text:
John of Ephesus

John of Ephesus (or of Asia) (Greek: Ίωάννης ό Έφέσιος, Classical Syriac: ܝܘܚܢܢ ܕܐܦܣܘܣ, c. 507 – c. 588 AD) was a leader of the early Syriac Orthodox Church in the sixth century and one of the earliest and the most important historians to write in Syriac. John of Ephesus was a bishop, but John was more important than other bishops and what sets him apart from most others is the fact that he was a historian and a writer. He was also a political man and would often follow his own path. John was seen as a great writer and covered important aspects of events in history, and one of these important events was the plague, and John has one of the only first-hand accounts of the plague. He was also alive in what has been called the worst year in history, 536.

Life
Born at Amida (modern Diyarbakır in southeastern Turkey) about 507, he was there ordained as a deacon in 529 by John of Tella at Zuqnin Monastery, When John was a teenager, he moved to Amida, located on the Tigris River. Amida was in the province of Armenia IV. Ever since John was a small child, he lived in the monastery of Maro, the Stylite. After his death, John lived the monastic lifestyle. He left Armenia IV for Palestine. He did this because of imperial opposition to miaphysitism. This was in 534. In 535 he passed to Constantinople. He returned to the east in later years of the 530s, where he witnessed the devastations of the great plague firsthand. He traveled the region, going so far as Egypt, in order to collect stories for his collection of saints' lives, which he compiled in a book (containing 58 such lives) around the year 565. He was back in Amida at the start of the furious persecution directed against the Monophysites by Ephrem, Melkite Patriarch of Antioch, and Abraham, bishop of Amida c. 520-541. Around 540 he returned to Constantinople and made it his residence.

In Constantinople he seems to have early won the notice of Justinian I, one of the main objects of whose policy was the consolidation of Eastern Christianity as a bulwark against the Zoroastrian power of Persia, through persecution of all the remaining pagans of the empire. John is said by Barhebraeus (Chron. eccl. i. 195) to have succeeded Anthimus as Miaphysite bishop of Constantinople, but this is probably a mistake. In any case, he enjoyed the emperor's favor until the death of the latter in 565 and (as he himself tells us) was entrusted with the administration of the entire revenues of the Miaphysite Church.

He was sent by Justinian on a mission for the conversion of such pagans as remained in Asia Minor in 542, and informs us that the number of those whom he baptized amounted to 70,000. It was thought that John was trying to convert these people to Miaphysitism. He also built a large monastery at Tralles on the hills skirting the valley of the Meander, and more than one hundred other monasteries and churches, mostly on top of demolished pagan temples. Of the mission to the Nubians which he may have promoted, though he did not himself visit their country, an interesting account is given in the 4th book of the 3rd part of his History. He was ordained bishop of Ephesus (Asia) for the anti-Chalcedonians in 558 by Jacob Baradaeus, although his title was largely nominal and he remained in Constantinople.

In 546, he collaborated with the emperor during a persecution targeting pagans in Constantinople and its neighborhood. He carried out this task faithfully, torturing all suspected of the "wicked heathenish error", as John himself calls it, and finding much worship of the ancestral gods amongst the Empire's aristocracy. But his fortunes changed soon after the accession of Justin II. About 571 John III the Scholasticus, the orthodox or Chalcedonian patriarch, began (with the sanction of the emperor) a rigorous persecution of the Miaphysite Church leaders, and John was among those who suffered most. John was imprisoned at Chalcedon. He gives us a detailed account of his sufferings in prison, confiscation of his property, etc., in the third part of his History. The latest events recorded are of the date 588, and the author cannot have lived much longer; but of the circumstances of his death nothing is known.

Writings
John's main work was his Ecclesiastical History, which covered more than six centuries, from the time of Julius Caesar to 588, although John himself employs the Seleucid era. It was composed in three parts, each containing six books. The first part seems to have wholly perished. The second, which extended from Theodosius II to the 6th or 7th year of Justin II, was, according to F. Nau, reproduced in full or almost in full in John's own words in the third part of the Zuqnin Chronicle, which was until recently mistakenly attributed to the patriarch Dionysius Telmaharensis. Modern research has shown that it is more likely that large parts are missing. Of this second division of John's History, in which he may have incorporated the so-called Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite, considerable portions are found in the British Library manuscripts Add. 14647 and 14650, and these have been published in the second volume of J. P. N. Land's Anecdota Syriaca. But the whole is more completely presented in the Vatican manuscript (Codex Zuquenensis, shelfmark Vatican Syriac 162), which incorporates much of John's chronicle in a kolophon dated to the eighth century. (English translation, with notes, by Amir Harrak, The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV (Toronto, 1999) and by Witold Witakowski, Pseudo-Dionysius of Tel-Mahre: Chronicle, Part III (Liverpool, 1997)).

The third part of John's history, which is a detailed account of the ecclesiastical events which happened in 571-588, as well as of some earlier occurrences, survives in a fairly complete state in Add. 14640, a British Museum manuscript of the seventh century. It forms a contemporary record of great value to the historian. Its somewhat disordered state, the want of chronological arrangement, and the occasional repetition of accounts of the same events are due, as the author himself informs us (ii. 50), to the work being almost entirely composed during the times of his imprisonment in Constantinople. The same cause may account for the somewhat slovenly Syriac style. The writer claims to have treated his subject impartially, and though written from the narrow point of view of one to whom Miaphysite Orthodoxy was all-important, it is largely a faithful reproduction of events as they occurred. This third part was edited by William Cureton (Oxford, 1853) and E.W. Brooks (CSCO 105, Louvain, 1935), and was translated - sometimes paraphrase - into English by Robert Payne Smith (Oxford, 1860), into German by J. M. Schonfelder (Munich, 1862) and into Latin by Brooks (CSCO 106, Louvain, 1936).

John's other known work was a series of Biographies of Eastern Saints, compiled about 565-7. The purpose of John's writing "Lives of eastern saints" was to show and talk about the lives of holy men and women of the Miaphysite faith. These stories about these people giving glory to god, and it was supposed to help bolster the faith of people that were persecuted and scattered throughout the Eastern Empire. These have been edited by Land in Anecdota Syriaca, ii. 1-288, and translated into Latin by van Douwen and Land (Amsterdam, 1889), and into English by Brooks (Patrologia Orientalis vols 17-19, 1923–26). An estimate of John as an ecclesiastic and author was given by the Louis Duchesne in a memoir read before the five French Academies on October 25, 1892.

Christ appears quite frequently in John's life and in the writings that he produces. John wrote the Lives of John of Tella and John of Hephaestopolis. In those writings, John talks about how he sees Christ as an example of humility. He believes that monks should follow this way of thinking. An example of this can be found in chapter 14, where John is told, 'He has … in his own person shown you humility', and humility is a universally important monastic virtue. Another example of Christ's teachings about humility also appears in another text, Life of Simeon. Where it talks about how whenever Simeon would get a visitor, he would wash their feet. It did not matter how many there were. The example that it is talking about is foot washing and how a holly man will do it no matter how insignificant the task might be. John talks about how he interprets Christ's teachings. He seeks to live to the fullest extent of Christ's teachings. He seeks like Christ did to serve others, be humble and wash the feet of others.[1]

Climatic observations
Writings by John of Ephesus describe the sun's light as going dim during the years 535 and 536 AD, which was subsequently followed by a cooling that lasted for just over a decade:

"There was a sign from the sun the like of which had never been seen or reported before. The sun became dark and its darkness lasted for eighteen months. Each day it shone for about four hours and still, this light was but a feeble shadow. Everyone declared that the sun would never recover its full light again."

Previously, these were explained as religiously symbolic or a local occurrence. These were shown to be, in 2010, an actual report of two distant volcanic eruptions which resulted in a dimming of the sun for close to two years and created an artificial winter in the Northern Hemisphere that lasted for just over a decade. A search for writings mentioning these dark years was undertaken when dendrochronologists around the world began to realize that the rings of ancient trees indicated that there was a miniature Ice Age lasting about two years that began at around this time. The hypothesis at that time was that it was possibly the result of a supervolcano that erupted in South America. A subsequent search puts forward that it may have been two different volcanoes that were some distance away from each other.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: John of Ephesus


text:
Autogenic training

Autogenic training is a relaxation technique first published by the German psychiatrist Johannes Heinrich Schultz in 1932. The technique involves repetitions of a set of visualisations accompanied by vocal suggestions that induce a state of relaxation and is based on passive concentration of bodily perceptions like heaviness and warmth of limbs, which are facilitated by self-suggestions. Autogenic training is used to alleviate many stress-induced psychosomatic disorders.

History
Autogenic training (AT) was first presented by German psychiatrist Johannes Heinrich Schultz in 1926 to the Medical Society in Berlin. Disenchanted with psychoanalysis in the 1920s, Schultz began exploring new therapeutic methods. His search was heavily influenced by his experience with German neurologist Oscar Vogt, with whom he researched sleep and hypnosis. Collecting data about hypnosis in his research with Vogt, Schultz found that the hypnotized often felt a feeling of heaviness in the extremities, as well as a feeling of pleasant warmth. Interested by this relationship, Schultz investigated whether imagining such heaviness and warmth in the limbs could lead to self-hypnosis. Under his guidance, Schultz's patients were able to go into a hypnotic state for a self-determined period of time by simply imagining a state of heaviness and warmth in one's limbs. These short-term mental exercises appeared to reduce stress or effects such as fatigue and tension while avoiding side effects such as headaches. Inspired by this research and Vogt's work, Johannes Heinrich Schultz became interested in the phenomenon of autosuggestion. He wanted to explore an approach to relaxation, which would avoid undesirable passivity of the patients and dependency on the therapist. To this end, Schultz developed a set of six exercises called autogenic training.

