to succeed! We’ve got course-specific notes, study guides, and practice tests along with expert tutors and customizable flashcards—available anywhere, anytime. - - Study Documents Find the best study resources around, tagged to your specific courses. Share your own to gain free Course Hero access or to earn money with our Marketplace. - Question & Answers Get one-on-one homework help from our expert tutors—available online 24/7. Ask your own questions or browse existing Q&A threads. Satisfaction guaranteed! - Flashcards Browse existing sets or create your own using our digital flashcard system. A simple yet effective studying tool to help you earn the grade that you want!


What was the first considerable engagement in the American Revolution?

Chapter 3: The American Revolution: The First Phase The American Revolution: First Phase   The American Revolution came about, fundamentally, because by 1763 the English-speaking  communities on the far side of the Atlantic had matured to an extent that their  interests and goals were distinct from those of the ruling classes in the mother  country. British statesmen failed to understand or adjust to the situation.  Ironically enough, British victory in the Seven Years' War set the stage for  the revolt, for it freed the colonists from the need for British protection  against a French threat on their frontiers and gave free play to the forces  working for separation.   In 1763 the British Government, reasonably from its point of view, moved to  tighten the system of imperial control and to force the colonists to  contribute to imperial defense, proposing to station 10,000 soldiers along the  American frontiers and to have the Americans pay part of the bill. This  imperial defense plan touched off the long controversy about Parliament's right  to tax that started with the Stamp and Sugar Acts and ended in December 1773,  when a group of Bostonians unceremoniously dumped a cargo of British tea into  the city harbor in protest against the latest reminder of the British  effort to tax. In this 10-year controversy the several British ministries failed  to act either firmly enough to enforce British regulations or wisely enough  to develop a more viable form of imperial union, which the colonial leaders,  at least until 1776, insisted that they sought. In response to the Boston Tea  Party, the king and his ministers blindly pushed through Parliament a series  of measures collectively known in America as the Intolerable Acts, closing the  port of Boston, placing Massachusetts under the military rule of Maj. Gen. Sir  Thomas Gage, and otherwise infringing on what the colonists deemed to be their  rights and interests.   Since 1763 the colonial leaders, in holding that only their own popular assemblies,  not the British Parliament, had a right to levy taxes on Americans, had raised  the specter of an arbitrary British Government collecting taxes in America to  support red-coated Regulars who might be used not to protect the frontiers  but to suppress American liberties. Placing Massachusetts under military rule  gave that specter some substance and led directly to armed revolt.   The Outbreak   The First Continental Congress meeting at Philadelphia on September 5, 1774,  addressed respectful petitions to Parliament and king but also adopted nonimportation  and nonexportation agreements in an effort to coerce the British Government  into repealing the offending measures. To enforce these agreements, committees  were formed in almost every county, town, and city throughout the colonies,  and in each colony these committees soon became the effective local authorities,  the base of a pyramid of revolutionary organizations with revolutionary assemblies,  congresses, or conventions, and committees of safety at the top. This loosely  knit combination of de facto governments superseded the constituted authorities  and established firm control over the whole country before the British were  in any position to oppose them. The de facto governments took over control  of the militia, and out of it began to shape forces that, if the necessity arose,  might oppose the British in the field.   In Massachusetts, the seat of the crisis, the Provincial Congress, eyeing Gage's  force in Boston, directed the officers in each town to enlist a third of their  militia in minutemen organizations to be ready to act at a moment's warning,  and began to collect ammunition and other military stores. It established a  major depot for these stores at Concord, about twenty miles northwest of Boston.   General Gage learned of the collection of military stores at Concord and determined to send a force of Redcoats to destroy them. His preparations  were made with the utmost s


Who succeeded Henry I as king of England in 1135?

Henry (1068 - 1135) - Genealogy Genealogy Join the world's largest family tree Gender Henry I "Beauclerc", King of England London, Greater London, England, United Kingdom Henry I "Beauclerc", King of England's Geni Profile Share your family tree and photos with the people you know and love Build your family tree online Share photos and videos French: Henri, Danish: Henrik, Latin: Henricus, German: Heinrich, Spanish: Enrique, Portuguese: Henrique, Dutch: Hendrik Also Known As: Selby, North Yorkshire, England, United Kingdom Death: in Saint-Denis-le-Ferment, Department de Eure, Haute Normandie, France Cause of death: Reading Abbey, Reading, Berkshire, England Immediate Family: Brother of Robert II "Curthose", duke of Normandy ; Adelizia de Normandie, Princess of England ; Cecilia, Abbess of Holy Trinity ; Richard ; Agatha de Normandie, Princess of England and 5 others ; Anna de Normandie, Princess of England ; Constance, Duchess Consort of Brittany ; Adela, countess of Blois ; Matilda and William II "Rufus", King of England « less Occupation: King of England, Roi d'Angleterre de 1100 à 1135-Duc de Normandie, King of the English Duke of Normandy, Duke of the Normans, Kung av England och Hertig av Normandie, Duke of Normandy King of England, King, kung, KING OF ENGLAND, 1100-1135, King Henry I Managed by: http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00000238&tree=LEO Called "Beauclerc because of his study habits (Beauclerc meaning well-learnt, scholarly, erudite) Il est aussi connu sous le nom de Henri Ier de Normandie, roi d'Angleterre et Henri Ier, roi d' Angleterre dit le Beau Clerc. En 1106, il est connu sous le nom de Henri Ier, duc de Normandie dit Beauclerc. Henry I 'Beauclerc', King of England gained the title of Lord of Domfront in 1092 Comte de Coutances in 1096 Comte de Bayeux in 1096 King Henry I of England on 2 August 1100. He was crowned King of England on 5 August 1100 in Westminster Abbey, Westminster, London, Married First: Eadgyth renamed on marriage Mathilda of Scotland He had 2 wives, Eadgyth of Scotland who changed her name to Matilda mother of Euphemia (unconfirmed), Matilda & William and Adelisa de Louvain who married William d'Aubigny on Henry's death He also had many mistresses (or concubines) as follows: 1 Unknown woman from Caen mother of Robert de Caen aka Robert FitzRoy, Earl of Gloucester 2 Edith Unknown mother of Mathilde w/o Routrou de Perche 3 Ansfride widow of Anskill mother of Richard, Juliane & Foulques 4 Unknown mother of Sybil Queen of Scotland & William 5 Sibyl Corbet married Herbert FitzHerbert mother of Renaud de Dunstanville, William, & Gundred, Rohese 6 Edith FitzForne d/o Forn Sigurdson Lord of Greystoke, Cumberland married Robert De Oilly of Hook Norton mother of Robert FitzEdith 7 - 12 All Unknown. Mothers to: * Maud (m. Conan III Duke of Brittany),                               *Alix (m. MATHIEU [I] de Montmorency) *Constance (Mathilde) (m ROSCELIN Vicomte de Beaumont)                               *Mathilde abbess of Montvilliers                               *Gilbert                               *William de Tracy 13 Nest of South Wales wife of Gerald FitzWalter of Windsor d/o Rhys apTewdwr Prince of South Wales and Gwladus mother of Henry 14 Unknown mother of unknown daughter (m GUILLAUME [III] GoÃ«t de Montmirail) 15 Isabelle de Beaumont d/o Robert de Beaumont Comte de Meulan, Earl of Leicester and Isabelle de Vermandois and wife of Gilbert FitzGilbert de Clare Earl of Pembroke mother of Isabel Please do not merge Named Mistresses as Unknown Mistresses ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The fourth son of William I the Conqueror the first King of England after the Norman Conquest of 1066. Henry I 'Beauclerc', King of England gained the title of Lord of Domfront in 1092. He gained the title of Comte de Coutances in 1096. He gained the title of Comte de Bayeaux in 1096. He succeeded to the title of King Henry I of England on 2 August 1100. He was c


