CHAPEL END CHARLIE

That looks like a good read - I must seek it out. There is no doubt that Imperial Japan was a beaten nation long before the triple blows of two atomic bombs and Russia declaring war tipper her over the edge into capitulation. I'm no so sure that without those blows she would have surrendered when she did however - the war might have gone on until 1946 and we should never underestimate the desire of the allied nations just to end the misery and loss as soon as possible - and who can blame them? But no easy answers here that for sure. I will always remember the words Emperor Hirohito used on the radio to announce to his shocked people that Japan was about to surrender "the war has developed not necessarily to our advantage" he said ... Aye.

Well Halo, I may like to make out I'm some sort of historical expert but my knowledge is rather more superficial than I'd really like it to be ... oh for the many benefits of a university education! I think it is safe to say however that Communism, and all that it stood for, was a anathema to a old Tory imperialist like Churchill. But Churchill, just like Hitler in a way, was a opportunist at heart and so utterly dedicated was he to winning the war he would allow no consideration to come before the cause of victory over Nazi Germany ... which is a long winded way of saying that war makes strange bedfellows and 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' if you know what I mean. I don't see much evidence that the British establishment spent a lot of time during WWII worrying unduly about the prospect of a quick Soviet victory, indeed the outcome of the war in the east was very much a question left hanging in the balance until 1943 at the very earliest. To support that contention, the record does show that as late as 1945 (with the war almost won) both Britain and the USA were still supplying the Soviets with huge amounts of military equipment (via the Arctic convoys and the Persia railhead) and even actively encouraging Stalin to participate in the defeat of Japan for instance. If the west were really all that worried about the prospect Soviet expansionism at that time then surly we would/should have reduced, or halted entirely, that military support. Churchill however was certainly much more deeply concerned about the postwar fate of Poland and Greece than our US allies were for instance, and much quicker too than the (rapidly ailing) Roosevelt to foresee the sinister implications of unbridled Soviet military power and the influence Stalin would wield over the lands occupied by the Red Army. But Yalta, Potsdam, and all that is another story. Both before and during WWII the more idealistic elements of the British left viewed the Soviet Union as something akin to a model society, the future of mankind even. Those who took the trouble to take a peak behind the facade of the 'workers paradise' however and glimpse the true consequences of Stalin's rule may have seen the grim events such as the genocidal Ukraine famine of 1932/33 and adopted a rather less 'starry eyed' view of the Soviet Union and its formidable General Secretary. To be fair I suppose the endemic secrecy and state control of the media that prevailed in the Soviet Union at that time would have made finding out the truth a problematic business for those in the west to put it mildly. Only time can reveal all.

I must admit the Pacific war is not perhaps my primary area of interest - it so far away afterall - but trust me there's enough to occupy any enquiring mind there too if you look. America's 'day of infamy' at Pearl Harbour. The utter humiliation that Britain and her Empire suffered with the loss of Force Z and the fall of Singapore. The Battle of Midway where a huge Japanese Fleet was destined to met its 'Waterloo'. The long, bitter, and bloody battle for Guadalcanal ... ... plenty to chew on there methinks, and that's just the first year or so.