Autogenic training was popularized in North America and the English-speaking world by Wolfgang Luthe, a German physician, who worked under Schultz and investigated the effects of autogenic training on physical and mental health issues. Later on, when Luthe immigrated to Canada, he wrote about autogenic training in English, thereby introducing the English-speaking world to AT. With help from Schultz, Luthe published Autogenic Therapy, a multi-volume text that described AT in detail, in 1969. The publication of Autogenic Therapy brought AT to North America. Later on, his disciple Luis de Rivera, a McGill University-trained psychiatrist, introduced psychodynamic concepts into Luthe's approach, developing autogenic analysis as a new method for uncovering the unconscious.

More recently in 2015, biofeedback practitioners integrate basic elements of autogenic imagery and have simplified versions of parallel techniques that are used in combination with biofeedback. This was done at the Menninger Foundation by Elmer Green, Steve Fahrion, Patricia Norris, Joe Sargent, Dale Walters and others. They incorporated the hand warming imagery of autogenic training and used it as an aid to develop thermal biofeedback.

Technique
Autogenic training can be practiced in any comfortable posture, while keeping eyes closed. In autogenic training, the trainees engage in passive concentration. Passive concentration refers to concentrating on inner sensations rather than environmental stimuli.

The technique consists of six standard exercises according to Schultz:
 * 1) Muscular relaxation by repetition of a verbal formula, "My right arm is heavy", emphasizing heaviness. During the initial stages of the training, the feeling of heaviness in the trained arm is more expressed and occurs more rapidly. The same feeling can be experienced in the other extremities at the same time in the other arm. Within a week, a short concentration can trigger the sensation of heaviness in a trainee's arms and legs.
 * 2) Passive concentration focuses on feeling warm, initiated by the instruction "My right arm is warm".
 * 3) Initiation of cardiac activity using the formula "My heartbeat is calm and regular".
 * 4) Passive concentration on the respiratory mechanism with the formula "It breathes me".
 * 5) Concentration on the warmth in the abdominal region with "My solar plexus is warm" formula.
 * 6) Passive concentration on coolness in the cranial region with the formula "My forehead is cool".

When a new exercise step is added in autogenic training, the trainee should always concentrate initially on the already learned exercises and then add a new exercise. In the beginning, a new exercise is added for only brief periods.

According to the specific clinical needs, the training can be modified to include fewer formulas, or include a slightly different formula.

Benefits
The main benefit of autogenic training is the autonomic self-regulation achieved by removing environmental distraction, training imagery that accompanies autonomic self-regulation, and providing a facilitative set of exercises that are easy to learn and remember.

A study by Laci Spencer suggests that autogenic training restores the balance between the activity of the sympathetic (flight or fight) and the parasympathetic (rest and digest) branches of the autonomic nervous system. The author hypothesizes that this can have important health benefits, as the parasympathetic activity promotes digestion and bowel movements, lowers the blood pressure, slows the heart rate, and promotes the functions of the immune system.

A meta-analysis study by Friedhelm and Kupper found that autogenic training was effective in reducing symptoms of anxiety, depression, and insomnia. Additionally, autogenic training was found to have a positive effect on physical health outcomes, such as reducing pain and improving quality of life for individuals with chronic illnesses. They also found that AT was also effective in the following psychosomatic disorders: mild-to-moderate hypertension, coronary heart disease, Raynaud's disease, and tension headache and migraine.

Biological aspects
There is a lack of neurophysiological investigations addressing this topic; however, one EEG study from 1963 suggested that the decrease in afferent stimulation induces a reduction in reticulo-cortical activity, decrease in thalamo-cortical activity, and functional changes in the structures connected to reticular system (hypothalamus, limbic system, red nucleus, globus pallidus). The same study suggested that EEG patterns obtained from subjects with different level of practice are not similar.

Another study from 1958 hypothesized that autogenic state is between the normal waking state and sleep. It suggests that EEG patterns occurring during autogenic training are similar to electrophysiological changes occurring during initial stages of sleep.

Contraindications
Autogenic training is contra-indicated for children below the age of 5 and the individuals whose symptoms cannot be controlled.

Applications
Autogenic training has different applications and is used in a variety of pathophysiological conditions, such as bronchial asthma or hypertension, as well as psychological disorders e.g. anxiety and depression. Autogenic training has been subject to clinical evaluation from its early days in Germany, and from the early 1980s worldwide. In 2002, a meta-analysis of 60 studies was published in Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, finding significant positive effects of treatment when compared to normals over a number of diagnoses; finding these effects to be similar to best recommended rival therapies; and finding positive additional effects by patients, such as their perceived quality of life. Autogenic training is recommended in the 2016 European Society of Cardiology Guideline for prevention of cardiovascular disease in persons who experience psychosocial problems. The International Journal of Dermatology conducted a study and found that Autogenic Training was potentially helpful for improving aged skin in women experiencing menopause.

Compared to other relaxation techniques
The principle of passive concentration in autogenic training makes this technique different from other relaxation techniques such as progressive muscle relaxation and biofeedback, in which trainees try to control physiological functions. As in biofeedback, bidirectional change in physiological activity is possible. Autogenic training is classified as a self-hypnotic technique. It is different from hetero-hypnosis, where trance is induced by another individual. Autogenic training emphasizes a trainee's independence and gives control from therapist to the trainee. By this, the need for physiological feedback devices or a hypnotherapist is eliminated.

title: Autogenic training


text:
Talk:Barking, London

}}

Schools
A lot of the schools listed here aren't exactly in Barking, All Saints RC school for one. I suggest that this list gets moved the the 'London Bourgh of Barking and Dagenham page'.

Maybe list the ones that are specifically in Barking here, and the ones in Dagenham on the Dagenham article, and also list all of them in the page you suggest? - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» T 21:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with splitting things into separate 'Barking' and 'Dagenham' sections or articles is that the areas are not very well defined. The postal boundary between the two is somewhat further east than the now obsolete administrative boundary that separated the two boroughs until 1964 - which boundary also separated the Barking and Dagenham parliamentary constituencies until more recently. (The current Dagenham and Rainham constituency only includes the easternmost wards of B&D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambig
Should disambiguate dog language and seal language; the former particularly deserves an article. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:15, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Restoration
I have restored the fishing section to how it was before all the vandalism, as someone, for some stupid reason, deleted the whole fishing section instead of just the vandalism The current sections should remain pretty much as they are.

Bourbons3 15:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * This text is still a bit dodgy:

 * but ben who is a golf legend he has substained and made his own golf course called adam loves lee he is now a millionair in barking but independent at least from the Tudor period.

 * MRSC 15:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ill edit the grammer and spelling, and look into the subject to see if it has any truth in it

Bourbons3 17:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ext Links
I have noticed that a link to "barking on the web" is being continually added and removed. Do those concerned want to discuss it inclusion/non-inclusion here instead? Best Darigan (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Counties
This doesn't only apply to Barking, but what is Wikipedia's convention on giving counties for UK place names? In the case of Barking, the Essex (seen in some articles) is useful for distinguishing it from Barking nr Ipswich, but Barking hasn't been part of Essex for Local Government purposes since 1965.

Also, as Barking was in Essex until 1964, when referring to events there before 1965, should articles stick to Essex (accurate at the time) or use some other place name (Greater London, say)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.53.2 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As I understand it the convention is to use the current county, except when referring the history of a place. So for example you might refer to Barking being in Essex in 1964, but anything current should refer to it being in Greater London. Pterre (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that is the current convention, but it is not a very helpful one. Most of the people who live in the outlying boroughs of Greater London - the ones that were 'grabbed' when the GLC was set up, like Romford (Essex), Bromley (Kent), and Richmond (Surrey) - continue to use the old county names, and will probably do so for another hundred years.  I live in the London Borough of Croydon, which has been a London borough for much longer than Barking or Romford, but many people still refer to it in their postal address as 'Croydon, Surrey'.  I think to avoid confusion articles like this should at least make it clear that the old names are still in common use.  Otherwise people will come here after Googling 'Barking Essex' and then wonder if they have got the right Barking.109.158.132.88 (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Croydon has been a London borough for the same length of time as every other London Borough, i.e since 1965. And for that matter the same length of time as places such as Wood Green, Tottenham, etc. Pterre (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Greater London is not a county, and it is at least very doubtful that Essex has the same boundaries now as it has since "ever", even if the Essex County Council's area is diffferent.

Greater London is a ceremonial county, but not an administrative county, nor an historic or traditional county. Neither was it a postal county; many people use that as determinant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Deprivation - country
In the section about deprivation, there is a mention of [nth] "most deprived in the country". This is ambiguous here. The country could be England, [Great] Britain or the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Barking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100602000714/http://www.london.gov.uk:80/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/thelondonplan/docs/londonplan08.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716200107/http://www.met.police.uk/msu/history.htm to http://www.met.police.uk/msu/history.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926223705/http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/9-democracy/mayor/mayor-past.html to http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/9-democracy/mayor/mayor-past.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113061809/http://historyofstratford.co.uk/Barking/Barking-index.shtml to http://historyofstratford.co.uk/Barking/Barking-index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Barking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526033102/http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/4-heritage/maritime/fish-maritime-menu.html to http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/4-heritage/maritime/fish-maritime-menu.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100922074237/http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/4-arts-culture/thecatch/thecatch.html to http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/4-arts-culture/thecatch/thecatch.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614101432/http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/5-work/regeneration/riverside/barking-riverside/barking-riverside.html to http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/5-work/regeneration/riverside/barking-riverside/barking-riverside.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024074249/http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/barking-scheme-to-get-rail-link/6529080.article to http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/development/barking-scheme-to-get-rail-link/6529080.article
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614101432/http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/5-work/regeneration/riverside/barking-riverside/barking-riverside.html to http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/5-work/regeneration/riverside/barking-riverside/barking-riverside.html
 * Added tag to http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/4-arts-culture/public-art/barking-town-lady.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

