text:
Surrey Hills railway station

Surrey Hills railway station was located on the Lilydale and Belgrave lines in Victoria, Australia, serving the eastern Melbourne suburb of Surrey Hills. Located between Chatham and Mont Albert, it opened on 13 August 1883 and closed on 17 February 2023, due to project works associated with the Level Crossing Removal Project.

History
Initially, two trains ran to Lilydale each day and five only to Box Hill. At the time, engineers were unwilling to allow trains to stop at Surrey Hills, claiming potential difficulties with re-starting the gradient, and also that there was not enough traffic to warrant the stop.

In April 1883, a deputation asked for Surrey Hills to be a flag station, so that passengers wishing to alight could inform the guard of that at the previous station, while those wishing to join the train could show a red flag, or a red lamp at night. By August of that year, trains would stop on request. On 1 September of that year, Surrey Hills was brought into regular service. The station first appeared in the Victorian Railways working timetable on 15 October of that year.

On 9 December 1888, a second track opened, combined with a new platform on the north side of the line. By the 1930s, a small goods yard had been provided to the south of the station, in what later became a car-park. The connection to the mainline was at the Box Hill (down) end of the station.

In 1962, boom barriers replaced interlocked gates at the former Union Road level crossing, which was located at the up end of the station. In 1966, the goods yard, a signal box, a number of sidings and a crossover were removed to allow work on a third track to be carried out. At that time, the current station buildings were provided, and the former city-bound platform was converted to an island platform. In December 1971, services on the third track from East Camberwell were extended though the station to Box Hill.

In June 2001, Surrey Hills was upgraded to a premium station.

On 14 September 2016, two people were killed when a motor vehicle and an express X'Trapolis train set collided at the Union Road level crossing. Severe damage resulted to the train, and the vehicle was dragged 150 m before coming to a mangled rest between the station platform and train. The station underpass was also damaged.

In 2020, it was announced by the Level Crossing Removal Project that the level crossings at Union and Mont Albert roads would be removed by 2023. The project will involve the closure of both Surrey Hills and nearby Mont Albert, with a Brand New Railway Station at Union, to be provided between the two current stations. Plans for the grade separation of the Union Road level crossing with a road overpass have dated as far back as the late 1970s.

On 17 February 2023, the station was permanently closed for demolition, alongside Mont Albert. The replacement new station, Union, opened on 22 May of that year.

Platforms and services
Surrey Hills had one island platform (Platforms 1 and 2) and a side platform (Platform 3), linked by an underpass. The island platform featured a large brick building with a customer service window, an enclosed waiting room and toilets. There was a small brick building on Platform 3.

It was serviced by Metro Trains' Lilydale and Belgrave line services.

Platform 1:
 * all stations and limited express services to Flinders Street
 * all stations and limited express services to Flinders Street

Platform 2:
 * all stations and limited express services to Lilydale
 * all stations and limited express services to Belgrave

Platform 3:
 * weekday all stations and limited express services to Lilydale; weekday all stations services to Blackburn
 * weekday all stations and limited express services to Belgrave; weekday all stations services to Blackburn

Transport links
At the time of closure, two bus routes serviced Surrey Hills, both under contract to Public Transport Victoria:

 * : Box Hill station – Chadstone Shopping Centre (operated by CDC Melbourne)
 * : Box Hill station - Burwood (operated by Ventura Bus Lines)

title: Surrey Hills railway station


text:
Talk:Fascism/Archive 11

What this is all about
Andy and others do not fool me for one minute. The Word "Fascism" is a tool of propaganda to beat their oppenents into submission by saying it is of the right. I read the books, Elements of Socialism by Spargo of l925 and I have read the book, One World by John Kiang l993?. Do you wonder why Hitler said, "We are the executors of Marxism stripped of its Jewish Talmudic influences". What does he mean by "stripped of its Jewish Talmudic influences". What did Sorel, Proudhon, and others dislike about Marxism. It's internationalism, and pacifism. These leftists want to use Fascism in order to herd people into their globalization. Spargo talks of the Socialists as building a "World unity that is older than Christianty". John Kiang, who is also leftist, says that internationalism comes from Karl Marx. It is the Jewish influence in all this that makes it international.

Fascism, for them, can not be defined. They don't want it to be because it is a tool of propaganda in order to march all into a World Unity.

Don't pull the wool over my eyes. I know what is going on. You can not fool me. If you want to be internationalists that's fine by me. But what is not fine, is you're trying to manipulate Fascism so that you can use it as a tool of propaganda.

What Andy and others want *"is to re-interpret"* Fascism according to *"modern"* sensibilities and *"mould"* Fascism in their *"likeness"*. This is called Revisionism. Revisionism according to Marxist ideology in order to beat their opponents and scare everyone away from nationalism. They don't want to Fascism as the Fascist see themselves, They want to *"redefine"* it. Andy says this all the time.

They will never admit that Fascism is leftist. It has many parts to it. It is REVOLUTIONARY. They can't admit that because that is "leftist" character. It is a ANTI-MATERIALIST REVISION of Marxism. Can't allow that either. They only thing they point to is the NATIONALIST character of Fascism. But who says nationalism is rightist if it has always occured in human history everywhere? Only Marxists define nationalism as rightist. Like they define anyone who opposes them as "reactionary". Final point, They will not say "Fascism" is "FUTURIST" because that is leftist character too. Proudhon and Sorel are rightists, right? The only rightist influence in Fascism is Mauras and Action Francaise. But he wasn't an orthodox Christian and he was confused thinker like the rest of these jokers, Proudhon and Soret, et al. are WHEELER 14:39, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER still doesn't get it. Some time ago I asked him several questions about his apporach (now long archived, I am sure) which he never, ever answered. That must be because he has no answer. It is clear that he is capable of doing the most literal research, but no critical thinking at all. At this point, I see no grounds for even paying attention to him. Slrubenstein

your *"critical"* thinking is revisionism pure and simpleWHEELER 14:50, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Since you all are experts, please define and give me sources that say Nationalism is rightist. Rightist has always meant Monarchy. Now, who defined nationalism as rightist? Can someone answer me? Has some Monarchist stood forward in his writings and said, "Monarchists are nationalists and therefore, nationalists are rightists? Is there any reference to this?  Who defined nationalism.  I know Barras coined the term National socialist? But who defined nationalism as rightist?WHEELER 15:03, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

And may I point out again, evolution based on Darwin is not Christian at all. Evolution is socialist and it is leftist. Darwin is a favorite of Socialism. It has nothing to do with monarchies, classic republics or Christianity. Darwinism, Evolution are all of the left.WHEELER 15:03, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Wheeler please take this as friendly advice. Your comments can easily be misinterpreted as pointing to a jewish conspiracy (i.e "It is the Jewish influence in all this that makes it international.") this is kind of argument is very offensive. There are many jews on all sides of the political spectrum. Please do not fall into that irrational trap.

That being said, is the word "fascist" over-used in labeling opponents by people who are leftists or left of center where it does not apply-YES. Much in the same way the word "liberal", "socialist", or "communist" used for labeling opponents by rightists or those who are right of center (despite the fact that liberal ideas are often associated with those people). It is a poor way to conduct debate, agreed?

The idea at here at wikipedia, from my standpoint at least, is to dig deeper than political labels and try to filter out the knowledge that will encourage responsible use of terminology. This is a difficult goal (and I often do not live up to my own standards), but it is a noble goal and one worth pursuing.

You seem to be engaging in the lumping sort of behavior you are accusing others of. By blaming "the left" you are over-simplifying are very complex debate. Be specific at all costs and use as much factual evidence as you can. That makes everything seem less personal. You have brought some evidence to the table (which is better than what most people do) I am currently reviewing it. Now is the time to also review what others have said and decide whether they are legitimate points. Civility beats incivility. thanks. GrazingshipIV 16:44, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

HUH? Evolution has nothing to do with politics at all. It's a biological theory. Just thought I'd mention that. Kim Bruning 16:18, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Evolution had every thing to do the racism of Nazi germany and the way they acted.

What I see is that Fascism is being used as a term of scorn which it is but being used as label to desribe something else competely diferent and that is nationalism.

As a Christian, The Elements of Socialism, say that "world unity" is older than christianity. What are they pointing to? The tower of Babel. God destroyed the Tower of Babel as evil and created nations. It is He who seperated the nations and He wants them to keep seperate. What Marxism attempts to do is mimic Scriptures and undue what God has done. This is my perspective in nationalism and that is why I am a big supporter of nationalism but I take the golden mean. Not of deficiency and not of excess but of the middle road. John C. Kiang, points to Karl Marx as wanting to do away with nations and their borders. Free trade is the tool for this. Karl Marx in his manifesto calls on Free Trade and he says, "All the workers of the world unite". When one reads Prof Schapiro, this jumps out that many of the protagonists like Proudhon, reject internationalism and promote nationalism. this one aspect carried into Nazism and Fascism. Marxism is using the label Fascist to break down the barriers of nationalism in order to form its world unity.

Fascism, Nazism, communism socialism are all products of the French revolution. Herbert Hoover in l934 say all this and saw the common connections between all four here.