Battle of Shiloh Video - American Civil War History - HISTORY.com American Civil War History American Civil War History Videos Battle of Shiloh At Shiloh, Tennessee in April of 1862, a Confederate surprise attack backfires when the Union holds firm at the "Hornet's Nest." Battle of Shiloh (3 min) tv-pg At Shiloh, Tennessee in April of 1862, a Confederate surprise attack backfires when the Union holds firm at the "Hornet's Nest." Videos © 2017, A&E Television Networks, LLC. All Rights Reserved. We know you love history. Sign up for more! Get the Inside HISTORY newsletter for in-depth historical articles and videos. Please enter a valid email address By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. More details: Contact Us You're almost done! You will soon receive an activation email. Once you click on the link, you will be added to our list. If you do not receive this email, please contact us . To ensure delivery to your inbox, add us to your address book . Oops, there's a problem. This email address has previously opted out from receiving any emails from HISTORY and/or A+E Networks. If you changed your mind, please contact us . You have already subscribed to this list. If you completed your subscription and still have not received an email, please contact us . Oops, there's a problem.


Which treaty after World War I established the League of Nations?

Milestones: 1914–1920 - Office of the Historian Milestones: 1914–1920 The League of Nations, 1920 The League of Nations was an international organization, headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, created after the First World           War to provide a forum for resolving international disputes. Though first           proposed by President Woodrow Wilson as part of his           Fourteen Points plan for an equitable peace in Europe, the United States never           became a member. Cartoon critizing U.S. lack of participation in the League of             Nations Speaking before the U.S. Congress on January 8, 1918, President Woodrow             Wilson enumerated the last of his Fourteen Points , which           called for a “general association of nations…formed under specific covenants for           the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and           territorial integrity to great and small states alike.” Many of Wilson’s           previous points would require regulation or enforcement. In calling for the           formation of a "general association of nations," Wilson voiced the wartime opinions of           many diplomats and intellectuals on both sides of the Atlantic who believed there was a need for           a new type of standing international organization dedicated to fostering           international cooperation, providing security for its members, and ensuring a           lasting peace. With Europe’s population exhausted by four years of total war,           and with many in the United States optimistic that a new           organization would be able to solve the international disputes that had led to           war in 1914, Wilson’s articulation of a League of Nations was wildly popular.           However, it proved exceptionally difficult to create, and Wilson left office           never having convinced the United States to join it. David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom The idea of the League was grounded in the broad, international revulsion           against the unprecedented destruction of the First World War and the contemporary understanding of its origins. This was reflected in all of Wilson’s           Fourteen Points, which were themselves based on theories of collective security           and international organization debated amongst academics, jurists, socialists           and utopians before and during the war. After adopting many of these ideas,           Wilson took up the cause with evangelical fervor, whipping up mass enthusiasm           for the organization as he traveled to the Paris Peace Conference in January           1919, the first President to travel abroad in an official capacity. Wilson used his tremendous influence to attach the Covenant of the League, its           charter, to the Treaty of Versailles . An effective League, he believed, would           mitigate any inequities in the peace terms. He and the other members of the “Big           Three,” Georges Clemenceau of France and David             Lloyd George of the United Kingdom, drafted the Covenant as Part I of the           Treaty of Versailles. The League’s main organs were an Assembly of all members,           a Council made up of five permanent members and four rotating members,           and an International Court of Justice. Most important for Wilson, the           League would guarantee the territorial integrity and political independence of           member states, authorize the League to take “any action…to safeguard the peace,”           establish procedures for arbitration, and create the mechanisms for economic and           military sanctions. Georges Clemenceau of France The struggle to ratify the


In which year did the Korean War break out?