Indeed Sergei. The bloody purge Stalin ordered the NKVD to conduct on the Red Army well nigh 'beheaded' it. No less than 3 out of 5 Marshals of the Soviet Union, 13 of 15 Army level commanders, 50 out of 57 Corps commanders, 154 out of 186 Divisional generals ... all off to the Gulag or a bullet in the head. Now I suspect many of these senior officers may well have been found wanting in wartime anyway, peacetime armies do tend to amass officers unfit to face the pressures of battle (leaders Montgomery memorably described as 'deadwood') but no organization could possibly survive a culling on such a scale without incurring a significant reduction in the quality of its leadership. What is less well known is that the outbreak of war with Germany by no means actually stopped the purge on the Red Army, it may even have accelerated it. Any officer who dared to express criticism of the regime, any officer who ordered his troops to withdraw (even to save them from destruction), above all any officer who suffered defeat on the battlefield would find himself in extreme peril of a 'one way' ticket to the Lubyanka. The Commissar was always there watching your every move. I've often thought that Stalin's approach to the coming Nazi invasion in 1941 is akin to him burying his head in the sand and hoping the problem would just go away. As you say he had plenty of warning from his own espionage network within the German High Command, and even Churchill warned him of what was about to happen employing intelligence gained from 'Ultra' decrypts at Bletchley Park. But even ignoring all that, you would think that it's bloody hard to completely hide a military build-up on the gigantic scale that Operation Barbarossa entailed without any reasonably efficient military intelligence organisation learning at least something of it wouldn't you? But his principle reaction to all this seems to have been to dismiss what he was being told as a bunch of lies and merely order his forces to do absolutely nothing to antagonist the enemy. The Luftwaffe wants to fly reconnaissance flights over your frontier defences - that's okay just let them get on with it! It's almost as if he was hoping passivity alone would deter a man like Hitler. I grew up in a era when Hitler and the Nazis were (understandably) considered to be the very epitome of Human evil, and although 'Uncle Joe' Stalin was accepted to have been a rather brutal leader, his regime was generally considered to have been a lesser (more benign almost) form of tyranny in comparison. Well, the more you learn of Stalin (and his henchmen like Lavrentiy Beria) then you sooner you come to realise that the Nazis had nothing they could teach Stalin's particular form of Communism when it comes to pluming the depths of wickedness, paranoia, and a utterly callous disregard for the value of Human life.

Update: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/glasgow-ec135-crash-rotors-not-spinning-at-impact-393928/

Thanks for that - as intriguing a prospect as it undoutably is there was always a nagging doubt about this theory niggling away at the back of my mind. As you well know, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence afterall. A trip to the battlefields of the old 'ostfront' would be a irresistible prospect for me too because so much more seems to remain of the war there than in the 'neat and tidy' west - by the way I haven't had the opportunity to go myself but I'm reliably informed that the Kubinka Tank Museum just outside Moscow is also well worth a visit. And again the Strategic Bomber Offensive is another fascinating - and highly controversial - subject that has long interested me ... indeed once WWII gets 'under your skin' as it were there's very little of it that holds no interest is there?

Yes that's a very good point. I too am not in the least *bothered* that Adam has had his photo taken with some Pompey player I've never heard of. Just like I didn't lose too much sleep when Beattie was supposed to be best mates with whatisname their skipper back in the day. The bizarre 'vain bursting' overreaction exhibited by the Skates however really is most amusing.

Yes, I too am aware of this extraordinary claim - I believe I first saw it some years ago when I picked up a book entitled 'Hitlers War: Germany's key strategic decisions 1940-45' by Heinz Magenheimer. A stimulating read I can recommend. If that is correct - and I don't really know if it is or isn't - then you'd think more would have been made of it by now because that would be a significant historical development that casts a entirely new light on Operation Barbarossa. I must do some more digging.