South of the River Thames
The opening section says "its economic history is characterised by a shift from fishing and farming to market gardening and industrial development south of the River Thames." What has south of the River Thames got to do with Barking? Did the writer mean south of the A13 / on the north bank of the Thames? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.34.78 (talk) 10:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Barking mad"
Although the cited source states that the first appearance of the phrase is from the 20th century in the US, I have found some 19th-century appearances of the phrase on Google books: All are attributed to William Knox Wigram (or his pseudonym Hookanit Bee). (There is a bit about him in the article on his father, Octavius Wigram.)
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=XzpcAAAAcAAJ&dq=%22barking%20mad%22&pg=PA147#v=onepage&q=%22barking%20mad%22&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=Te4BAAAAQAAJ&dq=%22barking%20mad%22&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=%22barking%20mad%22&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=L08CAAAAQAAJ&dq=%22barking%20mad%22&pg=PA128#v=onepage&q=%22barking%20mad%22&f=false

Of course this still doesn't connect the phrase to the town.— Theodore Kloba (☎) 14:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

 * Regardless of any historical connection of the phrase with the town, I wonder if there are reliable sources about any current connection of the town with the phrase? Jackaroodave (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Barking (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Population
The population quoted at the beginning of the article is the total of Abbey, Eastbury, Gascoigne, Longbridge, and Thames wards as per the 2011 census. I can see when in edit mode a claim that these wards make up Barking, but I can't determine what the source of this claim is. In fact the same article gives a different definition of Barking - Abbey, Eastbury, Gascoigne and Longbridge wards.

I have made the text less ambiguous: Barking, without context/qualification, could mean the parliamentary constituency, which from 2010 comprised all the LBB&D wards except the easternmost ones, or it could mean the post town. To say anything about barking with any accuracy requires disambiguation of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.135.239 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Barking, London


text:
Forest Hills

Forest Hills or Forrest Hills may refer to:

United States

 * Forest Hills (Tampa), Florida
 * Forest Hills, Illinois, a neighborhood in Western Springs
 * Forest Hills, Kentucky
 * Forest Hills, Boston, Massachusetts
 * Forest Hills Cemetery
 * Forest Hills, Michigan
 * Forest Hills, Queens, in New York City
 * Forest Hills, North Carolina
 * Forest Hills, Pennsylvania
 * Forest Hills, Tennessee
 * Forrest Hills, Tennessee
 * Forest Hills, Dallas, Texas
 * Forest Hills, Virginia
 * Forest Hills, Kanawha County, West Virginia
 * Forest Hills (Washington, D.C.)

Elsewhere

 * Forest Hills, Nova Scotia, Canada
 * Forest Hills, Kloof, South Africa

Schools

 * Forest Hills High School (disambiguation)
 * Forest Hills Public Schools, Kent County, Michigan
 * Forest Hills Local School District, a public school district in Hamilton County, Ohio
 * Forest Hills School District, a public school district in Cambria County, Pennsylvania

title: Forest Hills


text:
End of World War II in Europe

The final battles of the European theatre of World War II continued after the definitive surrender of Nazi Germany to the Allies, signed by Field marshal Wilhelm Keitel on 8 May 1945 (VE Day) in Karlshorst, Berlin. After German leader Adolf Hitler's suicide and handing over of power to grand admiral Karl Dönitz on the last day of April 1945, Soviet troops conquered Berlin and accepted surrender of the Dönitz-led government. The last battles were fought on the Eastern Front which ended in the total surrender of all of Nazi Germany’s remaining armed forces such as in the Courland Pocket in western Latvia from Army Group Courland in the Baltics surrendering on 10 May 1945 and in Czechoslovakia during the Prague offensive on 11 May 1945.

Final events before the end of the war in Europe
Allied forces begin to take large numbers of Axis prisoners: The total number of prisoners taken on the Western Front in April 1945 by the Western Allies was 1,500,000. April also witnessed the capture of at least 120,000 German troops by the Western Allies in the last campaign of the war in Italy. In the three to four months up to the end of April, over 800,000 German soldiers surrendered on the Eastern Front. In early April, the first Allied-governed Rheinwiesenlager camps were established in western Germany to hold hundreds of thousands of captured or surrendered Axis Forces personnel. Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) reclassified all prisoners as Disarmed Enemy Forces, not POWs (prisoners of war). The legal fiction circumvented provisions under the Geneva Convention of 1929 on the treatment of former combatants. By October, thousands had died in the camps from starvation, exposure and disease.

Liberation of Nazi concentration camps and refugees: Allied forces began to discover the scale of the Holocaust, confirming the findings of Pilecki's 1943 Report. The advance into Germany uncovered numerous Nazi concentration camps and forced labour facilities. Up to 60,000 prisoners were at Bergen-Belsen when it was liberated on 15 April 1945, by the British 11th Armoured Division. Four days later troops from the American 42nd Infantry Division found Dachau. Allied troops forced the remaining SS guards to gather up the corpses and place them in mass graves. Due to the prisoners' poor physical condition, thousands continued to die after liberation. Captured SS guards were subsequently tried at Allied war crime tribunals where many were sentenced to death. Some Nazi guards and personnel were killed outright upon the discovery of their crimes. However, up to 10,000 Nazi war criminals eventually fled Europe using ratlines.

German forces withdraw from Finland: On 25 April 1945, the last German troops withdrew from Finnish Lapland and made their way into occupied Norway. On 27 April 1945, the Raising the Flag on the Three-Country Cairn photograph was taken.

Mussolini is executed: On 25 April 1945, Italian partisans liberated Milan and Turin. On 27 April 1945, as Allied forces closed in on Milan, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini was captured by Italian partisans. It is disputed whether he was trying to flee from Italy to Switzerland (through the Splügen Pass), and was travelling with a German anti-aircraft battalion. On 28 April, Mussolini was executed in Giulino (a civil parish of Mezzegra); the other fascists captured with him were taken to Dongo and executed there. The bodies were then taken to Milan and hung up on the Piazzale Loreto of the city. On 29 April, Rodolfo Graziani surrendered all Fascist Italian armed forces at Caserta. This included Army Group Liguria. Graziani was the Minister of Defence for Mussolini's Italian Social Republic.

Hitler dies by suicide: On 30 April 1945, as the Battle of Nuremberg and the Battle of Hamburg ended with American and British occupation, in addition to the Battle in Berlin raging above him with the Soviets surrounding the city, along with his escape route cut off by the Americans, realizing that all was lost and not wishing to suffer Mussolini's fate, German dictator Adolf Hitler died by suicide in his Führerbunker along with Eva Braun, his long-term partner whom he had married less than 40 hours earlier. In his will, Hitler dismissed Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, his second-in-command, and Interior minister Heinrich Himmler after each of them separately tried to seize control of the crumbling remains of Nazi Germany. Hitler appointed his successors as follows; Großadmiral Karl Dönitz as the new Reichspräsident ("President of Germany") and Joseph Goebbels as the new Reichskanzler (Chancellor of Germany). However, Goebbels died by suicide the next day, leaving Dönitz as the sole leader of Germany.

German forces in Italy surrender: On 29 April, the day before Hitler died, Oberstleutnant Schweinitz and Sturmbannführer Wenner, plenipotentiaries for Generaloberst Heinrich von Vietinghoff and SS Obergruppenführer Karl Wolff, signed a surrender document at Caserta after prolonged unauthorised secret negotiations with the Western Allies, which were viewed with great suspicion by the Soviet Union as trying to reach a separate peace. In the document, the Germans agreed to a ceasefire and surrender of all the forces under the command of Vietinghoff on 2 May at 2 pm. Accordingly, after some bitter wrangling between Wolff and Albert Kesselring in the early hours of 2 May, nearly 1,000,000 men in Italy and Austria surrendered unconditionally to British Field Marshal Sir Harold Alexander on 2 May at 2 pm.

German forces in Berlin surrender: The Battle of Berlin ended on 2 May. On that date, General der Artillerie Helmuth Weidling, the commander of the Berlin Defense Area, unconditionally surrendered the city to General Vasily Chuikov of the Red Army. On the same day the officers commanding the two armies of Army Group Vistula north of Berlin, (General Kurt von Tippelskirch, commander of the German 21st Army and General Hasso von Manteuffel, commander of Third Panzer Army), surrendered to the Western Allies. 2 May is also believed to have been the day when Hitler's deputy Martin Bormann died, from the account of Artur Axmann who saw Bormann's corpse in Berlin near the Lehrter Bahnhof railway station after encountering a Soviet Red Army patrol. Lehrter Bahnhof is close to where the remains of Bormann, confirmed as his by a DNA test in 1998, were unearthed on 7 December 1972.

German forces in North West Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands surrender: On 4 May 1945, the British Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery took the unconditional military surrender at Lüneburg from Generaladmiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg, and General Eberhard Kinzel, of all German forces "in Holland [sic], in northwest Germany including the Frisian Islands and Heligoland and all other islands, in Schleswig-Holstein, and in Denmark… includ[ing] all naval ships in these areas", at the Timeloberg on Lüneburg Heath; an area between the cities of Hamburg, Hanover and Bremen. The number of German land, sea and air forces involved in this surrender amounted to 1,000,000 men. On 5 May, Großadmiral Dönitz ordered all U-boats to cease offensive operations and return to their bases. At 16:00 on 5 May, German Oberbefehlshaber Niederlande supreme commander Generaloberst Johannes Blaskowitz surrendered to I Canadian Corps commander Lieutenant-General Charles Foulkes in the Dutch town of Wageningen, in the presence of Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (acting as commander-in-chief of the Dutch Interior Forces).

German forces in Bavaria surrender: At 14:30 on 5 May 1945, General Hermann Foertsch surrendered all forces between the Bohemian mountains and the Upper Inn river to the American General Jacob L. Devers, commander of the American 6th Army Group.