Why did the Korean War break out in 1950 Why did the Korean War break out in 1950?     Summary The  Korean War was an episode in the Cold War.   It seemed to be a war between South and North Korea, but America  and Russia were using it to fight without having a ï¿½hot warï¿½. The  USA went to war in Korea for three reasons.   The first reason was the ï¿½Domino theoryï¿½ ï¿½ China turned  Communist in 1949 and Truman feared that the next ï¿½dominoï¿½ would be Japan.   The second was to undermine Communism and protect the American way of  life ï¿½ in 1950 the American National Security Council recommended that  America start 'rolling back' Communism.   Thirdly, Truman realised  the USA was in a competition for world domination with the USSR. Russia  went to war because Stalin wanted Communism to grow.   In 1949, Kim Il Sung persuaded Stalin and Mao Tse Tung to support an invasion of South Korea. In  1950, Syngman Rhee threatened to attack North Korea.   It was an excuse ï¿½ the trigger for war: the NKPA invaded South Korea     The underlying reason that the Korean War broke out was because it was just another episode in the ongoing Cold War between the USA and the USSR.   On the surface, the Korean War seemed to be a war between South Korea and North Korea, but really the superpowers were just using it as a front to combat each other without actually going into a ï¿½hot warï¿½ which ï¿½ as both had the atomic bomb ï¿½ would have been MAD (mutually assured destruction).   The USA went to war in Korea for three reasons.   The first reason was the ï¿½Domino theoryï¿½.   Salami tactics in eastern Europe was not the only place where Communists were coming to power.  In the Far East, too, they were getting powerful ï¿½ China turned Communist in 1949.   Truman believed that, if one country fell to Communism, then others would follow, like a line of dominoes.   He was worried that, if Korea fell, the next ï¿½dominoï¿½ would be Japan, which was very important for American trade.   This was probably the most important reason for Americaï¿½s involvement in the war. The second reason was just to try to undermine Communism.   President Truman believed that capitalism, freedom and the American way of life were in danger of being overrun by Communism.   The Truman Doctrine had been one of ï¿½containmentï¿½ ï¿½ stopping the Communists gaining any more territory.   In April 1950 the American National Security Council issued a report (NSC 68) recommending that America abandon 'containment' and start 'rolling back' Communism.   This led Truman to consider driving the Communists out of North Korea. Finally, Truman realised the USA was in a competition for world domination with the USSR.   By supporting South Korea, America was able to fight Communism without directly attacking Russia.   The USSR, also, went to war because of the Cold War.   Stalin wanted to see Communism expand as long as he did not get involved in a ï¿½hot warï¿½ with America.   In 1949, Kim II Sung visited Stalin.   He persuaded Stalin that he could conquer South Korea.   Stalin did not think that America would get involved, so he gave his agreement.   Kim II Sung also went to see Mao Tse Tung, the leader of China, to get his support.   The trigger for the war was when, in 1950, Syngman Rhee boasted that he was going to attack North Korea.   It was a good enough excuse ï¿½ the North Koreans invaded South Korea.   This started the actual fighting.


What is the official residence of the president of France?

Palais de l’Elysee Presidential Elysee Palace In Paris France Contact us This wealthy banker wanted the Hotel d’Evreux to house his collection of paintings and he hired the architect Etienne-Louis Boullee to make many different alterations to the building and transform the gardens, but it was then purchased by the Duchess of Bourbon in 1787 who then named it the Elysee. The next stage of the Palais de l’Elysee Palace During the French Revolution, the Elysee Palace was confiscated and then leased out, but in 1803 was sold to Joachim Murat who was Marshal of France and future King of Naples, then in 1808 it was purchased by Napoleon Bonaparte I . However, a few years later it was then returned back to the Duchess of Bourbon, who then subsequently sold the Palais Elysee to King Louis XVIII in 1816 and from then was starting to be used a guest residence for important foreign visitors. Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, who was the ruler of the Second Empire and of the French Republic resided at this palace in Paris and made some renovations, and then Marshal Macmahon, who was the President of the Third Republic of France then made the Palais de l’Elysee the official residence of the president in the 1870s. The Palais Elysee Official Residence of the French Presidents From this era of the Third Republic, the Palais Elysees became the official residence of the Presidents of France, such as President Raymond Poincare, President Paul Deschanel, etc, but was completely deserted during World War II. It was then reoccupied by the President of the provisional government, Vincent Auriol of the fourth French Republic in 1946 and then by Rene Coty who resigned to General Charles de Gaulle , who became the first President of the Fifth Republic. However, according to many reports, Charles de Gaulle did not like the idea that foreign state officials used to stay at the Palais Elysees because it was a bit too personal, and therefore the state purchased the Hotel de Marigny as the guest residence for kings and other state officials that were visiting Paris . And yet again, according to many sources, the President Francois Mitterrand preferred to stay at his own private residence rather than the official Palais de l’Elysee, but President Jacques Chirac did reside here with his wife throughout his term in office and there was always an official Bastille Day party held within the grounds of this palace in Paris. But when the President Nicolas Sarkozy took over, he put a stop to these festivities as a symbol of the economic crisis that France was going through, in order to reduce the financial burden, yet the palace would still the official home of the president of France. About The Palais de l’Elysee Palace in Paris Today As you can no doubt imagine, this is a heavily guarded mansion house and palace in Paris that has the same role since the 1800s, as the official residence of the President of France and therefore is a place not normally open to the public. However, if you are lucky enough to step inside and experience this wonderful mansion, you will find that there is a vast amount of different styles, where former residents have left their mark on designs, decor and their own personal tastes. To give you an idea, there is a very exquisite and lavish ballroom that is used for official ceremonies, which dates back to the 1800s, and a library that was originally an office on the ground floor along with a dining room that looks like it came out of the 1970s. On the second floor are meeting rooms and even though some have been renovated, there are still the rooms with wood panelling, portraits, tapestries and much more, which are no doubted there as reminders of its heritage and past. Of course, there are also the gardens to admire along with the facade and the fabulous entrance to the Elysee Palace in Paris with its monumental gate, and yet, because of its status plus its heritage, unfortunately this tourist attraction in Paris is not open every day to the public. Access to the Palais de l’Elysee Palace in Paris Even though this mansion house is normall


Who set out his political ideas in Mein Kampf?

Hitler's political ideas - The Holocaust Explained Website Think! Now you have read the section on antisemitism, reflect: Why do you think Hitler and others might have thought that the Jews were conspiring to rule the world for themselves? Why might Hitler have linked communism and Jews? Why did the Nazis want to rid Germany of mentally and physically disabled people? Want to know more? If you would like to know more about this subject you can find out more on the KS3 version of the site. Click here to visit the KS3 antisemitism pages.  Mein Kampf While in prison, Hitler wrote his book Mein Kampf, in which he set out his political ideas and developed his antisemitic ideas. Mein Kampf did not contain any new ideas. Many people in the 19th and 20th centuries had believed that races were not equal, and that some people were stronger or better than others. Hitler took on these ideas, and stated that Germans were part of a race called ‘Aryans’ who were superior to all others and would one day rule the world. Aryans were said to have blonde hair and blue eyes and be of North European descent. In Hitler’s view, Jews were a separate race and could not be German. He believed the Jews conspired against Aryans to rule the world for themselves. Hitler also believed that communism was a huge threat to Germany and should be destroyed. He thought that communism was a Jewish invention and that was another reason why he hated the Jews. Hitler also wanted to rid Germany of the mentally and physically disabled, because they were seen as imperfect and also a drain on the resources of the ‘master race’. This month in history


Who preceded Ronald Reagan as American president?