I can not ignore, everywhere I read, Proudhon, Sorel, Thomas Carlyle and Hitler's Mein Kampf, etc, again and again their complaints of the Jewish influence in those countries and how they responded to it. I am not saying it is a fact maybe they all copied from one guy who started a rumor like the blood libel, and they kept it going. But the nationalism of Fascism and Nazism is in response to what they see as decadent influences by the jewish influence in their respective countries and the promotion of internationalism. Proudhon points to this. Where he gets this from I don't know. WHEELER 17:22, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Prof Schapiro writes: "Nazi writers in Germany have evaluatd the historic importance of Napoleon as a habinger of Fascism, despite the marked differences between the Secon Empire and the Third Reich. A book, Masse oder Volk, written by Konstantin Frantz in 1952, was republished in l933 with a significant preface by the Nazi Franz Kemper.  ""The rise to power of Louis napoleon," wrote Kemper, "is the only historical parallel to the National Socialist revolution of our day.""

"Nazi writer, Michael Freund, Napoleon wa sthe only real revolutionist in 1848. "'Ater the solemn republican respectablity of 1848 it seemed that only the Napolieonic experiment id a great revolutionary elan appear on the stage of history.'"

"The social ideals of the disciples of Saint Simon were given by Napolieon, for the first time, a military and authoritarian aspect.."

"Nazi, K. H. Bremer, diagnosed the case of the Second Republic...that Napoleon realized that the social question was the most important one....Napoleon solved the problem., he according to Bremer created a type of state form of authoritarian plebiscitarian leadership. All quotes on pg 328-329WHEELER 17:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

IMO fascism of Mussolini was fairly eclectic programme around an idea of the primate of the state. A willing eye may trace the roots up to Ancient Rome. Unless the connections are widely recognized or strikingly evident, there is no much sense to go into detail. Also, comparing rhetorics and writings could be only superficial, because political phraseology and propaganda tends to converge even for diametral positions. SO IMO any possible connections of fascism with earlier history are better be presened as points of view of particular historians, under corresponding sections, rather than ultimate truth, which probably unattainable in this article. Mikkalai 22:19, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Repeated quote
The following text is repeated twice on the page:

Mussolini wrote in his 1932 treatise, The Doctrine of Fascism: "Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State."

It seemed to fit in both locations, so I wasn't sure which should be removed. Any ideas?

jaredwf 07:26, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Fresh thoughts
I may be fairly new to Wikipedia, but I don't think someone should be calling down God seventeen times in one passage during a discussion about an unbiased treatment of fascism. Besides the fact that I don't think God would be terribly thrilled with the idea of fascism, WHEELER (especially the God of which I read in the Gospels), it has no relevance at all. Marxism is explicitly atheistic, indeed, but besides that I don't know how you're arguing it is offensive to some sort of divine plan and therefore fascism arose to protect us from evil godless commies. Wally 01:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * You answer your own question, by pointing out the atheism of Communism. Thats the only thing that seperates it from facism, IMO. Anyways, this is an argument that is not going to be solved here, because the words Left, Right, and Socialist mean different things to the different people involved. They are poorly defined words in the best of situations, and we'd prob. be MUCH better off w/o them, both here and in general. In anycase the wiki is ment to provide opposing POV's, not take a particular POV as its own. NPOV is to be found in the diversity of thought, not the singularity. Oh, and BTW, this entire discussion can be solved with one word: Totalitarianism. Sam Spade 02:35, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

So much for NPOVAndyL 02:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Saying that communism and fascism are only seperated by religion or lack thereof is like saying the only difference between Geraldo Rivera and Rush Limbaugh is weight and hairstyle. For one, there's theoretical communism and fascism and actual communism and fascism. In theory, communism is intended to be neither oppressive, nor concentrated, nor run, nor initiated in an agrarian society. In theory, too, for fascism the object of total devotion to the state is invariably betterment of the people through total devotion to the state (and the strong government it provides). One must look at politics as having four spectrums, not two, a la the Political Compass. Communism is, in theory, both socially and economically liberal - in practice, Russian Communism (big difference) is economically liberal but socially ultraconservative; also, while fascism is intended to be socially ultraconservative and economically so as well, in reality oftentimes it ends up being broadly Keynesian. So it is, perhaps, true that as you move farther towards any extreme it narrows towards the same end destination, but the reasons for arriving there can't be summed up by Jesus or no-Jesus.

Also, why bother comparing socialism/communism to fascism in this article anyway? Why not just link the two and note they're ideologically repellent? We'd save a crapload of space (and this article is wordy in the extreme), as well as a big sore spot, namely having to sort out the morass that occurs when the two clash.

Where the words are concerned, frankly, I don't think it's that big an issue. Any educated person knows the true definition of a word, knows the ideas, thoughts and history - bad and good - behind it and then makes an informed decision and takes sides based upon their own ideology, not that that someone else gives them. I'm proud to be both a liberal and a socialist (if a democratic one - revolution isn't my cup of tea), despite the negative connotations the press tells me I should feel towards them; likewise, I'd hope a fascist would just come right out and declare themselves such, because fascism is not (to my mind) inherent racist, or necessarily make one a maniacal Jew-killer (much in the same way my being a socialist doesn't of necessity mean I kill rich people). If a person cares to, they can know what's really behind the words they use - only the uneducated attach solely negative connotation to others and solely positive connotation to their own.

Besides, in whatever case we can't really avoid discussing the left and the right in an article like this, can we? Wally 03:31, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course we must, but I would suggest as little, and as fairly, as possible. Sam Spade 03:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Gah, Wally, be careful with the word "liberal". Any place other than the US, it would make no sense to say that socialism or communism is "ultra-liberal" economically. john 07:13, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Is the word "left" any better? I find it pathetic how much time we waste debating w/o bothering to clarify terms. Semantics is the root of most arguments, not difference of opinion. Sam Spade 07:16, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

The word left is far better. Whatever it's imprecision, it clearly includes socialism. Liberalism can be, and often is, used as an opposite to socialism. john 07:43, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel's two cents
It looks like there has been a lot of discussion here over the past few days. I'm not sure I can address everything that has been said, but I'm going to do my best to address as much as I can.

 * 1) The claim that "...fascism and socialism are the same thing..." seems to me disingenuous. There is, indeed, a perfectly good (albeit controversial) word -- totalitarianism -- that refers (correctly in my view) to certain fascist states and to certain states that claim to be socialist. Yes, the Soviet Union and its satellites (especially in the Stalinist era) had much in common with Hitler's Germany and the puppet regimes it established elsewhere. However, this is a large part of why so many socialists today (and many even at the time) reject (or highly qualify, as when the Trotskyists referred to the Soviet union as a "deformed worker's state") the description of these states as "socialist." (The other large part being the creation of a privileged coordinator class.) Are you seriously suggesting that Hitler's Germany "wasn't really fascist?"* Similarly, does anyone seriously claim that Sweden even in its most socialistic era was totalitarian? I suppose a few might claim the latter, but they tend to be the same people who called Eisenhower a communist, so I have a hard time taking them seriously. The resemblances seem to me to belong in the article on totalitarianism. I would expect a certain amount of discussion of totalitarianism in an article on fascism or on state communism, and about a one-sentence mention in an article on socialism. I would expect that the issue of totalitarianism being a point of resemblance between fascism and state communism would deserve a section in the article on fascism and the article on state communism, but I would not expect it to permeate either article.

 * * I suppose the case could be made that the term "fascism" should only be applied to a narrow band of ideology closer to that of Mussolini, but there is no question at all that in common usage in every language of Western Europe, "fascism" includes "Nazism." I think the article as it stands does a good job of treating with both meanings.

Jmabel 04:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) On the other hand, the degree to which early fascism, especially in Italy, had some roots in the left is probably worth explorationin this article, with solid facts and documentation. Much as we have a section "Nazism and socialism" in the article on "Nazism" (which, by the way, could certainly use expansion in its discussion of Gregor Strasser, Otto Strasser, and Ernst Röhm), this article deserves a solid section on the involvement of former socialists (including Mussolini himself) and anarchists/anarcho-syndicalists in the formation of fascism. In particular, there is clearly a direct link from the anarchist doctrine of Direct Action into the tactics of the Italian fascists. The Futurists certainly fit into this context as well. However, again, I think it is important to see that these people were (maybe not instantly, but over time) leaving socialism behind as they became fascists and as the doctrines of fascism solidified. Saying that they remained socialists is like saying that Irving Kristol remained a Trotskyist. It's worth quoting some third party to that effect, and it's worth looking at the influence of a person's early ideological orientation on his or her later thinking, but it is -- I find myself using the same word again -- disingenuous to pretend that there was no political conversion involved.
 * 2) It is reasonable to quote a particular scholar to the effect that the origins of fascism can be traced to the French Revolution, just as it would be reasonable to quote another scholar who traces them back to Plato. However, it would be absolutely inappropriate to state this controversial thesis as non-controversial fact, stated in the narrative voice of the article.
 * 3) Is anyone actually objecting to the substance of the paragraph in the article that currently begins, "The Doctrine of Fascism was written by Giovanni Gentile..."? I would consider that rock-solid and well-researched. I would hope we could all agree than any further discussion of the origin of fascism would be supplemental to that, rather than replacing it.
 * 4) I find myself pretty much in agreement with Diderot's various remarks. He seems to have more detailed knowledge on some points than I would, but on everything I know about, his remarks seem to conform to what I know. Nothing more to add on that front.
 * 5) I'm having trouble understanding some of what Wheeler is trying to say. Wheeler, are you claiming that Proudhon and the anarcho-syndicalists should be considered fascists, rather than merely people some of whose ideas and tactics influenced fascism? Or if that's not what you are trying to say, could you give me a paraphrase in a few sentences of what you see the relation being? Present-day anarchists also consider Proudhon an important (if problematic) intellectual ancestor. Surely you are not saying that all anarchists are secretly fascists. Or maybe you are. I really can't tell. (And, by the way, while there are many topics where I think Marx's opinions are to be taken seriously, his assessment of his anarchist rivals is certainly not one of them.)
 * 6) As I read through this page, I find it harder and harder to take Wheeler seriously. Fascism as "leftist"? The Tower of Babel?
 * BTW, I don't think more than a passing reference to "left" and "right" is needed in this article. I'd let the facts speak for themselves.
 * 1) By the way, despite my ethnic background, if there is a vast international Jewish conspiracy, they've never asked me to join.