Again, more reasonable and informed points. This forum could do with more posts of this caliber. I'd say the west going to Poland's aid in 1939 (in a truly serious and effective manner that is) would have imposed a much more heavy burden on France that it would have on a primarily maritime power like Britain. The reasons are (as I suspect you may already know) that only their Army was of a sufficient size to possibly undertake such a bold military adventure. But mere size isn't everything. None of the participants in WWII were in my opinion truly prepared for war in 1939, not even Nazi Germany. The poor old 'III République' however was a utter 'basket case' when it comes to its preparedness to launch a significant offensive war against western Germany in 1939/40, or even to defend itself adaquatly for that matter. I'm not just referring here to their defensive 'Maginot Line' mentality, lack of efficient industrial organisation and modern military equipment - although France was particularly weak in those respects - but more so to the chronic political instability evident among both their governing class and general population. France in 1939/40: a nation you could almost say that was defeated from within long before the Germans invaded. I think that's why Hitler took the huge risk of invading Poland and leaving his western frontier weakly defended, a gamble taken against the advice of his General Staff, he instinctively guessed (or knew somehow) that France lacked both the will and the ability to stop him. Leaving aside the detailed nitty gritty of history, the wider point about our delaying declaring war on German in order to gain time to prepare better leaves me unconvinced because we (or Britain anyway) was already doing nearly everything a democracy possible could to rearm ever since 1937/8 anyway. Examine the record closely and you will see that every British Shipyard, Aircraft Factory and Armament Works was working flat out ever since the Munich Crisis, if not before. We may have started late, but the decision to go to war in September 1939 changes surprisingly little in that respect.

Yes, a perfectly reasonable and fair analysis of the situation - the emphasis you place on the critical role the Soviet people played in defeating Nazi Germany is often overlooked in the west, but undeniably true nevertheless. All I will add however is that the actual Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union launched in July 1941 (critically some weeks late because of operations in the Balkans) did come pretty darn close to reaching Moscow, indeed there is a old (possibly apocryphal) tale that a forward reconnaissance unit of Von Runstedt's Army Group Centre got so close they could actually see the towers of the Kremlin glittering in the distance. In addition, historically Siberian divisions withdrawn for the Soviet Manchurian front with Imperial Japan played a significant role in defending the approaches to Moscow in the winter of 1941, and as the Soviet-Japanese Non Aggression Pact was not signed until April 1941 these forces may not have been available in front of Moscow 12 months earlier. So a arguable case can be made that the Germans would not have had to do all that much better in 1940 than they did a year later to enter the Soviet capital and topple Stalin perhaps. We can never know of course whether even that would have initiated a final collapse of the Soviet resistance, or whether the war would have gone on anyway. We do know for sure however that there was a time during 1941 when Stalin himself feared he was about to be ousted. Ultimately it's all speculation of course ... but as you can probably guess I kinda like that sort of thing.

Umm, I was under the impression that the USA entered the war only after its fleet was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbour and Japan's Axis partner, Nazi Germany, first declared war on them. So therefore it would seem that the timing of foreign aggression directed against her, rather than villainous US 'Big Business' interests, was the true cause of America entering into the war 'late' as you put it. As for staying out of the war and 'bleeding Britain dry', the record shows that even prior to the 7th of December 1941 the US was not only heavily involved in providing 'Lend Leese' equipment to this country, but it was also by then playing a bit part in escorting the vital North Atlantic convoys - at some cost in American life. It's perfectly true of course that prior to President Roosevelt's (politically courageous) decision to push the Lend-Lease Bill through a reluctant Congress we did indeed have to pay for military equipment ordered from US manufacturers - but I must admit however that I'm struggling to see what is wrong, or indeed unusual, with that situation frankly. I say those who really value the ideals of democracy and freedom should be profoundly grateful for the key role the USA played in defeating fascism during WWII, rather than casting false aspersions as to their true motivation for doing so.

Was Nelson Mandela the God-like saintly figure some now choose to make him out to be? Well I'm pretty sure he would have laughed out loud at any such suggestion. In truth precious few mere mortals ever come even close to that level of perfection. He was just a man afterall ... but it seems to me a pretty exceptional one. How complicit could he possibly have been, from his prison cell most of the time, in ANC terrorist/freedom fighting* (*delete according to your politics) activities during the era of the despicable Apartheid regime? Well the answer to that difficult question doesn't seem entirely clear at this time - sometimes you just have to wait a while for history to judge on that type of matter. What some on here seem unable to grasp is that sometimes circumstances quite beyond the control of any one man force 'good' men into doing 'bad' things in pursuance of a higher goal. For example many terrible things were done in the name of defeating the forces of Fascism during WWII - anyone on here want to claim those manifest war crimes invalidated the moral justice of resisting that wicked philosophy? No, the inherent contradiction implicit in all of this is a (regrettable) aspect of the complexity of life on this very imperfect world of ours. He may not have been another Gandhi, few are, but it seems to me that Nelson Mandela played a significant part in leaving his country a somewhat better place when he died than it was when he was born. A life well spent you might say.