Ronald Reagan | whitehouse.gov Air Force One Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan, originally an American actor and politician, became the 40th President of the United States serving from 1981 to 1989. His term saw a restoration of prosperity at home, with the goal of achieving "peace through strength" abroad. At the end of his two terms in office, Ronald Reagan viewed with satisfaction the achievements of his innovative program known as the Reagan Revolution, which aimed to reinvigorate the American people and reduce their reliance upon Government. He felt he had fulfilled his campaign pledge of 1980 to restore "the great, confident roar of American progress and growth and optimism." On February 6, 1911, Ronald Wilson Reagan was born to Nelle and John Reagan in Tampico, Illinois. He attended high school in nearby Dixon and then worked his way through Eureka College. There, he studied economics and sociology, played on the football team, and acted in school plays. Upon graduation, he became a radio sports announcer. A screen test in 1937 won him a contract in Hollywood. During the next two decades he appeared in 53 films. From his first marriage to actress Jane Wyman, he had two children, Maureen and Michael. Maureen passed away in 2001. In 1952 he married Nancy Davis, who was also an actress, and they had two children, Patricia Ann and Ronald Prescott. As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan became embroiled in disputes over the issue of Communism in the film industry; his political views shifted from liberal to conservative. He toured the country as a television host, becoming a spokesman for conservatism. In 1966 he was elected Governor of California by a margin of a million votes; he was re-elected in 1970. Ronald Reagan won the Republican Presidential nomination in 1980 and chose as his running mate former Texas Congressman and United Nations Ambassador George Bush. Voters troubled by inflation and by the year-long confinement of Americans in Iran swept the Republican ticket into office. Reagan won 489 electoral votes to 49 for President Jimmy Carter. On January 20, 1981, Reagan took office. Only 69 days later he was shot by a would-be assassin, but quickly recovered and returned to duty. His grace and wit during the dangerous incident caused his popularity to soar. Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit. A renewal of national self-confidence by 1984 helped Reagan and Bush win a second term with an unprecedented number of electoral votes. Their victory turned away Democratic challengers Walter F. Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression. In foreign policy, Reagan sought to achieve "peace through strength." During his two terms he increased defense spending 35 percent, but sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union. In dramatic meetings with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, he negotiated a treaty that would eliminate intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Reagan declared war against international terrorism, sending American bombers against Libya after evidence came out that Libya was involved in an attack on American soldiers in a West Berlin nightclub. By ordering naval escorts in the Persian Gulf, he maintained the free flow of oil during the Iran-Iraq war. In keeping with the Reagan Doctrine, he gave support to anti-Communist insurgencies in Central America, Asia, and Africa. Overall, the Reagan years saw a restoration of prosperity, and the goal of peace through strength seemed to be within grasp. The Presidential biographies on WhiteHouse.gov are from “The


In which year was Ulster incorporated into the UK, under the Home Rule Act?

BBC - History -   British History in depth: Irish Home Rule: An imagined future Print this page Self-government The casual observer could be forgiven for thinking that the picture entitled ‘King George and Queen Mary Opening the New Irish Parliament’ was a faithful representation of actual events. But, in fact, the occasion never happened. The image was instead one of a number of propaganda postcards produced in the years before World War One in which various artists tried to imagine what Ireland would be like under Home Rule. Yet even though Home Rule was never achieved, this image is much more than just a historical curiosity. Pictures like this help us to make the imaginative leap back to a time in Ireland’s history when the establishment of a Home Rule parliament in Dublin was to the majority of Irish people a real and immediate prospect. As one English journalist visiting Ireland in 1893 (the year of the second Home Rule Bill) recorded: 'self-government was the only topic of conversation in hotels, railway carriages, tramcars, and on the steps of the temples, at the corners of the streets, in the music halls.' Charles Stewart Parnell    © Between 1801 and 1922 Ireland formed a constituent part of the United Kingdom. At various intervals during this time, attempts were made to destabilise Anglo-Irish relations. Rebellions were launched in 1803, 1848, 1867, and 1916 to try and end British rule over Ireland. Daniel O’Connell in the 1830-1840s campaigned to repeal the Act of Union. But from the 1870s onwards Irish Nationalists (under Isaac Butt) favoured Home Rule. It was not until 1886, however, that the first attempt to legislate Home Rule was made. Nineteen years were to pass before another Home Rule Bill was introduced. The Liberal government, led by WE Gladstone and supported by the Irish Parliamentary Party under Charles Stewart Parnell, introduced a Home Rule bill in the House of Commons. British and Irish Unionists (so-called because they defended the union of 1801) defeated it. By the time another bill was introduced in 1893, Parnell was dead (having earlier been deposed following a messy divorce scandal) and his followers were acrimoniously divided. Gladstone’s second attempt was passed by the House of Commons, but was rejected by the House of Lords. Nineteen years were to pass before another Home Rule Bill was introduced in 1912. The Home Rule Bill This bill proposed the creation of a bi-cameral legislative assembly subordinate to the imperial parliament in London. It had carefully circumscribed powers over domestic issues and numerous constitutional safeguards to protect Protestants. But while the debate at Westminster focused on Home Rule finance and the protection of minorities, the discussion on the streets of Dublin, Belfast, Cork and elsewhere reflected more personal hopes, fears, and aspirations for the future. Nationalist politicians described Home Rule as the 'promised land'. The cause of Irish self-government was certainly interwoven with centuries-old memories of Catholic dispossession and Protestant ascendancy on the one hand and popish plots and moonlit intimidation on the other. Sectarian riots raged after a Catholic allegedly told a Protestant that none of "his sort" would find a job under Home Rule. Accordingly, expectations that a Dublin parliament would right old wrongs or settle old scores flourished. In 1886, for instance, sectarian riots in Belfast raged for several months after a Catholic docker allegedly told a Protestant worker that none of ‘his sort’ would find employment under Home Rule. Similarly, an English visitor to Ireland in 1893 encountered wildly optimistic expectations among Catholics and Nationalists: ‘Every man … [possessed] a visionary scheme of which he had all the absurd particulars.' Accordingly, advocates of Home Rule were aware of the need to manage popular expectations, as one argued in 1914: ‘In an autonomous Ireland public life would not be all nougat, velvet, and soft music. There will be … vehement conflicts, for that is the way of the twentieth century.' To


What name is shared by the chairs of the UK House of Commons and the US House of Representatives?