Central Europe: On 5 May 1945, the Czech resistance started the Prague uprising. The following day, the Soviets launched the Prague offensive. In Dresden, Gauleiter Martin Mutschmann let it be known that a large-scale German offensive on the Eastern Front was about to be launched. Within two days, Mutschmann abandoned the city but was captured by Soviet troops while trying to escape.

Hermann Göring's surrender: On 6 May, Reichsmarshall and Hitler's second-in-command Hermann Göring surrendered to General Carl Spaatz, who was the commander of the operational United States Air Forces in Europe, along with his wife and daughter at the Germany-Austria border.

German forces in Breslau surrender: At 18:00 on 6 May, General Hermann Niehoff, the commandant of Breslau, a 'fortress' city surrounded and besieged for months, surrendered to the Soviets.

Jodl and Keitel surrender all German armed forces unconditionally: Thirty minutes after the fall of "Festung Breslau" (Fortress Breslau), General Alfred Jodl arrived in Reims and, following Dönitz's instructions, offered to surrender all forces fighting the Western Allies. This was exactly the same negotiating position that von Friedeburg had initially made to Montgomery, and like Montgomery, the Supreme Allied Commander, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, threatened to break off all negotiations unless the Germans agreed to a complete unconditional surrender to all the Allies on all fronts. Eisenhower explicitly told Jodl that he would order western lines closed to German soldiers, thus forcing them to surrender to the Soviets. Jodl sent a signal to Dönitz, who was in Flensburg, informing him of Eisenhower's declaration. Shortly after midnight, Dönitz, accepting the inevitable, sent a signal to Jodl authorizing the complete and total surrender of all German forces.

Channel Islanders were informed about the German surrender after: At 10:00 on 8 May, the Channel Islanders were informed by the German authorities that the war was over. British prime minister Winston Churchill made a radio broadcast at 15:00 during which he announced: "Hostilities will end officially at one minute after midnight tonight, but in the interests of saving lives the 'Cease fire' began yesterday to be sounded all along the front, and our dear Channel Islands are also to be freed today."

At 02:41 on the morning of 7 May, at SHAEF headquarters in Reims, France, the chief-of-staff of the German Armed Forces High Command, General Alfred Jodl, signed an unconditional surrender document for all German forces to the Allies. General Franz Böhme announced the unconditional surrender of German troops in Norway on 7 May. It included the phrase "All forces under German control to cease active operations at 23:01 hours Central European Time on May 8, 1945." The next day, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel and other German OKW representatives travelled to Berlin, and shortly before midnight signed another document of unconditional surrender, again surrendering to all the Allied forces, this time in the presence of Marshal Georgy Zhukov and representatives of SHAEF. The signing ceremony took place in a former German Army Engineering School in the Berlin district of Karlshorst; it now houses the German-Russian Museum Berlin-Karlshorst.

Aftermath of the war
VE-Day: Following news of the German surrender, spontaneous celebrations erupted all over the world on 7 May, including in Western Europe and the United States. As the Germans officially set the end of operations for 2301 Central European Time on 8 May, that day is celebrated across Europe as V-E Day. Most of the former Soviet Union celebrates Victory Day on 9 May, as the end of operations occurred after midnight Moscow Time.

 * On 8 May, Muslims in French Algeria celebrating the end of the war became the targets of violence and massacres by colonial authorities and pied-noir settler militias, which would continue until 26 June 1945. While largely overlooked in metropolitan France, the impact on the Algerian Muslim population was traumatic, becoming a precursor to the Algerian War nine years later.

German units cease fire: Although the military commanders of most German forces obeyed the order to surrender issued by the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW)—the German Armed Forces High Command—not all commanders did so. The largest contingent was Army Group Centre under the command of Generalfeldmarschall Ferdinand Schörner, who had been promoted to Commander-in-Chief of the Army on 30 April in Hitler's last will and testament. On 8 May, Schörner deserted his command and flew to Austria; the Soviet Army sent overwhelming force against Army Group Centre in the Prague offensive, forcing many of the German units in there to capitulate by 11 May. The other units of the Army Group which did not surrender on 8 May were forced to surrender.
 * On, 9 May, the Second Army, under the command of General von Saucken, on the Heiligenbeil and Danzig beachheads, on the Hel Peninsula in the Vistula delta surrendered; as did the forces on the Greek islands; and the garrisons of most of the last Atlantic pockets in France, in Dunkirk and La Rochelle (after the Allied siege).
 * The Atlantic Pocket of Lorient surrendered on 10 May.
 * The Atlantic Pocket of Saint-Nazaire surrendered on 11 May.
 * The Battle of Slivice, the last battle in occupied Czechoslovakia, occurred on 12 May.
 * On 13 May, the Red Army halted all offensives in Europe. Isolated pockets of resistance in Czechoslovakia were mopped up by this date.
 * The garrison on Minquiers, one of the Channel Islands occupied by the Germans, surrendered on 23 May, one week after the garrison on Alderney, and two weeks after the garrisons on Guernsey and Jersey had surrendered (on 9 May) and those on Sark (on 10 May).
 * A military engagement took place in Yugoslavia (today's Slovenia), on 14 and 15 May, known as the Battle of Poljana.
 * The fighting during the Georgian uprising on Texel in the Netherlands lasted until 20 May.
 * The last battle in Europe, the Battle of Odžak between the Yugoslav Army and the Croatian Armed Forces, concluded on 25 May. The remaining Croatian soldiers escaped to the forest.
 * German forces on Ameland and Schiermonnikoog, 2 Dutch islands in the Wadden Sea, surrendered on 3 and 11 June respectively. The latter was the last German force in the Netherlands to surrender.
 * A small group of German soldiers, deployed on Svalbard in Operation Haudegen to establish and man a weather station there, lost radio contact in May 1945; they surrendered to some Norwegian seal hunters on 6 September, four days after Japan formally surrendered.

Debellation: At the time the Allied powers assumed that a debellation had occurred (the end of a war caused by the complete destruction of a hostile state), and their actions during the immediate post war period were based on that legal premise (however, the German government's legal position during and following the reunification of Germany is that the state remained in existence although moribund in the immediate post war period).

Dönitz government ordered dissolved by Eisenhower: Karl Dönitz continued to act as if he were the German head of state, but his Flensburg Government (so called because it was based at Flensburg in northern Germany and controlled only a small area around the town), was not recognized by the Allies. On 12 May an Allied liaison team arrived in Flensburg and took quarters aboard the passenger ship Patria. The liaison officers and the Supreme Allied Headquarters soon realized that they had no need to act through the Flensburg government and that its members should be arrested. On 23 May, acting on SHAEF's orders and with the approval of the Soviets, American Major General Rooks summoned Dönitz aboard the Patria and communicated to him that he and all the members of his Government were under arrest and that their government was dissolved. The Allies had a problem because they realized that although the German armed forces had surrendered unconditionally, SHAEF had failed to use the document created by the "European Advisory Commission" (EAC) and so there had been no formal surrender by the civilian German government. This was considered a very important issue, because just as the civilian, but not military, surrender in 1918 had been used by Hitler to create the "stab in the back" argument, the Allies did not want to give any future hostile German regime a legal argument to resurrect an old quarrel.

On 20 September 1945, the Allied Control Council passed its Control Council Law No. 1 - Repealing of Nazi Laws, which repealed numerous pieces of legislation enacted by the national-socialist regime, putting a de jure end to the Government of Nazi Germany. Incidentally, this law should have theoretically reestablished the Weimar Constitution; however, this constitution stayed irrelevant on the grounds of the powers of the Allied Control Council acting as occupying forces. On 10 October 1945, Control Council Law No. 2 was also passed, formally abolishing all national socialist organisations.

Declaration Regarding the Defeat of Germany and the Assumption of Supreme Authority by Allied Powers was signed by the four Allies on 5 June. It included the following:

"The Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, hereby assume supreme authority with respect to Germany, including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the High Command and any state, municipal, or local government or authority. The assumption, for the purposes stated above, of the said authority and powers does not effect the annexation of Germany [i.e., the document does not authorize the Allies to annex Germany]."

The Potsdam Agreement was signed on 1 August 1945. In connection with this, the leaders of the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union planned the new postwar German government, resettled war territory boundaries, de facto annexed a quarter of pre-war Germany situated east of the Oder–Neisse line, and mandated and organized the expulsion of the millions of Germans who remained in the annexed territories and elsewhere in the east. They also ordered German demilitarization, denazification, industrial disarmament and settlements of war reparations. But, as France (at American insistence) had not been invited to the Potsdam Conference, so the French representatives on the Allied Control Council subsequently refused to recognise any obligation to implement the Potsdam Agreement; with the consequence that much of the programme envisaged at Potsdam, for the establishment of a German government and state adequate for accepting a peace settlement, remained a dead letter.

Operation Keelhaul began the Allies' forced repatriation of displaced persons, families, anti-communists, White Russians, former Soviet Armed Forces POWs, foreign slave workers, soldier volunteers and Cossacks, and Nazi collaborators to the Soviet Union. Between 14 August 1946 and 9 May 1947, up to five million people were forcibly handed over to the Soviets. On return, most deportees faced imprisonment or execution; on some occasions the NKVD began killing people before Allied troops had departed from the rendezvous points.

The Allied Control Council was created to effect the Allies' assumed supreme authority over Germany, specifically to implement their assumed joint authority over Germany. On 30 August, the Control Council constituted itself and issued its first proclamation, which informed the German people of the council's existence and asserted that the commands and directives issued by the Commanders-in-Chief in their respective zones were not affected by the establishment of the council.

Cessation of formal hostilities and peace treaties
Cessation of hostilities between the United States and Germany was proclaimed on 13 December 1946 by US President Truman.

The Paris Peace Conference ended on 10 February 1947 with the signing of peace treaties by the wartime Allies with the former European Axis powers (Italy, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria) and their co-belligerent ally Finland.