I find this a interesting hypothesis. It's perfectly true that Britain and France did declare war on Germany before they declared war on us, indeed Hitler probably miscalculated our reaction disastrously. Hitler was the ultimate opportunist remember and there was never a true Nazi 'Masterplan' for world domination. So in that sense we could perhaps have avoided war in 1939 had we abandoned poor Poland to its terrible fate. That of course ignores both the political realities of the situation and even the question of the personal honour and reputation of the statesmen involved. There is always a Human Factor at play it this type of situation. In truth methinks war was a near inevitable 'chain reaction' as soon as the first Panzer trundled across the Polish border. But for arguments sake, say Britain and France did allow Hitler (and Stalin) to carve up Poland unopposed, what does Germany then do next? It seems to me that Nazi Germany is in much the same (dangerous) strategic situation as the Kaiser's Germany was back in 1914, IE it finds itself still trapped between two potentially hostile power blocs - the Soviet Union/Russia to their east and the allied forces of France and the British Empire to the west. So unless Hitler suddenly becomes converted to the many advantages of peaceful coexistence with his neighbours (a possibility methinks we can safely discard) then he still has to remove at least one of these rival power blocs to ensure the survival of his 'Thousand Year' Reich. But which one? It's all so hypothetical we can never know for sure what happens next, for instance the Generals might have ousted him or he could still have invaded the west as happened in reality. But I suspect that not being in a state war with Britain and France at the time tempts the Fuhrer irresistibly to invade the Soviet Union during the spring/early summer of 1940, not withstanding the (deeply cynical) Ribbentrop/Molotov 'non-aggression' pact he had agreed with the Soviets. Indeed that goal was surely always his ultimate ambition. If that 1940 version of Operation Barbarossa were to have occurred we can perhaps further speculate that he may have succeeded in destroying the Soviet Union that summer given the chronic (and self inflicted) unpreparedness of the Red Army. Hay, I see I've built a veritable mountain of speculation here already, but it seems to me just as likely that, far from being advantageous, it may be that our failing to declare war on Nazi Germany in September 1939 could have proved to be a cataclysmic disaster for all Humanity.

I'm just repeating what I heard. A young goalkeeper, a lad who also suffered from a broken bone in the hand, told me that a keeper just can't play after that type of injury for quote: 'many months' unquote. Now that might be right, that might equally be completely wrong - but that is what I was told.

Four good: 1 - Jack Cork. After 5 months spent with his arse planted firmly on the bench it may have taken him a while to get back 'on the pace' as it were. Those who saw him today however will confirm that Jack is most definitely back! Would have been my MOTM were it not for yet another outstanding performance for our captain. 2 - Dani Osveldo's wonder strike will surely be a contender for SFC goal of the season. A thing of rare beauty for those who have not seen it yet. He should probably have added to his tally today though. 3 - Young Calum Chambers has the making of a very good player in him methinks. The club will soon have a nice problem ensuring his continuing development and keeping (the equally good) Nathaniel Clyne happy too. 4 - Just how good can Adam Lallana get? This young man is a little diamond of a player I reckon, a player who despite reaching the grand old age of 25 is still noticeably improving. If Roy doesn't pick him for our forthcoming 'rumble in the jungle' next summer ... well there must be something very wrong with the game then I reckon. Two not so good: 1 - Not really at fault for their goal today, but to be frank about it Gazzaniga inspires zero confidence in this fan. We got a point today because he hardly had a proper save to make after they scored. More worryingly I don't think the rest of the team are particularly inspired by the sight of him between the sticks either. I must add (for what it's worth) that there was a nasty rumour going around the Chapel stand today that Artur Boruc won't play again this season. 2 - The away fans. Considering the quality of the players they have to support and the great chance they still have to win the league, I thought they were a pretty poor bunch on the whole. Indeed, you hardly knew they were there half the time. A few Conclusions: A bloody good hard earned point against talent, if somewhat unconvincing, opposition. If someone said to me we even deserved to win it then I'm not going to argue with them.You so often hear managers extolling their teams to believe in themselves and play their game instead of worrying about the opposition. The difference with this team you get the impression the players actually believe it.