Office and Role of Speaker - UK Parliament Office and Role of Speaker History of the Speakership Office and Role of Speaker The Speaker of the House of Commons chairs debates in the Commons chamber. The holder of this office is an MP who has been elected to be Speaker by other Members of Parliament. During debates they keep order and call MPs to speak. The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority of the House of Commons and must remain politically impartial at all times. The Speaker also represents the Commons to the monarch, the Lords and other authorities and chairs the House of Commons Commission. The current Speaker is John Bercow, MP for Buckingham. Chairing debates in the House of Commons The Speaker is perhaps best known as the person who keeps order and calls MPs to speak during Commons debates. The Speaker calls MPs in turn to give their opinion on an issue. MPs signal that they want to speak by standing up from their seat (a custom known as 'catching the Speaker's eye') or they can notify the Speaker in advance by writing. The Speaker has full authority to make sure MPs follow the rules of the House during debates. This can include: directing an MP to withdraw remarks if, for example, they use abusive language suspending the sitting of the House due to serious disorder suspending MPs who are deliberately disobedient - known as naming asking MPs to be quiet so Members can be heard Election of the Speaker John Bercow was elected House of Commons Speaker on 22 June 2009 . The Speaker was elected using an exhaustive secret ballot system, the first time this procedure had been used for the election of a Speaker. Election process MPs are given a list of candidates and place an x next to the candidate of their choice if a candidate receives more than 50 per cent of the votes, the question is put to the House that he or she takes the chair as Speaker if no candidate does so, the candidate with the fewest votes, and those with less than five per cent of the vote, are eliminated in addition, any candidate may withdraw within 10 minutes of the announcement of the result of a ballot MPs then vote again on the reduced slate of candidates and continue doing so until one candidate receives more than half the votes Politically impartial Speakers must be politically impartial. Therefore, on election the new Speaker must resign from their political party and remain separate from political issues even in retirement. However, the Speaker will deal with their constituents' problems like a normal MP. Speakers and general elections Speakers still stand in general elections. They are generally unopposed by the major political parties, who will not field a candidate in the Speaker's constituency - this includes the original party they were a member of. During a general election, Speakers do not campaign on any political issues but simply stand as 'the Speaker seeking re-election'.


Which is the lower house of the British parliament?

House of Commons | British government | Britannica.com British government Diane Abbott House of Commons, also called Commons, popularly elected legislative body of the bicameral British Parliament . Although it is technically the lower house, the House of Commons is predominant over the House of Lords , and the name “Parliament” is often used to refer to the House of Commons alone. Learn about the evolution of the House of Commons, the role of its members, and how those members … © UK Parliament Education Service (A Britannica Publishing Partner) Chamber of the House of Commons in the Houses of Parliament, London. Rolf Richardson—Spectrum Colour Library/Heritage-Images History The origins of the House of Commons date from the second half of the 13th century, when landholders and other property owners in the counties and towns began sending representatives to Parliament to present grievances and petitions to the king and to accept commitments to the payment of taxes. In the 14th century the knights and burgesses chosen as representatives (i.e., the commons) began sitting in a separate chamber, or “house,” from that used by the nobles and high clergy (i.e., the lords). Night view of the Houses of Parliament and Big Ben, London. © Thinkstock Images/Jupiterimages The House of Lords was initially the more powerful of the two houses, but over the centuries its powers gradually diminished. By the late 17th century, the House of Commons had gained the sole right to initiate taxation measures. The House of Lords retained its veto power over bills passed by the Commons, however, and in 1832 the only recourse of the Liberal Party government was to threaten to flood the House of Lords with new Liberal peers in order to prevent it from rejecting that government’s Reform Bill . Eighty years later the same threat was used, again by a Liberal government, to compel the Lords to approve the Parliament Act of 1911 , which enabled a majority of the House of Commons to override the Lords’ rejection of a bill. Under this act, the House of Lords lost the power to delay legislation passed by the Commons for the raising and spending of revenue; it also lost the power to delay other legislation for a period beyond two years (reduced in 1949 to one year). The act also reduced the maximum duration of a parliamentary session to five years. Historical consideration of London’s Houses of Parliament. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. National Convention The membership of the House of Commons stood at 658 from 1801—when Great Britain and Ireland were united by the Act of Union to form the United Kingdom—until 1885, when it was increased to 670. In 1918 it was increased to 707. It was also changed under subsequent acts. At the general election in May 2010, 650 members were returned—533 from England, 59 from Scotland, 40 from Wales, and 18 from Northern Ireland . Each constituency returns a single member. William Pitt the Younger addressing the House of Commons, 1793. © Photos.com/Jupiterimages Despite its large membership, the chamber of the House of Commons seats only 427 persons. After it was destroyed by a German bomb during World War II , there was considerable discussion about enlarging the chamber and replacing its traditional rectangular structure with a semicircular design. Among those who argued against this proposal was Winston Churchill , who maintained that a semicircular chamber appeals to political theorists, enables every individual or group to move round the centre, adopting various shades of pink according as the weather changes.…A chamber formed on the lines of the House of Commons should not be big enough to contain all its members at once without overcrowding, and there should be no question of every member having a separate seat reserved for him. If the House is big enough for all its members, nine-tenths of its debates will be conducted in the depressing atmosphere of an almost empty or half-empty Chamber.…[T]here should be on great occasions a sense of crowd and urgency. Britannica Stories The chamber was rebuilt in 1950 to match its


"Of what electoral system are ""single transferable vote"" and ""party list"" forms?"