 * I agree with that overall. I esp. like the acceptance of differing views, the embrace of the term "Totalitarianism", and the shunning of the Left/Right dicotomy. Sam Spade 04:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I am in general concurrence as well. I still wonder about the idea of not having socialism or communism vs. fascism sections in the relevant articles - perhaps that could be its own page?  Or maybe it doesn't need to be treated at all - just link them, and let people draw what other conclusions they will. Wally 04:23, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Spin Off's
There used to be a Socialism and Nazism article, but AndyL turned it into a redirect. The future of such pages seems mixed, and they tend to be focal points for debate and edit wars rather than high quality articles in their own right. Sam Spade 04:27, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Even so, if those pages are being made into debate and edit war pages, than the serious ones on the political systems themselves are largely freed of such conflict, yes? Wally 04:32, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * That is definitely a way of looking at it. Another reason they are made is to prevent excessively large article pages, difficult to read and impossible for some browsers to edit. Sam Spade 04:38, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * So, ergo, a good idea. By the way, part of this page needs to be archived; it's far too long.

 * It's long, but it's all from the last 72 hours, so it's a little early to archive. -- Jmabel 05:19, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Moving stupid discussions to spinoff articles isn't a good way of dealing with things. In any case "X vs Y" articles are not encyclopedic. If we go ahead with Fascism vs Socialism articles we'll end up with Fascism vs Christianity, Utilitarianism vs Surrealism, Feudalism vs Postmodernism and an endless procession of articles saying "x is like Y in these ways, x is unlike Y in these other ways". Great if you want to be a repository of sophmore essays but useless for an encyclopedia. I'm fine with taking "Fascism vs Socialsm" out entirely and not spinning it off. AndyL

 * I don't find the "taxonomic" aspects very interesting, but the issue of historical influences is. As I remarked above, the fact that some of the same currents of thought influenced both socialism and fascism (or anarchism and fascism) is a little uncomfortable for some of us, but should not be evaded for that reason. Conversely, that doesn't mean that we have to pander to those who find these facts delectable and would like to exaggerate their importance and try to use them to discredit anyone to the left of John McCain as a thinkly disguised combination of Stalin and Hitler. -- Jmabel 05:48, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Good, because I was a little worried that, following certain persons' proffered advice, I'd have to hates Jews, Nazis and Communists to keep being a liberal, and you know there's just so many hours in the day. :\

 * Like I said, I move to delete the whole whatever vs. whatever stuff wholesale. AndyL made a good point about not having them as articles (and he's right - I figured I might as well bring it up nonetheless to be devil's advocate), but if we wouldn't make something like that its own article, why on Earth would we put it into an article?  The two sides can fight without our helping them, methinks.  Move to excise.

 * And if somebody doesn't archive the top part of this page, I'm going to call the police. ;D Wally 05:56, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I find the above tremendously poor reasoning for eliminating examination of socialist aspects of fascism within the article. Sam Spade 07:05, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Fascism/Archive 11


text:
Talk:Vassals of the Kingdom of Jerusalem

Runciman's History of the Crusades has good stuff on this, although it's frequently unfortunately unclear on the issue of dates. I'll add material when I get the chance. john 07:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Great! I don't have any of the bigger histories immediately handy, but I have some other stuff to add too. Hopefully some source has better lists of the various rulers, too. Adam Bishop 15:40, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure...
...what purpose can be served by listing rulers for these fiefs who never actually ruled. Many of these tiny states had been destroyed by 1189 and none of them lasted beyond 1291. Names that appear here for the late 1200s and any of the 1300s are merely mostly useless blueblood parasites pretending to hold entirely useless titles. Actual ending dates for these fiefs ought to be provided and mere claimants should either be eliminated or noted as the nonentities they were. I can provide this info in most cases. ...Rod Walker, Encinicas CA, 10 July 2004 catu11us@pacbell.net

 * Well, "rulers" is probably not the best choice of words for these people anyway (and that heading clutters up the table of contents). I thought it was interesting to include claimants from the 13th century and after, to show that someone, somewhere, still thought these non-existent fiefs were important enough to claim at all (just like the King of Spain still claims to be king of Jerusalem). I guess the titular lords could be marked more clearly, so any info you have would be helpful. Adam Bishop 15:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * That information is notable enough to be published here. It is interesting to some people, and Wikipedia has resources to keep it available - if editors first bother to write it. Marrtel 11:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Splitting up the page
I notice the French Wikipedia has separate articles for many of these entities, and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to split them up here as well. Personally, I liked having it all on one page at first, it seems to give a better idea of the situation which only lasted 200 years anyway. But on the other hand, we have a general article on the Crusader states, and separate articles for the four major Syrian/Palestinian ones; then we also have separate articles for the Greek ones which were even more dependent on each other. Plus we have a separate Oultrejordain article already. A lot of what is here could be kept here, but the lists and histories of the individual entities could become separate articles. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? Adam Bishop 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd thought of that myself; we have quite a number of people linking here for various lordships, actually. Granted, some of the articles might be kinda stubby, but c'est la vie. (I'm also planning to go through "Regni Regesta Hierosolymi" at some point to see if there's anyone to add to the lists.) Choess 03:35, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

 * Well we can definitely make John of Ibelin's four major lordships into articles...and of course Ibelin also exists separately, along with Oultrejordain. Fr: has separate articles for the Ibelin family and the castle, though, although I like it the way it is here (similar to Lusignan and Comnenus, for example). Anyway, good luck with the RRH - lots of people have combed through it already to make the lists we have here, which is good, because it's pretty confusing sometimes. Adam Bishop 04:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I moved Galilee, Oultrejordain, Jaffa, and Sidon to their own articles. Any vassals of their own are listed on the appropriate page, although we can give them articles too (Ibelin and Toron already exist separately, and some others already have a paragraph of info, like Ramla). Does this look good so far? Adam Bishop 22:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks great! I did my usual dashification and a few minor fixes. Choess 04:44, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

The long article probably began to exceed the Wiki recommended kByte limit. However, it was nice in the sense that it gave ALL the lordships. As these are quite obscure from today's viewpoint and it helps if one does not need to pick the info all around in a chaos of articles. And anyway, all those were related in a way or another. Now it is quite difficult to make the bigger picture, as well as difficult to guess where a specific lordship is (usually people do not know under which a sub-fief was). I would not require a total reversal, but I think it would be useful to list ALL lordships in this article. I am making an example somewhere here. 62.78.106.207 08:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that is a problem now...I was thinking we could revert all the information I moved, except for the lists of lords, then people would still have information about the territories and could go to the other pages for more extensive information and a list of rulers. How about that? Adam Bishop 16:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, I restored what was there before, sort of...there are little blurbs like before, but a bit shorter, and the lists of rulers for the major places are gone, because there are now pointers to the main articles where more information can be found. Better? Adam Bishop 06:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could also however keep this article from growing to exceed the kByte recommendation. By keeping the text in bare bones in cases where the fief is treated more fully in another article. We apparently should also think about making a separate article for those "other seigneuries", Adelon etc, but that unfortunately would be difficult to title. 217.140.193.123 21:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Northern states
Tripoli, Antioch and Edessa are generally treated as independent of the Kingdom, and have had their own articles for some time before this reorganization. The detailed information on them at the bottom of this article should be removed and spread out among those articles. --Choess 21:59, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