The Federal Republic of Germany, which had been founded on 23 May 1949 (when its Basic Law was promulgated), had its first government formed on 20 September 1949 while the German Democratic Republic was formed on 7 October.

End of state of war with Germany was declared by many former Western Allies from 1950. In the Petersberg Agreement of 22 November 1949, it was noted that the West German government wanted an end to the state of war, but the request could not be granted. The US state of war with Germany was being maintained for legal reasons, and though it was softened somewhat it was not suspended since "the US wants to retain a legal basis for keeping a US force in Western Germany". At a meeting for the foreign ministers of France, the UK, and the US in New York from 12 September – 19 December 1950, it was stated that among other measures to strengthen West Germany's position in the Cold War that the western allies would "end by legislation the state of war with Germany". In 1951, many former Western Allies did end their state of war with Germany: Australia (9 July), Canada, Italy, New Zealand, the Netherlands (26 July), South Africa, the United Kingdom (9 July), and the United States (19 October). The state of war between Germany and the Soviet Union was ended in early 1955.

"The full authority of a sovereign state" was granted to the Federal Republic of Germany on 5 May 1955 under the terms of the Bonn–Paris conventions. The treaty ended the military occupation of West German territory, but the three occupying powers retained some special rights, e.g. vis-à-vis West Berlin.

The Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany was signed following the 1990 German reunification, whereby the Four Powers renounced all rights they formerly held in the newly single country, including Berlin. The treaty came into force on 15 March 1991. Under the terms of the Treaty, the Allies were allowed to keep troops in Berlin until the end of 1994 (articles 4 and 5). In accordance with the Treaty, occupying troops were withdrawn by that deadline.

title: End of World War II in Europe


text:
Talk:Orion (constellation)

Islamic astronomy
I think the phrase 'Muslim astronomy' should be replaced by 'Islamic astronomy' or 'Arab astronomy', that is, the text should refer to a civilisation or to a culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baba Arouj (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2016 March 27 (UTC)

Arabic names of stars in Orion
In the short section on the Middle East it is mentioned that Orion's 6th largest star bears a name derived from Arabic astronomy. It is for some reason or other not mentioned that the name of the constellation's largest star (Rigel) derives from the same source (as is made clear in the beginning of the article). I find this confusing and think it should be corrected: Either mention all major stars in Orion with Arabic names or mention only the largest (Rigel). (I just checked the individual stars in WP, and it appears that all the 7 major stars in Orion have Arabic names, except for Bellatrix, and even that may be a loose Latin translation of an Arabic word with similar meaning.) Filursiax (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

In table of example stars, Anlitak should be 1260 ly - the number listed is parsecs
In table of example stars, Anlitak should be 1260 ly - the number listed is parsecs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.156.16 (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Orion (constellation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730024847/http://museumvictoria.com.au/DiscoveryCentre/Infosheets/Planets/Sky-Tour-for-Binoculars---Orion/ to http://museumvictoria.com.au/DiscoveryCentre/Infosheets/Planets/Sky-Tour-for-Binoculars---Orion/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130421003231/http://old.orionsarm.com/galactography/views_of_Orion.html to http://old.orionsarm.com/galactography/views_of_Orion.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons upload
Uploaded to wikipedia commons: If any editors think it is useful, feel free to use it. By flying on an imaginary trip to Orion, it illustrates that there are many faint stars between us and the familiar asterism. The stars that make up the asterism are very far and very bright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony873004 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Your animation is really very good and very educational. I placed it (as a link) in the article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation. What would be better, however, would be to give the start image 2 seconds (to give time to read the constellation) and the end image 1 second. In fact, the ideal would be to connect the stars of Orion by straight segments in the first image (since WP often aimed at beginners). Sincerely, 15:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Tony73004 ! I understand that you are in a Wikilow period. I make the delay modifications on your animation! Thank you for everything ! Sincerely, Bernard de Go Mars (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

DSO locators
Orion is extremely useful in pathfinding to various amounts of DSOs. Most notably: the Rosette nebula, which can path to the Cone nebula. Should DSO locators originating from Orion be added? Whineinstein (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong distances?
The distances given for Alnilam are wildly different from those on the star's page, for example, and very few seem to match those of today's APOD
 * APOD is just using Hipparcos parallaxes. There are often better distances for these well-studied stars, which Wikipedia may be quoting.  Point out if you really think any of the star articles have an inappropriate distance, but I suspect they are all pretty sensible.  In many cases, there will be a discussion in the body of the article about different published distances, but the starbox will usually just give one.  Lithopsian (talk)

 * The problem is that the info about Alnilam being 'nearly twice the distance as the other two belt stars' is contradicted by the table. Either the table is wrong or that sentence is wrong 51.52.43.171 (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022
Alnilam is approximately xxxx 1340 xxxxx <<< >> light years away from Earth 109.42.176.77 (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Adorant of Geißenklösterle
This article repeats the claim by Michael Rappenglück that the adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave is a depiction of Orion. The sources cited for this are:

 * Rappenglück's own article publishing the claim
 * A UNESCO world heritage web page (current url) for which the credited author is … Rappenglück
 * A BBC report in which Rappenglück is interviewed by David Whitehouse (not the accomplished archaeologist, but the pop astronomy writer) and taken thoroughly at his word

I remember reading that BBC report in 2003 and rolling my eyes. Yes, the plate is a human artifact. Yes, it depicts a human form, but … the constellation Orion, really? If Wikipedia is to state it as fact that an interpretation of a star-form has persisted over 25,000+ years, it should base that on more than Rappenglück's triple say-so. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 06:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Following on the remarks above, please remove the first sentence under "History and Mythology" according to WP:PROFRINGE and WP:NFRINGE. As ResearchGate shows, Rappenglück is not a credible or recognized researcher. The only school that he is affiliated with, vhs Gilching, is a community adult education center where he is the staff astronomer (or as he says it, "head of the astronomy department"). He almost never has collaborators, except when he is writing on the similarly troubled Chiemgau impact hypothesis, so his assertions about astronomy may have authority but not those about anthropology. His method is standard cargo cult science, in which he reaches his desired conclusions by supplementing the evidence with as many convenient assumptions as necessary. I can't very well illustrate that with the Orion thesis because it received no attention other than uncritical repetition, but in the case of Chiemgau this page discusses the methodological flaws and the critiques that have been published in response. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

In progress: An editor is implementing the requested edit. Xan747 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

✅. I decided to not wholesale delete the first sentence as requested, but rather take the assertion out of wikivoice and characterize it as a claim rebutted by scholars: There are claims in popular media that the Adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave, an ivory carving estimated to be 35,000 to 40,000 years old, is the first known depiction of the constellation. Scholars dismiss such interpretations, saying that perceived details such as a belt and sword derive from preexisting features in the grain structure of the ivory. My reasoning is that some readers may have heard the popular claim, but not its rebuttal. Let me know if you find this objectionable and we can work on it. Xan747 (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

 * Well, that is sort of increasing the weight in the article of an outlier view, and digressing further from the purpose of introducing the whole section. If the subject had to be covered somewhere in the section, the "European folklore" subsection seems the most relevant. At the end, perhaps. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I moved it to the end of the section you suggested. Xan747 (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

HH212
I can't find this Orion object on WP: https://ts2.space/en/hh212-the-enigmatic-star-unleashing-incredible-jets-of-gas/

Does it need a new page, or under Protostar maybe? John a s (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Winter?
The lead says that Orion is visible in winter. It might be betto clarify this. I'm not sure if winter has a specific meaning in astronomy, but a non expert audience will likely understand it as meaning the regular season. However, this is also ambiguous since not all areas have winter, or don't have it at the same time.

So, can it either be made clear if there is specific technical meaning peculiar to astronomy or otherwise do as later in the article and specify a range of months? 14.202.143.139 (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Persian Image
It appears to me that the Persian image is a horizontal reflection of all of the other images. Am I wrong?

title: Talk:Orion (constellation)


text:
Battle of Pinkie

The Battle of Pinkie, also known as the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh, took place on 10 September 1547 on the banks of the River Esk near Musselburgh, Scotland. The last pitched battle between Scotland and England before the Union of the Crowns, it was part of the conflict known as the Rough Wooing. It was a catastrophic defeat for Scotland, where it became known as "Black Saturday". A highly detailed and illustrated English account of the battle and campaign authored by an eyewitness William Patten was published in London as propaganda four months after the battle.

Background
In the last years of his reign, King Henry VIII of England tried to secure an alliance with Scotland by the marriage of the infant Mary, Queen of Scots, to his young son, the future Edward VI. When diplomacy failed, and Scotland was on the point of an alliance with France, he launched a war against Scotland that has become known as the Rough Wooing. The war also had a religious aspect; some Scots opposed an alliance that would bring religious Reformation on English terms. During the battle, the Scots taunted the English soldiers as "loons" (persons of no consequence. A “loon” in Scots and Doric is a male child), "tykes," and "heretics". The Earl of Angus, who is said to have arrived with monks "the professors of the Gospel", the heavy pikemen of the Lowlands, eight thousand strong, was in the lead.

When Henry VIII died in 1547, Edward Seymour, maternal uncle of Edward VI, became Lord Protector and Duke of Somerset, with (initially) unchallenged power. He continued the policy of seeking forcible alliance with Scotland by demanding both the marriage of Mary to Edward, and the imposition of an Anglican Reformation on the Scottish Church. Early in September, he led a well-equipped army into Scotland, supported by a large fleet. The Earl of Arran, Scottish Regent at the time, was forewarned by letters from Adam Otterburn, his representative in London, who had observed English war preparations. Otterburn may have seen the leather horse armour made by the workshops of Nicholas Bellin of Modena and Hans Hunter.