Proportional Representation Systems   Party List Voting Party list voting systems are by far the most common form of proportional representation. Over 80% of the PR systems used worldwide are some form of party list voting. It remains the system used in most European democracies and in many newly democratized countries, including South Africa. How It Works. Legislators are elected in large, multi-member districts. Each party puts up a list or slate of candidates equal to the number of seats in the district. Independent candidates may also run, and they are listed separately on the ballot as if they were their own party (see below). On the ballot, voters indicate their preference for a particular party and the parties then receive seats in proportion to their share of the vote. So in a five-member district, if the Democrats win 40% of the vote, they would win two of the five seats. The two winning Democratic candidates would be chosen according to their position on the list. There are two broad types of list systems: closed list and open list. In a closed list system--the original form of party list voting--the party fixes the order in which the candidates are listed and elected, and the voter simply casts a vote for the party as a whole. This is shown in the first ballot below, which illustrates an election for the House of Representatives in a five-seat district. Voters are not able to indicate their preference for any candidates on the list, but must accept the list in the order presented by the party. Winning candidates are selected in the exact order they appear on the original list. So in the example here, if the Democrats won two seats, the first two candidates on the pre-ordered list--Foster and Rosen-Amy--would be elected. Closed Party List Ballot Most European democracies now use the open list form of party list voting. This approach allows voters to express a preference for particular candidates, not just parties. It is designed to give voters some say over the order of the list and thus which candidates get elected. One version of this is illustrated in the ballot below. Voters are presented with unordered or random lists of candidates chosen in party primaries. Voters cannot vote for a party directly, but must cast a vote for an individual candidate. This vote counts for the specific candidate as well as for the party. So the order of the final list completely depends on the number of votes won by each candidate on the list. The most popular candidates rise to the top of the list and have a better chance of being elected. In our example, if the Democrats won 2 seats, and Volz and Gentzler received the highest and next highest number of individual votes, they would rise to the top of the list and be elected. This example is similar to the system used in Finland and widely considered to be the most open version of list voting. Open Party List Ballot A variety of different formulas exist for accomplishing the actual allocation of seats to the parties. One of the simplest seat allocation formulas is the called the "largest remainder formula." In this approach, the first step is to calculate a quota, which is determined by taking the total number of valid votes in the district and dividing this by the number of seats. In the example in the table below, 100,000 votes were cast and ten seats are to be filled. 100,000/10 = 10,000 ï¿½ which is the quota. The quota is then divided into the vote that each party receives and the party wins one seat for each whole number produced. So the Republican party received 38,000 votes, which is divided by 10,000 to produce three seats ï¿½ with a remainder of 8,000. After this first allocation of seats is complete than the remainder numbers for the parties are compared and the parties with the largest remainders are allocated the remaining seats. In our example, two seats remain to be allocated and the Republicans and Moll, the independent candidate, have the largest remainders, so they get the seats. Ultimately all the parties end up with the number of seats that as closely as pos


Who was the USA's vice president in 1990?

George Bush - President of the United States (POTUS) George Bush Vice President: J. Danforth Quayle (1989-93) Cabinet: Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp (1989-93) George Bush -- from Table of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States - MSN Encarta Grolier Online has created this resource from its collection of print articles in Encyclopedia Americana. Contains a full biography, written by Donald Young, author of American Roulette: The History and Dilemma of the Vice Presidency, along with suggestions for further reading. George Bush -- from The American President From the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, in addition to information on the Presidents themselves, they have first lady and cabinet member biographies, listings of presidential staff and advisers, and timelines detailing significant events in the lives of each administration.


Which prime minister took Britain into the European Community in 1973?

BBC ON THIS DAY | 1 | 1973: Britain joins the EEC 1973: Britain joins the EEC The United Kingdom has become a fully-fledged member of the European Economic Community. Ireland and Denmark also joined Britain in becoming the newest members of the community, bringing the total number of member states to nine. At midnight last night a Union Jack flag was raised at the EEC's headquarters in Brussels to mark the occasion. Celebrations were held in the city and one of Britain's new European Commissioners, George Thomson, joined revellers in a torch lit procession. Prime Minister Edward Heath is optimistic that Britain's membership of the community will bring prosperity to the country. He said: "It is going to be a gradual development and obviously things are not going to happen overnight. "But from the point of view of our everyday lives we will find there is a great cross-fertilisation of knowledge and information, not only in business but in every other sphere. "And this will enable us to be more efficient and more competitive in gaining more markets not only in Europe but in the rest of the world." More than 1,000 Britons will relocate to Brussels over the coming months to take up their places as civil servants of the community. Britain will be given four votes within the council, which proposes policies on issues ranging from the environment to public health. Membership applications by the UK to join the EEC were refused in 1963 and 1967 because the French President of the time Charles de Gaulle doubted the UK's political will. It is understood, however, his real fear was that English would suddenly become the common language of the community.


What was enforced by Parliament in 1379 and was the trigger that caused the Peasants' Revolt?

BBC - History -   British History in depth: Black Death: Political and Social Changes Print this page Social change Life in Britain in the fourteenth century was 'nasty, brutish and short', and it had been that way for the peasantry since long before the Black Death. Britain in the early fourteenth century was horrendously overpopulated. This was very good for the land-owning classes, since it meant that they had a vast reserve of inexpensive manpower upon which they could draw. In fact, there was such a surplus on manpower, that most landlords found it convenient to relax the old feudal labour dues owed to them on the grounds that men could always be found to perform them. Life in Britain in the Fourteenth Century was 'nasty, brutish and short.' This changed after 1348. We can see in the example of Farnham the immediate consequence of the plague: a slash in the cost of livestock and inflation in the cost of labour. This pattern was repeated up and down the country. The immediate reaction of the elite was to legislate against this. The Ordinance of Labourers was published on 18th June 1349, limiting the freedom of peasants to move around in search of the most lucrative work. This was promulgated through Parliament as the Statute of Labourers in 1351: It was lately ordained by our lord king, with the assent of the prelates, nobles and others of his council against the malice of employees, who were idle and were not willing to take employment after the pestilence unless for outrageous wages, that such employees, both men and women, should be obliged to take employment for the salary and wages accustomed to be paid in the place where they were working in the 20th year of the king's reign [1346], or five or six years earlier; and that if the same employees refused to accept employment in such a manner they should be punished by imprisonment, as is more clearly contained in the said ordinance. Statute of Labourers, 1351. Top Age of the yeomen? Up and coming yeomen    © It failed. Skilled manpower was so short that no landlord could afford to ignore the strictures of the market. In Farnham, a carpenter who had been paid 3d. in 1346 was being paid 5d. by 1367, his mate had shot up from 1½d. to 4d., and most other workmen had added at least a penny to their wages. In fact, to those with the opportunity and ability to seize it, the Black Death presented a golden opportunity for advancement. John Ronewyk might have had to force several of his tenants to take over neighbouring land, but others like Robert Heningt were only too willing to step into dead men's shoes. Ronewyk himself took over the 5 acres of his neighbour, Richard atte fforde of Runwick, for the knock-down bargain price of 18d. Other peasants, like Walter Dolle and his fellow survivor at archbishop Edendon's manor of Upton, were able to renegotiate favourable labour dues. The yeomen and the gentry were the movers and shakers of their locality. With the de facto (if not de jure) freedom to move around and sell their labour, and the horrendously deflated prices of goods and land, those with the enterprise to do so were able to lift themselves out of the bonds of villeinage and make something of themselves. It is at this point that we see the emergence of the yeoman farmer: a peasant smallholder with up to 100 acres of land. These yeoman farmers were always a tiny minority. They were outnumbered hugely both by the gentry classes above them, and by the general peasantry below. Yet the weakening of lordship and the cheapness of land had provided conditions which the 'yeomen' and gentry were best positioned to exploit. They were the movers and shakers of their locality, enclosing land for sheep, establishing weaving mills and spending their new-found wealth on architectural memorials, both for this life and the next. Top Questioning the elites? A peasant house after the Black Death.    © In 1371, an academic Oxford cleric called John Wycliffe was promoted into the government service of King Edward III. Desperate for cash to pursue the never-ending war with France, Edwa