 * Dear Choess, you have not grasped the idea here now. The idea, despite of the existence of larger articles, is to give a big picture of the feudal lordships which were dependent on Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 * Which is accomplished by the introductory material at the beginning of the article, which I have expanded to make clear that their connection was more tenuous than that of the King's vassals in the Kingdom proper. Your insistence on recapitulating their history and extraneous details like the ethnicity of the Crusaders settling there only obscures that point.
 * Thus, your suggestion will be overruled. Besides, they cannot be treated as independent, contrary to imaginings, as they were feudally dependent on the kingdom, as you hopefully can see from the information written. 217.140.193.123 22:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The material I've extracted from the encyclopedia clearly shows that they were not obligated to render military service to the Kingdom, the most important point of the feudal relationship. Choess 00:38, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
 * And Antioch and Edessa were at times vassals of the Byzantines, no? john k 03:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the remnants of Edessa were sold to the Byzantines just before being overrun; at least one of the Princes of Antioch swore fealty to Byzantium, and I think it was also a fief of Armenia (!) during some of the reign of Leo II. Choess 03:57, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Dear Choess, if you bother to read the arguments above, between Adam and me, you hopefully would see the purpose. Which you have now destroyed. The idea is to show the big picture here in ONE article. Adam has made here a version of those fiefs which ALSO are now as independent articles of four major seigneuries - those fiefs all here as sub-title level. To give the bigger picture, all fiefs which were under Jerusalem, also the Northern ones are needed here as sub-title level. You have now destroyed that work. And, please do not make excuses by drawing some line between which were more, which less dependent on Jerusalem, as you do not seem to grasp that northern ones had feudal obligations under Jerusalem. All such distinctions you have tried to make, are so fine distinctions that they seem as arbitrary. Why, for example, the Lords of Gibelet, valvassores of the Hierosolymite king, should be kept away from this article where there however are their relatives of Ibelin, with whom they even shared the surname in 13th century??? All in all, it would be desitrable that you would not destroy work of others, however you feel regarding the northern vassals. 217.140.193.123 21:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Well it's fine to mention them here, since, say, it's 1119, and Baldwin II is king, regent of two of the northern states, and has a personal vassal ruling the third, then yeah, they are pretty much vassals of Jerusalem in the sense that Galilee is. But that's not going to be the case at other times despite whatever the king wants to believe. You don't see Antioch owing any feudal service in 1187, do you? I didn't split Galilee, Jaffa, etc into separate articles to give them equal status with Tripoli and the others, and if you think that was the reason, maybe we should put them back here...Adam Bishop 22:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One excellent reason to split Galilee, Jaffa etc as separate fuller articles is to avoid this page growing too heavy.

Of course various fiefs, particularly those northern ones, had fluctuating relationship with its feudal obligations. However, such is not a good reason to remove Oultrejordain from here, though Raynald Chatillon took the position of total independence. The Antioch is self-evident: in 1150's (or when?) it was forced to subjugate to Byzantium, which left very little room for the king (though I believe the king had some remnants of rights even after that). As these four northern ones were vassals of Jerusalem at least for some significant number of years, they should be equally listed here. It is the task of the text to inform about their peculiarities, such should not be done by relegating them into different format here. I am somewhat interested in whether there ever was any vassal relation of Cyprus towards Jerusalem, though I admit that probably not. Re separate articles, I am in favor of separate ones. Some fiefs more should get their own articles. As soon as enough text is available, not want to create unnecessary stubs. As Jaffa was sometimes as independent an entity as Tripoli, why not treat them relatively equally? The feudal relationship should be taken seriously. It was not only the concrete ruling as regent, but the more or less respected vassalage. We do not remove Toulouse or Normandy from the kingdom of France, though they sometimes were at war against the king of France (if such extreme disrespect to vassalage does not lead to removal, why then the fact that vassal and king lived in relative harmony for some periods). As far as I understand, one of the biggest reasons of distinction was that Tripoli etc were not part of Haute Cour. Or does someone know contrary? 217.140.193.123 22:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, no, that's the thing, the counts of Tripoli and Edessa and the princes of Antioch didn't participate in the Haute Cour because they weren't really vassals of Jerusalem (unless of course they also held land there, like Raymond III). They had their own courts...but of course so did Galilee, Jaffa, and even smaller places. Cyprus had its own machinery of government that was based on Jerusalem, but definitely wasn't subject to it (if anything, Jerusalem was subject to Cyprus). Toulouse is a good parallel, by the way - theoretically it was part of France since Carolingian times, but until the 13th century it was certainly a completely separate entity. Adam Bishop 23:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Medieval courts and vassalage were more idiosyncratic than you seem to grasp. I would say almost an anarchic or chaotic organization. For example, Duke of Normandy apparently did not subjugate under Parlement de Paris, though Parlement de Paris was the royal parlement, or in a sense the court. P de P had jurisdiction over royal domain even if such was located far away.

We probably should say that different vassals of J had sometimes different line under royal jurisdiction. K of J apparently judged some things re Antioch etc (e.g mediated in their mutual quarrels), but not the Haute Cour. Haute Cour apparently was the parliament for that portion of the kingdom which therefore became known as kingdom proper. (idea of this should be put into Haute Cour article...) Haute cour was, as usual in medieval machinery, combination of legislative and judicial powers. The original idea of "representation - obligation" was the basis here. All lords and lands who were subject to HC, were entitled to be represented there. See the origins of consent to taxation.

I think we should not say "they were not really vassals of Jerusalem" since they were but by a different arrangement than the lords sugbjugated also to the Haute Cour and having rights to sit there. 217.140.193.123 00:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cyprus
I am somewhat interested in whether there ever was any vassal relation of Cyprus towards Jerusalem, though I admit that probably not.

When it was founded as Crusader state, Cyprus actually was only a "LORDSHIP" - it became kingdom only when Henry VI of HRE gave it that title, against vassalage. It was lordship which belonged to former K of J (king-consort), having just before belonged to Templars, an institution within the Kingdom of J. Now, it is not impossible that Cyprus owed some feudal obligation to Jerusalem at that point. Though its obligations may rather been to Rich Lionheart, my favorite gay.

We should never say that Jerusalem was subject to Cyprus, since apparently many of the C kings regarded their J title more valuable one of these two.

If quibbling or theoretizing, in 14th century, K of J was king of Cyprus (J being more prestigious royal title), and nobles of J lived in Cyprus, holding significant possessions (Cyprus actually had no native nobles, all were imports from J). The situation had reduced (or merged) into one where Cyprus was under titleholders of J and on the other hand Jerusalem had no longer its own machinery. 217.140.193.123 00:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Latin Empire of Constantinople
Were the Kings of Jerusalem beneath in feudal rank to the Holy Roman Emperor, or the Latin Emperor of Constantinople? IP Address 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Beneath in what sense? In the sense that any king would be "lower" than any emperor, sure...but the only emperor the Kingdom regularly dealt with was the Byzantine Emperor. In the sense of prestige, the King of Jerusalem definitely had a lower status than the Byzantine Emperor, as well as the King of France, and England, and the Holy Roman Emperor. In the sense of actual vassalage, then the King was a vassal of no one, even if the Byzantine Emperor liked to think of him as one. It is also worth noting that Frederick II tried to impose his authority over the crusader states not as Holy Roman Emperor, but as heir to the title of king through his wife. I don't know about the Latin Emperor though. (I suspect John Kenney, Stbalbach, or Choess would be better suited than me to answer this question.) Adam Bishop 02:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they may have these answers as well, but thanks for your efforts. IP Address 04:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Kingdom of Cyprus was a HRE creation, owed thus vassal's allegiance to that emperor. Jerusalem was, I think (not totally certain), under Pope (I remember that have read something about such), but vassals of pope were not vry dependent either in theory or in ptractice - you know, England, Aragon and Hungary were theoretically papal fiefs... Marrtel 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Cyprus wasn't created by the HRE, it was originally a Lusignan lordship and was mostly joined with the remnant of Jerusalem. But when Jerusalem was ruled, at least in name, by the Holy Roman Emperor, Cyprus remained a separate kingdom. Jerusalem would have been a papal fief if Daimbert of Pisa had gotten his way, but it was never technically one like England was. Adam Bishop 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually, I think the Cypriote kingship was formally a creation of Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor; see for instance, "in 1197, [Amalric] was crowned first king of Cyprus by the imperial chancellor in Nicosia." Henry also approved of the elevation of Cilician Armenia to a kingdom, although that didn't actually take place until after his death (Leo II of Armenia was crowned by a papal legate). Any such vassalage was, of course, completely nominal, and I think some papal proclamation during the struggle with Frederick II repudiated it completely. Choess 03:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Lordship of Joscelin was NOT a seigneury
Lordship yes, seigneurie no. See Adrian Boas, "Montfort: history, early research and recent studies of the principal fortress of the Teutonic order in the Latin East", Brill 2017 (series: Medieval Mediterranean (Book 107), ISBN 9789004250468): the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, upon buying the estate, did NOT become a baron of the Kingdom of Jerusalem precisely because the estate lacked the privileges of a seigneury. Based on thorough study of the legal papers from the Teutonic Order's archive. Arminden (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Map
I made an SVG based on Conder's map and added it to the article. It sacrifices some detail, but is legible even in thumbnail size. It can be the basis for locator maps for each individual vassal, to be used in those articles. The map currently is a direct copy of Conder's, but should be modified to fit the information in the article (assuming it's properly sourced). IYY (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


text:
Hardstyle

Hardstyle is an electronic dance genre that emerged in the late 1990s, with origins in the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. Hardstyle mixes influences from techno, new beat and hardcore.

Early hardstyle was typically written at 140 BPM (beats per minute); however, modern hardstyle is faster, produced around 150 BPM. It consisted of overdriven and hard-sounding kick drums, often accompanied by an offbeat bass, known as a "reverse bass". As the genre grew, the production techniques and songwriting changed to be suited to a more commercial audience. Modern hardstyle can be recognized by its use of synthesizer melodies and distorted sounds, coupled with hardstyle's signature combination of percussion and bass. The genre is particularly known for its harmonic use of kickdrums. Due to the sustained nature of a hardstyle kick, producers are able to play basslines by using only the kick itself, which becomes a distinct bass tone through a series of distortion, equalization and layering (among other methods). This technique is known as "pitching" a kick.

The genre gained commercial acceptance in the 2010s, with hardstyle artists performing on the biggest stages in EDM worldwide.