Campaign
Somerset's army was partly composed of the traditional county levies, summoned by Commissions of Array and armed with longbow and bill as they had been at the Battle of Flodden, thirty years before. However, Somerset also had several hundred German mercenary arquebusiers, a large and well-appointed artillery train, and 6,000 cavalry, including a contingent of Spanish and Italian mounted arquebusiers under Pedro de Gamboa. The cavalry were commanded by Lord Grey of Wilton, as High Marshal of the Army, and the infantry by the Earl of Warwick, Lord Dacre of Gillesland, and Somerset himself. William Patten, an officer of the English army, recorded its numbers as 16,800 fighting men and 1,400 "pioneers" or labourers.

Somerset advanced along the east coast of Scotland to maintain contact with his fleet and thereby keep in supply. Scottish border reivers harassed his troops but could impose no major check to their advance. The English captured and slighted Innerwick Castle and Thornton Castle. He camped at Longniddry on 7 September.

To the west, a diversionary English invasion of 5,000 men was led by Thomas Wharton and the Scottish dissident Earl of Lennox. On 8 September they took Castlemilk in Annandale and burnt Annan after a bitter struggle to capture its fortified church.

To oppose the English south of Edinburgh, the Earl of Arran had raised a large army, consisting mainly of pikemen with contingents of Highland archers. Arran also had large numbers of guns, but these were apparently not as mobile or as well-served as Somerset's. Arran had his artillery refurbished in August, after the siege of St Andrews Castle, with new gunstocks made from woods of "Aberdagy" and Inverleith. The Lord Treasurer's account describes this work as preparation "against the feild of Pynkie Cleuch."

Arran's cavalry consisted of 2,000 lightly equipped riders under the Earl of Home, most of whom were potentially unreliable Borderers. His infantry and pikemen were commanded by the Earl of Angus, the Earl of Huntly and Arran himself. According to Huntly, the Scottish army numbered 22,000 or 23,000 men, while an English source claimed that it comprised 36,000.

Arran occupied the slopes on the west bank of the River Esk to bar Somerset's progress. The Firth of Forth was on his left flank, and a large bog protected his right. Some fortifications were constructed in which cannon and arquebuses were mounted. Some guns pointed out into the Forth to keep English warships at a distance.

Prelude
At Monktonhall on 8 September Regent Arran made an act to protect the rights of the children and heirs of those men who would be killed fighting the English. James IV of Scotland had made a similar act at Twizell before Flodden in 1513. On 9 September part of Somerset's army occupied Falside Hill 3 mi east of Arran's main position, after Falside Castle put up a slight resistance.

In an outdated chivalric gesture, the Earl of Home led 1,500 horsemen close to the English encampment and challenged an equal number of English cavalry to fight. With Somerset's reluctant approval, Lord Grey accepted the challenge and engaged the Scots with 1,000 heavily armoured men-at-arms and 500 lighter demi-lancers, led by Jacques Granado and others. The Scottish horsemen were badly cut up and were pursued west for 3 mi. This action cost Arran most of his cavalry. The Scots lost around 800 men in the skirmish. Lord Home was badly wounded, and his sons were taken prisoner.

Later on the same day, Somerset sent a detachment with guns to occupy the Inveresk Slopes, which overlooked the Scottish position. During the night, Somerset received two more challenges from Arran. One request was for Somerset and Arran to settle the dispute by single combat; another was for 20 champions from each side to decide the matter. Somerset rejected both proposals.

Battle
On the morning of Saturday, 10 September, Somerset advanced his army, seeking to position his artillery at Inveresk. In response Arran moved his army across the Esk by the "Roman bridge", and advanced rapidly to meet him. Arran may have seen movement in the English lines and assumed that the English were trying to retreat to their ships. Arran knew himself to be outmatched in artillery and therefore tried to force close combat before the English artillery could be deployed.

Arran's left wing came under fire from English ships offshore. Their advance meant that the guns at their former position could no longer protect them. They were thrown into disorder and pushed into Arran's own division in the centre.

On the other flank, Somerset threw in his cavalry to delay the Scots' advance. The English cavalry was at a disadvantage, as they had left their horses' body armour at the camp. The Scottish pikemen drove them off, inflicting heavy casualties. Lord Grey himself was wounded by a pike thrust through his throat and into his mouth. At one point, Scottish pikemen surrounded Sir Andrew Flammack, the bearer of the King's Standard. He was rescued by Sir Ralph Coppinger, and managed to hold onto the standard, despite its staff breaking.

The Scottish army was by now stalled and under heavy fire on three sides, from the ships, land artillery, arquebusiers and archers, to which they had no reply. When they broke, the English cavalry rejoined the battle following a vanguard of 300 experienced soldiers under the command of Sir John Luttrell. Many of the retreating Scots were slaughtered or drowned as they tried to swim the fast-flowing Esk or cross the bogs. The English eye-witness William Patten described the slaughter inflicted on the Scots; "Soon after this notable strewing of their footmen's weapons, began a pitiful sight of the dead corpses lying dispersed abroad, some their legs off, some but houghed, and left lying half-dead, some thrust quite through the body, others the arms cut off, diverse their necks half asunder, many their heads cloven, of sundry the brains pasht out, some others again their heads quite off, with other many kinds of killing. After that and further in chase, all for the most part killed either in the head or in the neck, for our horsemen could not well reach the lower with their swords. And thus with blood and slaughter of the enemy, this chase was continued 5 mi in length westward from the place of their standing, which was in the fallow fields of Inveresk until Edinburgh Park and well nigh to the gates of the town itself and unto Leith, and in breadth nigh 4 mi, from the Firth sands up toward Dalkeith southward. In all which space, the dead bodies lay as thick as a man may note cattle grazing in a full replenished pasture. The river ran all red with blood, so that in the same chase were counted, as well by some of our men that somewhat diligently did mark it as by some of them taken prisoners, that very much did lament it, to have been slain about 14 thousand. In all this compass of ground what with weapons, arms, hands, legs, heads, blood and dead bodies, their flight might have been easily tracked to every of their three refuges. And for the smallness of our number and the shortness of the time (which was scant five hours, from one to well nigh six) the mortality was so great, as it was thought, the like aforetime not to have been seen."

Imperial ambassador's accounts of the battle
The Imperial ambassador François van der Delft went to the court of King Edward VI at Oatlands Palace to hear the news of the battle from William Paget. Van der Delft wrote to the Queen Dowager, Mary of Hungary, with his version of the news on 19 September. He described the cavalry skirmish on the day before the battle. He had heard that on the day of the battle, when the English army encountered the Scottish formation, the Scots advance horsemen dismounted and crossed their lances, which they used like pikes standing in close formation. Van der Delft was told that the Earl of Warwick then attempted to attack the Scots from behind using smoking fires as a diversion. When they engaged the Scottish rearguard the Scots took flight, apparently following some who already had an understanding with the Protector Somerset. The rest of the Scots army then attempted to flee the field.

Van der Delft wrote a shorter description for Prince Philip on 21 October. In this account he lays emphasis on the Scots attempting to change position. He said the Scots crossed the brook in order to occupy two hills which flanked both armies. The Scottish army, "without any need whatever were seized with panic and began to fly". Another letter with derivative news of the battle was sent by John Hooper in Switzerland to the Reformer Henry Bullinger. Hooper mentions that Scots had to abandon their artillery due to the archers commanded by the Earl of Warwick, and when the Scots changed position the sun was in their eyes. He was told there were 15,000 Scottish casualties and 2,000 prisoners. There were 17,000 English in the field and 30,000 Scots. Hooper's letter is undated but he includes the false early report that Mary of Guise surrendered in person to Somerset after the battle. These newsletters, though compiled and written by non-combatants days after the battle and far from the battlefield, are nevertheless important sources for the historian and for reconstruction of the events, to compare with Patten's narrative and archaeological evidence from the field.

Aftermath
Although they had suffered a resounding defeat, the Scottish government refused to come to terms. The infant Queen Mary was smuggled out of the country to France to be betrothed to the young Dauphin of France, Francis. Somerset occupied several Scottish strongholds and large parts of the Lowlands and Borders but, without peace, these garrisons became a useless drain on the Treasury.

Analysis
Although the Scots blamed traitors for the defeat, it may be fairer to say that a Renaissance army defeated a medieval army. Henry VIII had taken steps towards creating standing naval and land forces which formed the nucleus of the fleet and army that gave Somerset the victory. However, the military historian Gervase Phillips has defended Scottish tactics, pointing out that Arran moved from his position by the Esk as a rational response to English manoeuvres by sea and land. In his 1877 account of the battle, Major Sadleir Stoney commented that "every amateur knows that changing front in presence of an enemy is a perilous operation". Early commentators such as John Knox had focused on the move as the cause of the defeat and attributed the order to move to the influence of local landowners George Durie, Abbot of Dunfermline, and Hugh Rig of Carberry. Marcus Merriman sees the initial Scottish field encampment as the most sophisticated ever erected in Scotland, let down by their cavalry numbers.

Gervase Phillips maintains the defeat may be considered due to a crisis of morale after the English cavalry charge, and notes William Patten's praise of the Earl of Angus's pikemen. Merriman regards Somerset's failure to press on and capture Edinburgh and Leith as a loss of "a magnificent opportunity" and "a massive blunder" which cost him the war. In 1548, the Scottish Master of Artillery, Lord Methven, gave his opinion that the battle was lost due to growing support in Scotland for English policy, and the mis-order and great haste of the Scottish army on the day.

The naval bombardment was an important aspect of the battle. The English navy was commanded by Lord Clinton and comprised 34 warships with 26 support vessels. William Patten mentions the Galley Subtle, captained by Richard Broke, as one of the ships at the battle, and included it in one of his plans, depicted in the woodcut with its oars visible, close to Musselburgh. The guns of the ships in English fleet were recorded in an inventory. The Galley Subtle carried two brass demi-cannons, two brass Flanders demi-culverins, breech-loading iron double basses and single basses. The galleys could be brought near the shore by their rowers. After the battle, Andrew Dudley and Michael Durham sailed to Broughty Castle in the Galley Subtle and fired three shots, effecting its surrender.