In which country did Pol Pot lead the feared Khmer Rouge?

Pol Pot - Leader of the Khmer Rouge Pol Pot Pol Pot Leader of the Khmer Rouge An interview with former Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot in the rebels' Cambodian stronghold of Anlgong Veng. Asked about his role in the killing of as many as two million Cambodians, Pol Pot said he did not wish to discuss the matter. (Jan. 8, 1998).  (Photo By Getty Images) By Michael Richards, Contributing Writer Updated March 28, 2016. Who Was Pol Pot? As head of the Khmer Rouge, Pol Pot oversaw an unprecedented and extremely brutal attempt to remove Cambodia from the modern world and establish an agrarian utopia. While attempting to create this utopia, Pol Pot created the Cambodian Genocide, which lasted from 1975 to 1979 and caused the deaths of at least 1.5 million Cambodians out of a population of approximately 8 million. Dates: May 19, 1928 (1925?) – April 15, 1998 Also known as: Saloth Sar (born as); “brother number one” Childhood and Youth of Pol Pot The man who would later be known as Pol Pot was born as Saloth Sar on May 19, 1928, in the fishing village of Prek Sbauk, Kampong Thom province, in what was then French Indochina (now Cambodia ). His family, of Chinese-Khmer descent, was considered moderately well-to-do. They also had connections to the royal family: a sister was a concubine of the king, Sisovath Monivong, and a brother was a court official. In 1934, Pol Pot went to live with the brother in Phnom Penh, where he spent a year in a royal Buddhist monastery and then attended a Catholic school. continue reading below our video Profile of Pol Pot At age 14, he began high school in Kompong Cham. Pol Pot was, however, not a very successful student and switched to a technical school to study carpentry. In 1949, Pol Pot obtained a scholarship to study radio electronics in Paris. He enjoyed himself in Paris, gaining a reputation as something of a bon vivant, fond of dancing and drinking red wine. However, by his second year in Paris, Pol Pot had become friends with other students who were impassioned by politics. From these friends, Pol Pot encountered Marxism, joining the Cercle Marxiste (Marxist Circle of Khmer Students in Paris) and the French Communist Party. (Many of the other students whom he befriended during this period later became central figures in the Khmer Rouge.) After Pol Pot failed his examinations for the third year in a row, however, he had to return in January 1953 to what would shortly become Cambodia. Pol Pot Joins the Viet Minh As the first of the Cercle Marxiste to return to Cambodia, Pol Pot helped assess the different groups rebelling against the Cambodian government and recommended that returning members of the Cercle join the Khmer Viet Minh (or Moutakeaha). Although Pol Pot and other members of the Cercle disliked that the Khmer Viet Minh had heavy ties with Vietnam, the group felt that this Communist revolutionary organization was the one most likely to take action. In August 1953, Pol Pot left his home secretly and, without even telling his friends, headed to the Viet Minh’s Eastern Zone Headquarters, located near the village of Krabao. The camp was located in the forest and consisted of canvas tents that could be easily moved in case of an attack. Pol Pot (and eventually more of his Cercle friends) were dismayed to find the camp completely segregated, with Vietnamese as the high ranking members and Cambodians ( Khmers ) given just menial tasks. Pol Pot himself was assigned tasks such as farming and working in the mess hall. Still, Pol Pot watched and learned how the Viet Minh used propaganda and force to take control of peasant villages in the region. When the Khmer Viet Minh were forced to disband after the 1954 Geneva Accords ; Pol Pot and several of his friends headed back to Phnom Penh. The 1955 Election The 1954 Geneva Accords had temporarily quashed much of the revolutionary fervor within Cambodia and proclaimed a mandatory election in 1955. Pol Pot, who was now back in Phnom Penh, was determined to do what he could to influence the election. He thus infiltrated the Democratic Party in the hopes of b


How often are American presidential elections held?