Hardstyle influenced other styles of electronic dance music such as big room house, which began sharing similarities with hardstyle like structures, rhythms, and later, pitching kicks became popular in big room too. Hardstyle also played a large influence in frenchcore and happy hardcore music, which both became popular in the late 2010s with the hardstyle audience after producers started applying hardstyle production techniques and melodic styles to the genres.

Origins
The exact origin of hardstyle cannot be specifically defined; however, it is clear the characteristic of hardstyle originates from hard trance (notably hard trance's 'reverse bass', and artists such as German deejay Scot Project) with influence from other genres such as hardcore, this genre is what is now known as early hardstyle. As it progressed, the genre gathered characteristics from other electronic music genres and refined its own sound and identity. Over time, the BPM of hardstyle music increased, from a range of 135 to 150 to a range of 150 to 160. Some hardcore producers brought hardstyle elements back to the hardcore scene, which made modern hardstyle and hardcore very similar and often indistinguishable in some cases, only differing in BPM.

The first event credited as a hardstyle event was Qlubtempo, which took place in the year 2000 in Zaandam. Qlubtempo was the first event produced by Q-dance, a Dutch event company which would later go on to produce hardstyle festivals in other countries in Europe, Australia, North America, South America and Asia. In 2001, Q-dance produced the first edition of Qlimax. Q-dance trademarked the term "hardstyle" on the 4th of July, 2002, after both Qlimax and Qlubtempo proved to be successful. Since its inception, Q-dance has guided the evolution of hardstyle music with its events and is often involved with hardstyle artists on a creative level. In 2003, Q-dance hosted the first edition of Defqon.1.

The first few years of hardstyle were characterized by a tempo of around 140–150 BPM, a distorted kick drum sound, vocal samples, dissonant synth sounds known as "screetches" and the use of a "reverse bass", a hard kick distorted offbeat bass within the same beat. Around 2002, more hardstyle labels emerged. Fusion Records (with DJ Zany and others) and Scantraxx (founded by Dov Elkabas) were the two largest Dutch Hardstyle labels in that period. At this point in time, hardstyle artists were primarily from either the Netherlands or Italy.

Early hardstyle
Early hardstyle is a modern name for what was at the time called "hardstyle", the genre is focused mostly on reverse bass kicks, which can still be found in songs today as a pre-drop.

Euphoric hardstyle
From roughly 2010 onwards, the move towards a more melodic emphasis from older hardstyle evolved into the subgenre "euphoric hardstyle", characterized by highly emotional melodies and heavy pitch-shifting of kicks.

Trapstyle
The trapstyle is a sub-genre of the hardstyle scene linked to trap which appeared in the mid- 2010s. It was pioneered by Pittsburgh DJ, Black Daddy, CEO and Founder of Hardstyle Family.

Dubstyle
In early 2010, a new variation in hardstyle, named dubstyle was introduced. Dubstyle is the name given to the genre fusion of hardstyle and dubstep. Dubstyle tends to have reversed wobble basslines and takes the kick styling of hardstyle tracks, while combining them with the rhythm, groove and dubstep tempo and effects a fusion of elements of hardstyle with a dubstep rhythm, usually a 2-step or a breakstep rhythm.

Notable related events

 * Defqon.1
 * Mysteryland
 * Qlimax
 * Reverze
 * Sensation Black
 * The Qontinent
 * Decibel Outdoor
 * Intents Festival
 * Rebirth Festival
 * Knockout Outdoor
 * Basscon Wasteland
 * Electric Daisy Carnival (Basscon Stage)
 * Tomorrowland (Q-Dance Stage)
 * Shockerz

Notable labels

 * Dirty Workz
 * Fusion Records
 * Q-dance
 * Scantraxx

title: Hardstyle


text:
Socket 478

Socket 478, also known as mPGA478 or mPGA478B, is a 478-contact CPU socket used for Intel's Pentium 4 and Celeron series CPUs.

Socket 478 was launched in August 2001 in advance of the Northwood core to compete with AMD's 462-pin Socket A and their Athlon XP processors. Socket 478 was intended to be the replacement for Socket 423, a Willamette-based processor socket which was on the market for only a short time.

This was the last Intel desktop socket to use a pin grid array (PGA) interface. All later Intel desktop sockets use a land grid array (LGA) interface.

Socket 478 was phased out with the launch of LGA 775 in 2004.

Technical specifications
Socket 478 was used for all Northwood Pentium 4 and Celeron processors. It supported the first Prescott Pentium 4 processors and all Willamette Celerons, along with several of the Willamette-series Pentium 4s. Socket 478 also supported the newer Prescott-based Celeron D processors (which were also one of the last CPUs made for the socket), and early Pentium 4 Extreme Edition processors with 2 MB of L3 CPU cache.

While the Intel mobile CPUs are available in 478-pin packages, they in fact only operate in a range of slightly differing sockets such as Socket 479, Socket M, and Socket P, each of them electrically incompatible with the other two as well as Socket 478.

Socket 478 is used in combination with DDR SDRAM, as well as SDR SDRAM, RDRAM and DDR2 SDRAM.

Heatsink
The 4 holes for fastening the heatsink to the motherboard are placed in a rectangle with lateral lengths of 60 mm and 75 mm.

Mechanical load limits
All sockets (Pentium 4 and Celeron) have the following mechanical maximum load limits which should not be exceeded during heatsink assembly, shipping conditions, or standard use. Load above those limits may crack the processor die and make it unusable. The limits are included in the table below.

Intel
See List of Intel chipsets

title: Socket 478


text:
Armand de Vignerot du Plessis, Duke of Aiguillon

Armand de Vignerot du Plessis, Duke of Aiguillon (Armand Désiré; 31 October 1761 – 4 May 1800), was a French military officer and politician.

Life and career
He was the only son of Emmanuel-Armand de Vignerot du Plessis-Richelieu and his wife, Louise-Félicité de Bréhan. In 1788, he succeeded his father as Duke of Aiguillon.

In 1789, as a member of the National Assembly, he became one of the first to ally himself with the Third Estate and to renounce the privileges of the nobility. He became a general in the Republican Army, but had to flee during the Reign of Terror of 1793–1794.

According to Michael Kelly in his Reminiscences, the Duke of Aiguillon was, in 1796, in London with the revolutionaries Charles Lameth and the orator Dupont. He states that the duke had been 'one of the twelve peers of France, who, in former days, had an immense fortune, was a great patron of the arts, and so theatrical that he had a box in every theatre in Paris. He was particularly fond of music, and had been a pupil of Viotti (then leader of the Opera House orchestra, at which Kelly was stage manager).' Kelly introduced them to Richard Brinsley Sheridan and other friends, though the Duke of Queensberry refused to meet the Duke of Aiguillon.

On learning that the Duke of Aiguillon's fortune was entirely lost or sequestered, Kelly arranged for him to make a little money by copying sheet-music, which he did secretly during the day, continuing to attend the theatre in the evening. Eventually, an order came from the Alien Office of the British Government that he and his friends must leave England in two days. The duke went to Hamburg, and was later condemned to be shot. 'They told me that he died like a hero,' wrote Kelly. The duke left his favourite Danish dog in Kelly's care, shedding many tears on parting from it: the animal outlived its master, but pined and died soon afterwards.


text:
Three Red Banners

Three Red Banners was an ideological slogan in the late 1950s which called on the Chinese people to build a socialist state. The "Three Red Banners" also called the "Three Red Flags," consisted of the General Line for socialist construction, the Great Leap Forward and the people's communes.

After the first Five-Year Plan, the People's Republic of China continued its socialist construction by introducing "Three Red Banners Movement". The General Line directed the Chinese people to "go all out, aim high, and build socialism with greater, faster, better, and more economical results." By the end of 1958, nearly all Chinese peasants had been organized into communes averaging 5000 households each. All privately owned property was taken for or contributed to the communes and people were not allowed to cook their own food and instead ate in communal dining halls.

The Great Leap Forward, begun in 1958, was a campaign to rapidly modernize by using China's vast labor resources in agricultural and industrial projects. The Leap instead resulted in economic destruction and tens of millions of famine deaths, and had been mostly abandoned by early 1962. Membership in communes was gradually reduced in the early 1960s, with some private property ownership and enterprise again being allowed. The communes continued until being dismantled in the early 1980s under Deng Xiaoping.

title: Three Red Banners


text:
Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud

Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud (الوليد بن طلال آل سعود; born 7 March 1955) is a Saudi Arabian billionaire businessman, investor, philanthropist, and royal member of the House of Saud. In 2008, he was listed on Time magazine's Time 100, an annual list of the hundred most influential people in the world. Al Waleed is a grandson of Abdulaziz, the first king of Saudi Arabia, and of Riad Al Solh, Lebanon's first prime minister.

Al Waleed is the founder, chief executive officer and 95 percent owner of the Kingdom Holding Company, a company with investments in companies in the financial services, tourism and hospitality, mass media, entertainment, retail, agriculture, petrochemicals, aviation, technology, and real-estate sectors. In 2013, the company had a market capitalization of over $18 billion. He owns Paris' Four Seasons Hotel George V and part of New York's Plaza Hotel. Time has called him the "Arabian Warren Buffett". In November 2017, Forbes listed Al Waleed as the 7th-richest man in the world, with a net worth of $39.8 billion.