Scottish artillery
Warned of the approach of the English army, the Scottish artillery was made ready at Edinburgh Castle. Extra gunners were recruited and 140 pioneers, i.e. workmen, were employed by Duncan Dundas to move the guns. On 2 September carts were hired to take the guns and the Scottish tents and pavilions towards Musselburgh. There were horses, and oxen were supplied by the Laird of Elphinstone. John Drummond of Milnab, master carpenter of the Scottish ordnance, led the wagon train. There was a newly painted banner, and ahead a boy played on the "swesche", a drum used to alert people.

William Patten described the English officers of the Ordnance after the battle retrieving 30 of the Scottish guns, which were left lying in sundry places, on Sunday 11 September. They found one brass culverin, 3 brass sakers, 9 smaller brass pieces, and 17 other iron guns mounted on carriages. Some of these guns appear in the English royal inventory of 1547–48, at the Tower of London where sixteen Scottish brass guns were recorded. They were a demi-cannon, 2 culverins, 3 sakers, 9 falconets, and a robinet.

Account of the English Treasurer General of the Army
Ralph Sadler was treasurer for Somerset's expedition in Scotland from 1 August to 20 November 1547. On 22 August, he informed the Earl of shrewsbury that ships were ready to sail to Aberlady with provisions. The expense of the journey northwards cost £7468-12s–10d, and the return was £6065-14s–4d. Soldiers' wages were £26,299-7s–1d. For his own expenses, Sadler had £211-14s–8d with £258-14s–9d for his equipment and auditor's expenses. A number of special rewards were given to spies, Scottish guides, and others who gave good service, and to the captain of the Spanish mercenaries. The Scottish herald at the battlefield was given 100 shillings. When Sadler's account was audited in December 1547, Sadler was found to owe Edward VI £546-13s–11d which he duly returned.

Today
The battle site is now in East Lothian. The battle took place most probably in the cultivated ground 1/2 mi south-east of Inveresk Church, just to the south of the main East Coast railway line. There are two vantage points for viewing the ground. Fa'side Castle above the village of Wallyford was just behind the English position, and with the aid of binoculars, a visitor can get a good view of the battle area though the Scottish position is now obscured by buildings. The best impression of their position is obtained from the golf course west of the River Esk and just off the B6415 road. The Scottish centre occupied ground a few yards west of the clubhouse. The Inveresk eminence, an important tactical feature at the time of the battle, is now built over, but from it, a visitor can get down to the Esk and walk for some way along the bank. The walk gives a further idea of a part of the Scottish position, but the town of Musselburgh now completely covers the left of the line. The battlefield was added to the Inventory of Historic Battlefields in Scotland in 2011.

A stone commemorating the battle has been erected southwest of Wallyford village near the junction of Salters Road and the A1 road. The stone is carved with St. Andrew's Cross, the English rose and Scottish thistle and the name and date of the battle. It is situated on the north side of the driveway to the home that is in the northwest corner of the intersection. Co-ordinates: 55.9302992°N 3.0210942°W.

In September 2017 the Scottish Battlefields Trust staged the first major re-enactment of the battle in the grounds of Newhailes House. Such re-enactments are intended to continue on a triennial cycle.

Casualties
Some of the injured soldiers were treated by Lockhart, a barber surgeon from Dunbar. David H. Caldwell has written, "English estimates put the slaughter as high as 15,000 Scots killed and 2,000 taken but the Earl of Huntly's figure of 6,000 dead is probably nearer the truth." Of the Scottish prisoners, few were nobles or gentlemen. It was claimed that most were dressed much the same as common soldiers and therefore were not recognised as being worth ransoming. Caldwell says of the English casualties, "Officially it was given out that losses were only 200 though the rumour about the English court, fed by private letters from those in the army, indicated that 500 or 600 was more likely."

William Patten names a number of high-ranking casualties. The Englishmen he names were horsemen forced onto Scottish pikes in a ploughed field to the east of the English position, after they had crossed a slough towards the Scottish position on Falside Brae.

English

 * Edward Shelley, subject of a lost portrait by Hans Eworth, fourth son of Sir William Shelley.
 * Sir Walter Hawksworth, son of and heir of Thomas of Hawksworth, Yorkshire.
 * The Lord Fitzwalter's brother
 * Sir John Clere's son, a brother of the poet Thomas Clere (John Clere of Ormesby, Norfolk was killed in battle at Kirkwall on 21 August 1557).
 * Thomas Wodehouse, son of Sir Roger Wodehouse of Kimberley, Norfolk, and Madge Shelton

Scottish

 * Malcolm, Lord Fleming
 * Robert, Master of Graham, son and heir of William Graham, 2nd Earl of Montrose, killed in the naval bombardment
 * Robert, Master of Erskine, son and heir of John Erskine, 5th Lord Erskine
 * James, Master of Ogilvy, son and heir of James Ogilvy, 4th Lord Ogilvy of Airlie
 * The Master of Avondale, son and heir of Andrew Stewart, 1st Lord Avondale
 * The Master of Ruthven, son and heir of William Ruthven, 2nd Lord Ruthven
 * John Stewart, Master of Buchan, son of John Stewart, 3rd Earl of Buchan
 * The Master of Methven, son and heir of Henry Stewart, 1st Lord Methven

The names of a number of other Scottish casualties are known from legal records, cases falling under the act made at Monktonhall, or from Scottish chronicles, and include: • William Adamson of Craigcrook Castle

• Andrew Agnew of Lochnaw Leswalt, Wigtownshire

• Gilbert Agnew, Wigtownshire

• James Allardice, who fell under the royal banner

• Andrew Anstruther of that Ilk

• James Blair, Middle Auchindraine

• Thomas Brodie of Brodie

• Alan Cathcart, 3rd Lord Cathcart

• William Cunninghame of Glengarnock

• Gabriel Cunyngham of Craigends

• John Crawfurd of Auchinames

• John Crawford of Giffordland

• William Dishington of Ardross

• Robert Douglas of Lochleven

• Thomas Dumbreck of that Ilk

• Archibald Dunbar of Baldoon, Kirkinner, Wigtownshire

• Alexander Dundas of Fingask

• Alexander Elphinstone, 2nd Lord Elphinstone

• Finla Mor, Findlay of Clan Farquharson, said to have carried the royal banner

• Henry Fithie, younger of Boysack

• David Forrester of Garden and Torwood

• James Forrester of Corstorphine

• James Gordon of Lochinvar

• John Gordon of Pitlurg

• David Hamilton of Broomhill, son-in-law of Robert, Lord Semple

• Cuthbert Hamilton of Canir, brother-in-law of David Hamilton of Broomhill

• George Henderson of Fordell, and his oldest son William

• Kentigern "Mungo" Huntar of Hunterston

• George Home of Wedderburn

• James Innes of Cromy

• Alexander Irvine, Master of Drum

• William Johnston, younger of Caskieben

• Thomas Kennedy, Vicar of Penpont, a son of Gilbert Kennedy, 2nd Earl of Cassilis

• Alexnder Kinninmonth

• Alexander Lauder of Haltoun

• James Learmonth of Dairsie and Balcomie

• John Leckie of Leckie, Dumbartonshire

• John, Master of Livingston, son of Alexander Livingston, 5th Lord Livingston

• Thomas MacCulloch of Plaids

• John MacDowall of Garthland

• John MacDowall of Corswall, Kirkcolm, Wigtownshire

• Fergus McDouall of Freugh, Stoneykirk, Wigtownshire

• Richard Melville, father of Andrew Melville

• James Montfode of Montfode

• Hugh Montgomerie, a son of the Earl of Eglinton

• Kentigern Muir of Rowallan

• Robert Munro, 14th Baron of Foulis

• Alexander Napier of Merchiston

• Hew Ralston of that llk

• John Vans of Barnbarroch, Kirkinner, Wigtownshire

title: Battle of Pinkie


text:
Glenview, California

Glenview, California may refer to the following places in the United States:

 * Glenview, Los Angeles County, California, a place in California
 * Glenview, Oakland, California
 * Glenview, San Diego County, California, a place in California

title: Glenview, California


text:
Events preceding World War II in Europe

The events preceding World War II in Europe are closely tied to the bellicosity of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Francoist Spain, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union, as well as the Great Depression. The peace movement led to appeasement and disarmament.

Aftermath of World War I
World War II is generally viewed as having its roots in the aftermath of World War I, in which the German Empire under Wilhelm II, with its Central Powers, was defeated, chiefly by the United Kingdom, France, and the United States.

The victors blamed Germany entirely for the war and all resulting damages; it was Germany that effectively started the war with an attack on France through Belgium. France had, in 1871, suffered a defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, and demanded compensation for financial devastation during the First World War, which ensured that the various peace treaties, specifically the Treaty of Versailles would impose tough financial war reparations and restrictions on Germany in the aftermath of World War I.

The dissolution of Austria-Hungary and the revolutions of 1917–1923 at the end of the First World War also resulted in the formation of numerous new nation-states such as the Second Polish Republic, the First Czechoslovak Republic, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia in Central and Eastern Europe. Germany was forced to make territorial cessions to these new countries, giving part of its eastern territories of Poznań, West Prussia, and Upper Silesia to Poland. It was also prohibited from merging with the Republic of German-Austria formed from the former German-speaking regions of Austria-Hungary. The treaty ceded Alsace–Lorraine to the French Third Republic, Eupen-Malmedy to Belgium, Northern Schleswig to Denmark, Hultschin District to Czechoslovakia, and allowed the Saarland to be occupied as a League of Nations territory. German irredentists refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new Central and Eastern European nation states, and demanded the return of Germany's lost territory.