Presidential Elections - U.S. Presidents - HISTORY.com Presidential Elections A+E Networks Introduction Departing from the monarchical tradition of Britain, the founding fathers of the United States created a system in which the American people had the power and responsibility to select their leader. Under this new order, George Washington, the first U.S. president, was elected in 1789. At the time, only white men who owned property could vote, but the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments to the Constitution have since expanded the right of suffrage to all citizens over 18. Taking place every four years, presidential campaigns and elections have evolved into a series of fiercely fought, and sometimes controversial, contests, now played out in the 24-hour news cycle.The stories behind each election—some ending in landslide victories, others decided by the narrowest of margins—provide a roadmap to the events of U.S. history. Google 1789: George Washington – unopposed The first presidential election was held on the first Wednesday of January in 1789. No one contested the election of George Washington , but he remained reluctant to run until the last minute, in part because he believed seeking the office would be dishonorable. Only when Alexander Hamilton and others convinced him that it would be dishonorable to refuse did he agree to run. The Constitution allowed each state to decide how to choose its presidential electors. In 1789, only Pennsylvania and Maryland held elections for this purpose; elsewhere, the state legislatures chose the electors. This method caused some problems in New York , which was so divided between Federalists who supported the new Constitution and Antifederalists who opposed it that the legislature failed to choose either presidential electors or U.S. senators. Before the adoption of the Twelfth Amendment, each elector cast two votes for president. The candidate with a majority won the presidency, and the runner-up became vice president. Most Federalists agreed that John Adams should be vice president. But Hamilton feared that if Adams was the unanimous choice, he would end in a tie with Washington and might even become president, an outcome that would be highly embarrassing for both Washington and the new electoral system. Hamilton therefore arranged that a number of votes be deflected, so that Adams was elected by less than half the number of Washington’s expected unanimous vote. The final results were Washington, 69 electoral votes; Adams, 34; John Jay , 9; John Hancock , 4; and others, 22. 1792: George Washington – unopposed As in 1789, persuading George Washington to run was the major difficulty in selecting a president in 1792. Washington complained of old age, sickness, and the increasing hostility of the Republican press toward his administration. The press attacks were symptomatic of the increasing split within the government between Federalists, who were coalescing around Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, and Republicans, forming around Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson . James Madison , among others, convinced Washington to continue as president by arguing that only he could hold the government together. Speculation then shifted to the vice presidency. Hamilton and the Federalists supported the reelection of John Adams. Republicans favored New York governor George Clinton, but Federalists feared him partly because of a widespread belief that his recent election to the governorship was fraudulent. In addition, the Federalists feared that Clinton would belittle the importance of the federal government by retaining his governorship while serving as vice president. Adams won relatively easily with support from New England and the Mid-Atlantic states, except New York. Only electoral votes are recorded here, because most states still did not select presidential electors by popular vote. Nor was there a separate vote for president and vice president until the Twelfth Amendment took effect in 1804. The results were Washington, 132 electoral votes (unanimous); Adams, 77; Clinton, 50; Jefferson,


Israel was proclaimed an independent state in 1948. Who was its prime minister from then until 1963?

The Declaration of the State of Israel The Declaration of the State of Israel May 14, 1948 donations Introduction As the British forces pulled out of Palestine and the mandate came to an end, the Executive Committee of the Jewish "Yishuv" (community) in Palestine met to decide whether or not to declare a state, as has been envisioned under UN Resolution 181. The Arab states had declared that if such a state was declared, they would invade it. Nonetheless, the committee decided to declare a state, armed with the promise of US President Harry S. Truman that he would recognize such a state if it was declared. The Israeli Declaration of Independence was read out on Friday, the 14th of May 1948 by   David Ben Gurion, who then became the first Prime Minister of the new state. The State was quickly recognized by the United States and the USSR. The Palestinians did not declare a state immediately, and though several attempts were made to do so, they were blocked by the Jordanians and then by the Egyptians. The Egyptians later allowed the declaration of such a state in Gaza in September 1948, but it was recognized by no-one and had no resources and no real existence. Arab states had no interest in the formation of a separate state in Palestine, both because each state had territorial ambitions in Palestine, and because they feared the radical influence of Palestinian leadership under Haj Amin El-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The declaration stated that Israel  "will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of the shrines and Holy Places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. " The last sentence of the declaration refers to "the rock of Israel" (tsur Yisrael). This is one of the synonyms for God used in Hebrew. According to Tom Segev, in The First Israelis, the wording represents a compromise between the demand of Moshe Shapira representing the religious party that the declaration incorporate a reference to the Lord of Israel, and the demand of the leftist Mapam party representative that the declaration must not incorporate such a reference. The compromise formula made it possible to approve the declaration and publish it before the Sabbath and before the British left the country. May 15, 1948 was a Sabbath. David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister, who was a deist or possibly a polite atheist, was agreeable to this compromise. He said on other occasion that for him "the rock of Israel" was the Old Testament with its history and traditions.  Ami Isseroff Notice - Copyright This introduction is Copyright 2001-2003 by MidEastWeb http://www.mideastweb.org and the author. Please tell your friends about MidEastWeb and link to this page. Please do not copy this page to your Web site. You may print this page out for classroom use provided that this notice is appended, and you may cite this material in the usual way. Other uses by permission only.  The source material below is placed in the public domain  and is free of copy restrictions. MidEastWeb is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting peace and coexistence in the Middle East. We provide balanced and complete information, news and views to promote understanding and dialog. We cannot continue without your help! If peace in the Middle East is important to you, please help us by making a tax-deductible donation . If you don't help us, who will? Thank you!   Declaration of Israel's Independence 1948 Issued at Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948 (5th of Iyar, 5708) The land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and national identity was formed. Here they achieved independence and created a culture of national and universal significance. Here they wrote and gave the Bible to the world. Exiled from Palestine, the Jewish people remained faithful to it in all the


Who did Margaret Thatcher succeed as leader of the Conservative Party?

BBC ON THIS DAY | 11 | 1975: Tories choose first woman leader 1975: Tories choose first woman leader The British Conservative Party has chosen Margaret Thatcher as its new leader. She will be the first woman to head a British political party after a landslide victory over the other four - male - candidates. Mrs Thatcher - who served as Secretary of State for Science and Education in Ted Heath's Government - exclaimed "It's like a dream." The MP for Finchley, north London, since 1959 rejected suggestions of great celebrations. It's like a dream Margaret Thatcher She said: "Good heavens, no. There's far too much work to be done." Mrs Thatcher, 50, forced Ted Heath to resign as leader last week when she trounced him in the first round of the leadership race with 130 votes to his 119. Conservative Party confidence in Mr Heath - prime minister from 1970 to 1974 - was rattled by his failure to win general elections in both February and October last year. Chairman of the influential 1922 Backbench Committee - whose 276 members are largely responsible for deciding party leaders - Edward du Cann, told BBC Television: "We have a new and rather exciting leader. Mrs Thatcher will make the Tory Party distinctive." At a press conference at the House of Commons the new leader thanked her campaign team and looked forward to retaining Ted Heath and other members of the current Shadow Cabinet, though probably not in the same jobs. Mrs Thatcher - a mother of twins married to Denis, an oil executive - put in a brief appearance at a party in Pimlico before having a working dinner with Conservative Chief Whip Humphrey Atkins in Westminster. Former Northern Ireland Minister Willie Whitelaw was her closest challenger, but still only gained 79 votes in comparison to the 146 she polled in the second ballot of the contest. The other candidates were Sir Geoffrey Howe, QC, and Mr Prior who each received 19 votes and John Peyton trailed in last with just 11 votes.