On 4 November 2017, Al Waleed and other prominent Saudis (including fellow billionaires Waleed bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim and Saleh Abdullah Kamel) were arrested in Saudi Arabia, in a purge that the Saudi government characterized as an anti-corruption drive. The allegations against Al Waleed include money laundering, bribery, and extorting officials. Some of the detainees were held in the Ritz-Carlton, Riyadh. Al Waleed was released from detention on 27 January 2018, following a financial settlement of some kind, after nearly three months in detention. In March 2018 he was dropped from the World's Billionaires list due to lack of current information. He was listed in the 'Top 100 most powerful Arabs' from 2013 to 2021 by Gulf Business.

Early life and education
Al Waleed bin Talal was born in Jeddah on 7 March 1955 to Prince Talal bin Abdulaziz and Mona El Solh. His father was Saudi Arabia's finance minister during the early 1960s, before he went into exile due to his advocacy for political reform. Al Waleed's paternal grandparents were King Abdulaziz and Munaiyir. His grandmother, an Armenian, was presented by the emir of Unayzah to King Abdulaziz in 1921, when she was 12 years old and Abdulaziz was 45. His maternal grandparents were Riad Al Solh, the first prime minister of Lebanon, and Fayza Al Jabiri, the sister of Syrian Prime Minister Saadallah al-Jabiri.

Al Waleed's parents separated when he was seven, and he lived with his mother in Lebanon. He first attended Pinewood College in Beirut. As a boy, he ran away from home for a day or two at a time, sleeping in unlocked cars, before attending the King Abdulaziz Military Academy in Riyadh. In 1974, he returned to Lebanon, attending the Choueifat School and then Manor School. Al Waleed received a bachelor's degree in business administration from Menlo College in California in 1979, finishing in two-and-a-half years, and a master's degree with honors in social science from the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University in 1985, finishing in eleven months.

Business career
Al Waleed began his business career in 1979 after graduating from Menlo College. He returned to Saudi Arabia, which was in the midst of the 1974–85 oil boom. Operating from a small, four-room cabin in Riyadh and $30,000 start-up money provided by his father, Al Waleed formed Kingdom Establishment in 1980. When that money ran out in a few months, he secured a $300,000 loan from the Saudi American Bank, partly owned by Citibank. Rather than taking a commission for facilitating contracts as the legally required middleman, Al Waleed insisted on a stake in the project. His first success was in 1982, partnering with a South Korean construction company, and from then on, his commissions were used to fund his real estate deals. In his own words, "All the money I used to get from this construction I would plough back into real estate, and in the stock market, both."

After the end of the Saudi oil boom, Al Waleed acquired the underperforming United Saudi Commercial Bank (USCB). Through mergers with Saudi Cairo Bank (SCB), forming United Saudi Bank (USB), and the Saudi American Bank (SAMBA), it became a leading Middle Eastern bank. The hostile takeover of USCB in 1986, the merger with SCB in 1997, and the merger of USB with SAMBA in 1999, were the first of their kind in the Kingdom. He then secured a majority in Al-Azizia Panda, merging it with the Savola Group, and took over National Industrialization Company.

By 1989, his net worth was $1.4 billion, and included stakes in Canary Wharf, Four Seasons Hotel Group, and News Corporation. When Al Waleed turned to the international market, he focused on "established brands going through hard times," as Riz Khan puts it. Al Waleed would do his homework, and then wait for the proper purchase entry point. He invested about $250 million in Chase Manhattan, Citigroup, Manufacturers Hanover, and Chemical Bank. After seven months, he sold his stakes in the other banks and concentrated on investing in Citicorp, acquiring 4.9 percent of the bank. Though the worst performing bank of the four, Al Waleed considered Citicorp had the best potential.

In Sept. 1990, Citibank was undercapitalized due to real estate credit losses and exposure to Latin America debt, prompting a need for a capital reserve. By Nov. they were actively seeking investors. Based on his banking experience in the Kingdom, Al Waleed agreed in Jan. 1991 to invest $590 million, about half his accumulated wealth, in a five-year convertible security paying 11 percent interest. By Feb., that took his total investment in Citicorp to $797 million, or about 15 percent of the company. Though he had received a Federal Reserve temporary waiver to own such a large portion of the company, Al Waleed sold enough shares in 1993 to get below the 10 percent threshold. Still, he was the largest shareholder in the largest US financial institution at the time. Yet, in Alwaleed's words, "It is not a relationship, it's an alliance. We are there forever with them." Sandy Weill says of Al Waleed, "I think what he did really saved the bank."

In 1993, Al Waleed purchased a 10 percent stake in Saks Fifth Avenue for $100 million. A flagship store was then opened in Riyadh.

In 1994, Al Waleed secured a 50 percent controlling interest in Fairmont, and a 22 percent stake in the Four Seasons. In 1995, he bought a 42 percent stake in the Plaza Hotel, and it was reported that he was working on a music channel for his satellite TV platform.

Then, in 1996, he bought the George V for $185 million, and spent $120 million renovating it for a reopening in Dec 1999. Regarding Al Waleed's investment in the George V, Issy Sharp states, "...he created value where no one else could..."

In the same year, Al Waleed purchased a 24 percent stake in Euro Disney for $345 million.

In 1995, Kingdom Establishment for Trading and Contracting was reorganized as the Kingdom Holding Company, and Al Waleed announced construction of the Kingdom Centre, Kingdom Hospital, Kingdom School and Kingdom City. Also in 1995, he bought a 2.3 percent share of Mediaset after having invested earlier in the Arab Radio and Television Network, acquiring 30 percent. In Oct. 1995, Al Waleed joined a consortium which paid $1.2 billion for control of Canary Wharf, with his share of the company amounting to 6 percent, costing him $66 million.

In March 1997, Al Waleed purchased a 5 percent stake in Apple Inc., making him the largest shareholder. In Nov. 1997, he purchased 1 percent share of Motorola for $287 million and a five percent share of Netscape for $146 million, before its purchase by AOL and merger with Time Warner. In 2001 and 2002, Al Waleed increased his stake in AOL Time Warner by another $540 million. He also invested in MCI, Fox Broadcasting and other technology and media companies.

Time reported in 1997 that Al Waleed owned about five percent of News Corporation, which he purchased for $400 million, making him the third largest shareholder. In April 1999, Al Waleed purchased an additional $200 million of preferred shares. In 2010 his News Corporation stake was about seven percent ($3 billion). Three years later News Corporation had a $175 million (19-percent) investment in Al Waleed's Rotana Group, the Arab world's largest entertainment company. A review of his holdings implied that Al Waleed had sold his investment in AOL.

In April 1997, Al Waleed purchased a 4 percent stake in Planet Hollywood for $57 million, and another 16 percent in November, 1998 for $45 million.

In Oct. 1997, Al Waleed bought 27 percent of Mövenpick Hotels & Resorts, which he increased to 33 percent in 2003.

In 1999, The Economist expressed doubts about the source of his income, wondering if he was a front man for other Saudi investors:

"He has not earned enough income from his investments to pay for all that he has spent in the 1990s. The mystery goes back to that first stake in Citicorp. The prince has declared that this money came entirely from his personal funds. He says he started out in 1979 with a loan of just $30,000 from his father. He also mortgaged a house that his father had given him, raising something like $400,000. And each month, as a grandson of Ibn Saud, he receives $15,000. You could barely clothe a Saudi prince for such sums, let alone furnish him with a multi-billion-dollar empire. Nevertheless, by 1991 Prince Alwaleed had felt able to risk an investment of $797m in Citicorp."

Al Waleed invested in WorldCom, Priceline.com, Coca-Cola, and Ford Motor Company, totaling almost $2 billion. In Asia, he bought 5.9 percent of Daewoo for $50 million, which he increased to 18 percent with an additional $100 million investment, 3 percent of PROTON Holdings for $46 million, 3 percent of Ong Beng Seng's Hotel Properties Ltd., and $50 million worth of Hyundai Motor Company bonds. In Africa, he invested $50 million, acquiring 10 percent of Sonatel, 10 percent of Ecobank, 13.7 percent of United Bank for Africa, and 14 percent of CAL Bank. Investments which turned out poorly included WorldCom, Priceline, Teledesic, and KirchMedia, besides Planet Hollywood and Euro Disney.

His stake in Apple was sold in 2005. Al Waleed also invested in Eastman Kodak and TWA, both of which performed moderately well.

In 2002, Al Waleed formed Kingdom Hotel Investments to oversee his hotel assets.

By 2003, Al Waleed owned 100 percent of Rotana, and 49 percent of LBC Sat.

His real-estate holdings included large stakes in the Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts and New York's Plaza Hotel; Al Waleed sold half his shares in the Plaza in August 2004. He has invested in London's Savoy Hotel and Monaco's Monte Carlo Grand Hotel. Al Waleed holds a ten-percent stake in Euro Disney S.C.A., the company which owns, manages and maintains Disneyland Paris in Marne-la-Vallée.

The 2004 Forbes list of wealthiest people had Al Waleed fourth, with a net worth of $21.5 billion. More than $1.3 billion was in hotel holdings.