The total defeat of the Imperial German Armed Forces had been unexpected due to censorship of German defeats. After the war German nationalists created a stab-in-the-back myth that the German Empire had not been defeated at the front and had been betrayed by "November criminals" such as socialists and Jews.

The British naval blockade of Germany was not lifted until the treaty was signed at the end of June 1919.

Rise of fascism
After several liberal governments failed to deal with these threats, and the fascists had increased their public profile by highly visible punishment expeditions to supposedly crush the socialist threat, King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy invited Benito Mussolini to form a government on 29 October 1922. The fascists maintained an armed paramilitary wing, which they employed to fight anarchists, communists, and socialists.

Within a few years, Mussolini had consolidated dictatorial power and Italy became a police state. On 7 January 1935, he and French Foreign Minister Pierre Laval signed the Franco-Italian Agreement, giving him a free hand in the Abyssinia Crisis with the Ethiopian Empire, in return for an alliance against Hitler. There was little international protest. He then sent large forces into Eritrea and Italian Somaliland, the two Italian colonies that bordered Ethiopia.

Britain attempted to broker peace but failed; Mussolini was bent on conquest. Britain declared an arms embargo on both Italy and Ethiopia, but cleared its warships from the Mediterranean, further allowing Italy unhindered access. Shortly after the League of Nations exonerated both parties in the Walwal incident, Italy attacked Ethiopia, resulting in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War.

Shortly after Italy conquered Ethiopia, the Spanish Civil War began, seen by many as a proving ground for World War II, Germany provided troops, weapons, and other aid to Francisco Franco's nationalists. Italy also provided troops. On 7 April 1939, Italy invaded Albania. After a short campaign the Albanian Kingdom was occupied and joined Italy in a personal union.

Rise of Nazi Germany
The Nazi Party, led by Adolf Hitler, blamed Germany's ruined economy on the harshness of the Versailles Treaty, on faults of democracy, and on the stab-in-the-back legend. In Germany, as in post-Austro-Hungarian Austria, citizens recalled the pre-war years under autocratic rule as prosperous but the post-war years under weak democratic rule as chaotic and economically disastrous.

Nazism held that the world was composed of distinct races in a state of constant ethnic war, and that the Aryan race inhabiting Germany needed to conquer new agricultural land in Central and Eastern Europe to survive. Hitler also believed that the Jews and the Slavs, which he believed were responsible for creating Communism and the Soviet Union, threatened the racial purity of Germany and would have to be exterminated.

The situation was further aggravated by the worldwide economic depression that followed the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Left- and right-wing anti-democratic parties in the Reichstag—the German parliament—obstructed parliamentary work, while different cabinets resorted to government by Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution. This enabled the President and Cabinet to bypass the Parliament. The Nazis grew in popularity due to the impact of the Great Depression, and President Paul von Hindenburg completed Adolf Hitler's rise to power by appointing him Chancellor of Germany in January 1933.

While many states refused to become involved in the Spanish Civil War, notably Britain and France, troops were sent by both Hitler and Mussolini to aid the Spanish Nationalists, which included those with fascist leanings. It would prove to be a precursor to many of the tactics and methods employed in the Second World War, such as the Bombing of Guernica, which aimed to see how effective bombing of civilian areas could be. Francoist Spain was non-belligerent during World War II—although Spanish volunteers fought on the Eastern Front—but the civil war division of fascism versus democracy and communism was repeated.

German expansionism
Meanwhile, in Germany, once political consolidation—Gleichschaltung—was in place, the Nazis turned their attention to foreign policy with several increasingly daring acts. The Nazis introduced a massive rearmament program to build up the Wehrmacht beyond the limits imposed by the Versailles Treaty. On 16 March 1935, Hitler ignored the Versailles Treaty and ordered Germany to re-arm, reintroducing military conscription. The treaty had limited the German Reichswehr to 100,000 men with few arms.

These steps produced nothing more than official protests from the United Kingdom and France; they were more serious about enforcing the economic provisions of the treaty than its military restrictions. Many Britons felt the restrictions placed on Germany in Versailles had been too harsh, and they believed that Hitler's aim was simply to undo the extremes of the treaty, not to go beyond that. This sentiment was underscored by the signing of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which authorized Germany to build a fleet one third the size of the Royal Navy.

Hitler moved troops into the Rhineland on 7 March 1936. But, as before, Hitler's defiance was met with inaction, despite Poland's proposal to put the Franco-Polish Military Alliance into action. In 1936, Hitler demanded a private meeting with Arnold J. Toynbee, a British historian, philosopher of history, research professor of International History at the London School of Economics and the University of London and author of numerous books. He was visiting Berlin at the time to address the Nazi Law Society. Toynbee accepted.

In the meeting, Hitler emphasized his limited expansionist aim of building a Greater Germanic Reich, and his desire for British understanding and cooperation. Toynbee was convinced of Hitler's sincerity, and endorsed Hitler's message in a confidential memorandum for British prime minister Stanley Baldwin and foreign secretary Anthony Eden.

The first non-violent German conquest was the Federal State of Austria. As early as 1934 the Nazis arranged a failed coup attempt which succeeded in assassinating Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss. After Italy had joined Germany in the Anti-Comintern Pact, quickly removing the main obstacle of an Anschluss of Austria, Germany announced the annexation on 12 March 1938, making it the province Gau Ostmark of what was now Greater Germany.

Czechoslovakia
With Austria secured, Hitler turned his attention to the German-speaking population of Sudetenland border regions of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia had a large and modern army backed with a sizable armament industry, and had military alliances with France and the Soviet Union. It also had informal links with the United Kingdom, largely due to the United Kingdom being militarily allied with France.

Despite this, Hitler, encouraged by reluctance of major European powers to stop his violation of post World War I treaties, was prepared to risk war. He was convinced that France would shrink back again, not fulfilling her treaty obligations to Czechoslovakia. His first order was to seize Sudetenland, based on the right of self-determination for a unification with Germany. This region formed about a third of Bohemia (western Czechoslovakia) in terms of territory, population and economy, and was claimed to be vital for Czechoslovakia's existence. With Austria in German hands, this part of Czechoslovakia—equipped with a defense system that was larger than the Maginot Line—was nearly surrounded by Germany.

Following lengthy negotiations and blatant war threats from Hitler, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain with French leaders tried to appease Hitler. In the Munich Agreement of 30 September 1938, the major European powers allowed German troops to occupy the Sudetenland, for the sake of "peace for our time". Czechoslovakia had already mobilized over one million men and was prepared to fight for independence, but was not allowed to participate in the conference.

When the French and British negotiators informed the Czechoslovak representatives about the agreement, and that if Czechoslovakia would not accept it, France and Britain would consider Czechoslovakia to be responsible for war, President Edvard Beneš capitulated. German forces entered the Sudetenland unopposed, celebrated by the local ethnic German population. Soon after, Polish and Hungarian forces also invaded parts of Czechoslovakia.

Poland annexed the Trans-Olza area. Hitler continued to put pressure on the Czech government. On 14 March, Slovakia declared its independence under Jozef Tiso, which was recognized by France, Britain and other important powers. The following day, Emil Hácha accepted a German occupation of the remaining parts of the Czech lands. From the Prague Castle, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was proclaimed by Hitler.

Baltics
The Memel Territory, separated from Germany since 1920 and annexed by Lithuania, was returned to Germany, under a German–Lithuanian treaty concluded after the 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania. The preparations for the Second World War were also made in the economic sphere, as the German government exerted pressure on weaker governments to place their economies at the disposal of the German war machine. One such case was the German–Romanian economic agreement of 23 March 1939.

title: Events preceding World War II in Europe


text:
Parts of Holland

The Parts of Holland is a historical division of Lincolnshire, England, encompassing the southeast of the county. The name is still recognised locally and survives in the district of South Holland.

Administration
Parts of Holland was one of the three medieval divisions, called 'Parts', of Lincolnshire (the other two being Lindsey and Kesteven) which had long had separate county administrations (quarter sessions). Under the Local Government Act 1888 it obtained a county council, which it retained until 1974. At that point the three county councils were abolished and Lincolnshire (minus the northern part of Lindsey, which formed part of Humberside) had a single county council for the first time.

Before the changes of 1888, Holland had, since probably the 10th century, been divided into the three wapentakes of Elloe, Kirton and Skirbeck.

Under the Local Government Act 1894, the administrative county of Holland was divided into rural districts and urban districts, with the municipal borough of Boston remaining untouched. The rural districts were Boston, Crowland, East Elloe and Spalding, whilst Holbeach, Long Sutton, Spalding and Sutton Bridge became urban districts.

Geography
The geographical extent of the former Holland County Council is the same as that of the combined modern local government districts of Boston and South Holland.

Holland is all close to sea level, achieving a maximum altitude of about five metres (16 feet) on artificially raised river banks (levees). It therefore needed carefully managed drainage to maintain the very productive arable farmland which covered almost its entire extent. Consequently, a significant part of its drainage for arable use had to await the introduction of steam pumping. Before the mid-19th century, it was a much more pastoral area, used for fattening livestock brought in from Scotland and northern England before it was driven to market in places like London. Many of the country roads are still called droves.

Towns and villages in Holland

 * Algarkirk
 * Boston
 * Crowland
 * Donington
 * Gosberton
 * Holbeach
 * Kirton-in-Holland
 * Long Sutton
 * Swineshead
 * Spalding
 * Sutterton
 * Sutton Bridge

There is a resemblance in landscape between the Parts of Holland and Holland, the region in the Netherlands, although their meanings are different. Holland in England means "land of the hill spurs", although hill spurs are hardly obvious, while the Dutch Holland is derived from the Old Dutch term holt-lant ("wooded land"). Both Hollands have landscapes that are low lying and both are known for tulip growing.

title: Parts of Holland


text:
User:Bechemel

An evil robot short order cook.

title: User:Bechemel