In January 2005, Al Waleed purchased the Savoy Hotel in London for an estimated £250 million, to be managed by Fairmont Hotels and Resorts; his sister, Sultana Nurul, owns an estimated 16 percent stake. In January 2006, in partnership with the U.S. real-estate firm Colony NorthStar, Kingdom Holding acquired Toronto-based Fairmont Hotels and Resorts for an estimated $3.9 billion. It was reported in 2009 that Al Waleed owned 35 percent of Research and Marketing Group (SRMG), a large mid-east media company.

In August 2011, Al Waleed announced that his company had contracted with the Saudi Binladin Group to build the world's tallest building, the Kingdom Tower (at a height of at least 1000 m) for SR 4.6 billion. The original plan—announced in 2008—called it برج الميل (Arabic for "One-Mile Tower"), at a height of 1609 m and an estimated cost of $20 billion.

In December 2011, Al Waleed invested $300 million in Twitter, purchasing secondary shares from insiders. The purchase gave Kingdom Holding a "more than 3% share" in the company, which was valued at $8 billion in late summer 2011.

In 2015, he announced that he would donate his fortune to charity at an unspecified date. He had previously donated $3.5 billion over the course of 35 years through his charitable organization Alwaleed Philanthropies.

From 2015 to 2021, he lost several lawsuits against Pierre El Daher, CEO of LBCI, and would be required to pay $22m, due to breaches in contract conditions with the Lebanese broadcaster.

In May 2022, he was listed as committing to purchase approximately 35 million shares of Twitter Inc. at or immediately prior to the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk and other private-equity investors behind Musk's bid.

Arrest and release
On 4 November 2017, Al Waleed was one of those arrested in Saudi Arabia in a "corruption crackdown" conducted by a new royal anti-corruption committee. In total, 320 princes, ministers and businessmen were detained at the five-star Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Riyadh. This was done on the orders of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, who acted with the aim of consolidating his position as the next ruler of the kingdom. Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman is Al Waleed's first cousin; both are male-line grandsons of Ibn Saud, first monarch and founder of Saudi Arabia.

Al Waleed and most of the other Saudi notables arrested made financial settlements of some kind with the Saudi government before they were released. In his case, as in the case of most of the other detainees, the Saudi Arabian government did not disclose charges or produce evidence, and the negotiations were held in secret. In December, some weeks after the arrests, it was reported that the Saudi Arabian authorities were demanding $6 billion from Prince Al Waleed bin Talal in exchange for his release.

Al Waleed was released from detention in late January 2018, nearly three months after his arrest. According to a Wall Street Journal report, the price for his release was $6 billion. In comparison, his first cousin Prince Mutaib bin Abdullah, son of the late King Abdullah (1924–2015), was released after reportedly paying a mere $1 billion.

Just days before his arrest, Al Waleed reportedly contacted US-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi (who had publicly criticized the Saudi government in the past) and invited him to return to the Kingdom to contribute to Mohammad bin Salman's vision.

Forbes dispute
In 2013, Kerry Dolan, editor of Forbes' annual billionaires' list, wrote an article accompanying the list entitled "Prince Alwaleed and the Curious Case of Kingdom Holding Stock". According to Dolan, Al Waleed attached great importance to the Forbes list and she alleged a correlation between changes in the share price of Kingdom Holdings and the annual run-up to the list's publication. In the Forbes article, Dolan wrote that Al Waleed would blind copy Dolan on text messages he sent to prominent people in an attempt to impress her. She spent a week with him in Riyadh in 2008, at his behest, touring his palaces. In 2006 Forbes estimated Al Waleed's net worth at $7 billion less than he claimed. He telephoned Dolan at home, according to the editor, "nearly in tears". Al Waleed had Kingdom Holding's chief financial officer fly to New York before a previous list was published to ensure that Forbes used his stated numbers.

The article explains the methodology behind Forbes' 2013 estimate of his wealth at $20 billion, examines Kingdom Holdings' share performance and contains Dolan's communications with Kingdom Holdings CFO Shadi Sanbar. Sanbar demanded that Al Waleed's name be removed from the billionaires' list if Forbes did not increase its valuation of his wealth. Dolan wrote, "As Forbes asked increasingly specific questions in the process of fact-checking this story, the prince acted unilaterally the day before it was published, announcing through his office that he would 'sever ties' with the list." Sanbar said in a press release, "Prince Alwaleed has taken this step as he felt he could no longer participate in a process which resulted in the use of incorrect data and seemed designed to disadvantage Middle Eastern investors and institutions."

Al Waleed said in a March 2013 interview with The Sunday Telegraph that he would pursue legal action against Forbes. "They are accusing me of market manipulation," Al Waleed said. "This is all wrong and a false statement. We will fight it all the way against Forbes." He called the Forbes list "flawed and inaccurate", saying that it "displays bias against Middle East investors and financial institutions."

The Guardian reported that on 6 June 2013, Al Waleed had brought a defamation claim in London against the publisher of Forbes; its editor, Randall Lane, and two journalists from the magazine. Forbes expressed surprise at the libel action and the fact that it was filed in London. According to the magazine, "The Prince's suit would be precisely the kind of libel tourism that the UK's recently passed libel reform law is intended to thwart. We would anticipate that the London high court will agree. Forbes stands by its story." As of 20 June, Forbes had not been served with papers.

A statement issued by the Kingdom Holding Company accused Forbes of publishing a "deliberately insulting and inaccurate description of the business community in Saudi Arabia and specifically, Forbes' denigration of the Saudi stock exchange (Tadawul), which is one of the most regulated in the world". According to Al Waleed, the magazine used an "irrational and deeply flawed valuation methodology, which is ultimately subjective and discriminatory".

On 16 June 2015, Forbes and Al Waleed released a joint statement announcing that they had settled their dispute "on mutually agreeable terms". The opening of the Saudi stock exchange to foreign investors was cited as key in the defendants' willingness to consider the stock price of Al Waleed's publicly traded Kingdom Holding Company in valuing the KHC component of his wealth.

Political views
Al Waleed tweeted a statement with a picture of himself holding an honorary Palestinian passport, "In response to the news of the visit to Israel: I have not and will not visit Jerusalem or pray inside it until its liberation from the Zionist enemy. And I carry an honorary Palestinian passport".

In 2015, Al Waleed was criticised for offering to buy Bentley cars for Saudi fighter pilots involved in the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen. In a tweet later deleted, he said: "In appreciation of their role in this operation, I'm honoured to offer 100 Bentley cars to the 100 Saudi [fighter] pilots".

Philanthropy
In July 1997, Al Waleed invested $10 million with the Palestinian Investment and Development Company (PADICO), and then helped cofound the Jerusalem Development and Investment Company (JEDICO).

In 2002, Al Waleed donated $500,000 to help fund the George Herbert Walker Bush scholarship at Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts. and donated £18.5 million to Palestinian families during a TV telethon ordered by Saudi King Fahd to help relatives of Palestinians after Israeli operations in the West Bank city of Jenin. In 2004, he contributed $17 million to victims of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami.

On 1 July 2015, Al Waleed held a press conference announcing his intention to donate $32 billion to philanthropic causes. He said that the funds would be used for humanitarian projects such as the empowerment of women and youth, disaster relief, disease eradication and building bridges of understanding between cultures.

Donation after 11 September attacks
After the 11 September attacks, Al Waleed gave a cheque for $10 million to New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, despite Saudi opposition. In a written statement after his donation, Al Waleed said: "At times like this, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause." As a result of that statement, Giuliani returned his cheque. Al Waleed said to a Saudi weekly magazine about Giuliani's rejection of his check, "The whole issue is that I spoke about their position [on the Middle East conflict] and they didn't like it because there are Jewish pressures and they are afraid of them."

Giuliani replied to this by suggesting that Al Waleed's comment was actually part of the problem: "There is no moral equivalent for this [terrorist] act. There is no justification for it... And one of the reasons I think this happened is because people were engaged in moral equivalency in not understanding the difference between liberal democracies like the United States, like Israel, and terrorist states and those who condone terrorism. So I think not only are those statements wrong, they're part of the problem."

Western universities
In 2005, Al Waleed gave Georgetown University $20 million to create the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU) in the university's School of Foreign Service, the second largest donation in the school's history. On 8 May 2008, Al Waleed gave £16 million to Edinburgh University to fund a "centre for the study of Islam in the contemporary world". He has also endowed the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Bin Abdulaziz Alsaud Center for American Studies and Research (CASAR). The Institute for Computational Biomedicine at Weill Cornell Medical College is named for Al Waleed. The Centre of Islamic Studies at the University of Cambridge and the Islamic Studies Program at Harvard University are also named after him. At his alma mater Syracuse University, Al Waleed is an honorary member of the advisory board of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

First Saudi female pilot
Al Waleed is considered a proponent of female emancipation in the Saudi world. He financed the training of Hanadi Zakaria al-Hindi as the first Saudi woman commercial airline pilot, and said at her graduation that he is "in full support of Saudi ladies working in all fields". Al-Hindi became certified to fly within Saudi Arabia in 2014.

Assets

Al Waleed owns the 65th-largest private yacht in the world, the 85.9 m Kingdom 5KR (originally built as the Nabila for Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi in 1979). In 1983, owned by Khashoggi, it appeared as the Flying Saucer (the yacht of James Bond's villain, Largo) in Never Say Never Again. It was sold to Donald Trump, who renamed her the Trump Princess. Al Waleed bought the yacht after Trump experienced financial problems in the late 1980s.

Al Waleed ordered a yacht known as the New Kingdom 5KR, about 173 m long with an estimated cost of over $500 million. The yacht is designed by Lindsey Design, and its design was delivered in late 2010.

He owns several aircraft converted for private use: a Boeing 747, an Airbus A321 and a Hawker Siddeley 125. Al Waleed was the first individual to purchase an Airbus A380 and was due to take delivery of it in the spring of 2013, but it was sold before delivery.

Among his assets are a 95-percent stake in Kingdom Holding Company; 91-percent ownership of Rotana Video and Audio Visual Company; 90-percent ownership of the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation; seven-percent ownership of News Corporation; about six-percent ownership of Citigroup, and a 17-percent ownership of Al Nahar and a 25-percent ownership of Ad-Diyar (two daily newspapers published in Lebanon). Al Waleed topped the first Saudi Rich List in 2009, with assets of $16.3 billion.

Palaces
Al Waleed owns three palaces: two existing and a third under construction. The 250000 sqft Kingdom Palace, in central Riyadh, is his primary home. According to Time magazine, "Al Waleed lives in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in a $130 million sand-colored palace whose 317 rooms are adorned with 1,500 tons of Italian marble, silk oriental carpets, gold-plated faucets and 250 TVs. It has four kitchens, for Arabic, Continental and Asian cuisines, and a fifth just for dishing up desserts, run by chefs who can feed 2,000 people on an hour's notice. There is also a lagoon-shaped pool and a 45-seat basement cinema". The 500000 sqft Kingdom Resort, also in central Riyadh, has three lakes interspersed with gardens. The 4000000 sqft Kingdom Oasis, under construction, will have a 70000 m2 lake and a private zoo.

Awards
Al Waleed received the first order of the Order of King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia in 2002 and is a recipient of the Lebanese National Order of the Cedar. On 2 December 2009, he received the Order of Izzudin from Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed; that year he also received the Star of Palestine, the highest honour conferred by the State of Palestine. In 2010, Al Waleed received the Dwight D. Eisenhower Award for Innovation. He received the Bahrain Medal of the First Order, the country's highest honorary medal in late May 2012. He received the Nepalese third-order Mahaujjval Rastradip Manpadvi, the highest award bestowed on a foreigner, and Guinea-Bissau's Colina De Boe Medal in August 2012. In June 2013 Al Waleed was made Grand Commander of the Order of the Republic of Sierra Leone (GCRSL), the country's highest honour. On 13 December 2014, he was made an Honorary Companion of the National Order of Merit of the Republic of Malta.

Personal life

Al Waleed has been married multiple times. His first marriage was in 1976, at the age of 19. His first wife was his cousin, Princess Dalal bint Saud, a daughter of King Saud. They have two children (Prince Khaled, born on 21 April 1978 and Princess Reem, born on 20 June 1982), and later divorced, in December 1994.

In 1996, Al Waleed married Princess Iman Sudairi, but the marriage lasted only approximately a year. After divorcing his second wife, Al Waleed married Kholood Al Anazi, in 1999. They were divorced in 2004.

His fourth wife was Ameera al-Taweel; after about six years of marriage, they divorced in 2014. In an interview, he said: "Yes, I announce it through Okaz—Saudi Gazette for the first time. I have officially separated from Princess Ameera Al-Taweel, but she remains a person that I have all respect for."

title: Al Waleed bin Talal Al Saud


text:
Joseph Beyrle

Joseph R. Beyrle (pron. BYE-er-lee)(Джозеф Вильямович Байерли; romanized: Dzhozef Vilyamovich Bayyerli; August 25, 1923 – December 12, 2004) is the only known American soldier to have served in combat with both the United States Army and the Soviet Red Army in World War II. He took part in Mission Albany, the airborne landings of the 101st Airborne Division on June 5–6, 1944, as a member of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment. He was captured by the Germans and sent east as a prisoner of war.

After several unsuccessful attempts, Beyrle escaped from the German Stalag III-C in January 1945 and joined a Soviet tank battalion under the command of Aleksandra Samusenko. Wounded, he was evacuated and eventually made his way to the United States in April 1945. Beyrle died in 2004 and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. His son John Beyrle later became United States Ambassador to Russia.

Early life
Joseph Beyrle was the third of seven children born to William and Elizabeth Beyrle, whose parents had come to America from Germany in the 1800s. He was six years old when the Great Depression struck; his father, a factory worker, lost his job. The family was evicted from their home and was forced to move in with Joseph's grandmother. Some of his earliest memories, Beyrle later told his children, were of standing in government food lines with his father. His two older brothers dropped out of high school and joined the Civilian Conservation Corps, an unemployment work-relief program, sending home enough money to allow the rest of the family to stay together. His older sister died of scarlet fever at age 16.

US Army
Upon his enlistment, Beyrle volunteered to become a paratrooper, and after completing basic airborne infantry training at Camp Toccoa he was assigned to the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 101st Airborne Division, the "Screaming Eagles". Beyrle specialized in radio communications and demolition, and was first stationed in Ramsbury, England, to prepare for the upcoming Allied invasion from the west. After nine months of training, Beyrle completed two missions in occupied France in April and May 1944, delivering gold to the French Resistance.

On 6 June, D-Day, Beyrle's C-47 came under enemy fire over the Normandy coast, and he was forced to jump from the exceedingly low altitude of 360 ft. After landing in Saint-Côme-du-Mont, Sergeant Beyrle lost contact with his fellow paratroopers, but succeeded in blowing up a power station. He performed other sabotage missions before being captured by German soldiers a few days later.

Prisoner of war
Over the next seven months, Beyrle was held in seven German prisons. He escaped twice, and was both times recaptured. Beyrle and his fellow prisoners had been hoping to find the Red Army, which was a short distance away. After the second escape (in which he and his companions set out for Poland but boarded a train to Berlin by mistake), Beyrle was turned over to the Gestapo by a German civilian. Beaten and tortured, he was released to the German military after officials stepped in and determined that the Gestapo had no jurisdiction over prisoners of war. The Gestapo were about to shoot Beyrle and his comrades, claiming that he was an American spy who had parachuted into Berlin.

Beyrle was taken to the Stalag III-C POW camp in Alt Drewitz, from which he escaped in early January 1945. He headed east, hoping to meet up with the Soviet army. Encountering a Soviet tank brigade in the middle of January, he raised his hands, holding a pack of Lucky Strike cigarettes, and shouted in Russian, 'Amerikansky tovarishch! ("American comrade!"). Beyrle was eventually able to persuade the battalion's commander (Aleksandra Samusenko, reportedly the only female tank officer of that rank in the war) to allow him to fight alongside the unit on its way to Berlin. Beyrle began a month-long stint in a Soviet tank battalion, where his demolitions expertise was appreciated.

Soviet Army
Beyrle's new battalion was the one that freed his former camp, Stalag III-C, at the end of January, but in the first week of February, he was wounded during an attack by German dive bombers. He was evacuated to a Soviet hospital in Landsberg an der Warthe (now Gorzów Wielkopolski in Poland), where he received a visit from Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov, who, intrigued by the only non-Soviet in the hospital, learned his story through an interpreter, and provided Beyrle with official papers in order to rejoin American forces.

Joining a Soviet military convoy, Beyrle arrived at the U.S. embassy in Moscow in February 1945, only to learn that he had been reported by the U.S. War Department as killed in action on June 10, 1944, in France. A funeral mass had been held in his honor in Muskegon, and his obituary was published in the local newspaper. Embassy officers in Moscow, unsure of his bona fides, placed him under Marine guard in the Metropol Hotel until his identity was established through his fingerprints.

Post-military
Beyrle returned home to Michigan on April 21, 1945, and celebrated V-E Day two weeks later in Chicago. He was married to JoAnne Hollowell in 1946 in the same church and by the same priest who had held his funeral mass two years earlier. Beyrle worked for Brunswick Corporation for 28 years, retiring as a shipping supervisor.

His unique service earned him medals from U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin at a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House marking the 50th anniversary of D-Day in 1994.

Death and legacy
Beyrle died in his sleep of heart failure on December 12, 2004, during a visit to Toccoa, Georgia, where he had trained as a paratrooper in 1942. He was 81. He was buried with honors in Section 1 of Arlington National Cemetery in April, 2005.

Beyrle and his wife JoAnne had a daughter, Julie, and two sons. The elder son, Joe Beyrle II, served in the 101st Airborne during the Vietnam War. His son John Beyrle served as the United States Ambassador to Russia 2008–2012.

On September 17, 2002, a book by Thomas Taylor about Beyrle, The Simple Sounds of Freedom, was published by Random House. A Ballantine paperback version, Behind Hitler's Lines, came out June 1, 2004.

In 2005, a plaque was unveiled on the wall of the church in Saint-Côme-du-Mont, France, where Beyrle landed on June 6, 1944. A permanent plaque was dedicated at the site on July 5, 2014.

An exhibition devoted to Joe Beyrle's life and wartime experiences was shown in Moscow and three other Russian cities in 2010. The exhibition opened a four-city American tour at The National World War II Museum in New Orleans, with showings in Toccoa and Omaha in 2011, and Beyrle's hometown of Muskegon in June 2012. A permanent installation of the exhibition is now on display at the USS Silversides Museum in Muskegon.

title: Joseph Beyrle