Sin bins, bigger goals, extra officials, messing about with the offside law ... there is seldom any shortage of suggestions for reforming the game. But a fan has to ask himself sometimes why does the game need reforming? It seems to me Association Football has proved to be hugely successful just as it is thank you very much, and if you want to change it then the onus is very much on you to make a bloody good case as to why that should happen. I've not seen anything so far that persuades me that our game needs a gimmick like 'sin bins' introduced frankly.

You don't have to had physically visited a place to know something about it - but it can't hurt can it? You don't have to know a foreigner to understand something of their culture - but that too might be advantageous. Is it possible that those who choose to emigrate from their homeland might seek to justify that decision by highlighting its problems? Is it entirely fair to criticize someone for claiming to be a 'expert' when they have claimed no such thing?

Well I don't suppose many will dispute that he was both a remarkable Human Being and a important political figure, I certainly won't. But he passed away last Thursday and the fact that he is still dead remains the lead story on the BBC news two days later. Meanwhile thousands of people in this country have had their homes destroyed, or badly damaged, in the flooding but their suffering is considered to be of lesser importance by those who set the news agenda here. Perhaps we are just fated to live in what are exceptionally dull times, but shouldn't the news concentrate more on the new and events that effect our people directly?

Trafalgar: The Men, The Battle, The Storm. By Tim Clayton & Phil Craig. All the general reader could possibly want to know about what remains arguably the Royal Navy's greatest ever victory, told in a easily accessible and hugely entertaining style. After briefly setting this particular round of the ongoing (and seemingly endless) Anglo French rivalry for world domination in context, this book goes on to examine both the battle itself and the brave men who fought it. What strikes you now is how very keen the men of the Royal Navy were to force this engagement. In our knowingly cynical post 20th Century mindset it seems strange somehow that men should ever have actually sought battle with such apparent enthusiasm. But by all accounts that's exactly how most of the navy viewed the prospect at the time. This bloodthirsty attitude is more than an excess of patriotic zeal, because there is little doubt the prospect of every sailor in the fleet receiving a share of the 'Prize Money' on offer if they captured enemy ships and returned them to safe harbour played a part. This 19th Century style incentive scheme could amount from 3 years pay for a ordinary seaman, all the way up to a absolute life changing fortune for the senior officers. Then as now it seems, men can indeed be motivated by money. As for the battle itself, as every school boy used to know Admiral Nelson decided to abandon the usual tactics of the day and instead of forming a parallel line with the enemy and shooting it out all day, he divided his fleet into two squadrons and forcibly drove them both across the line of the combined Franco-Spanish fleet. The idea behind this was to split the Combined Fleet into separated unsupported parts, deprive Admiral Villeneuve of his ability to control his force, and allow our ships to cross behind enemy vessels and 'rake' them from close range - raking meaning firing a broadside into the (quite unprotected) stern of the enemy. Rest assured this was an especially effective way of causing absolute bloody carnage aboard any ship unfortunate enough to find itself in this perilous position. Villeneuve actually predicted Nelson would try this, but his disparate and ill trained fleet was utterly incapable of countering the maneuver effectively and Nelson's plan succeeded after a fashion. Nevertheless in the intense fighting that ensued all sides fought bravely and the casualties suffered were horrendous. At one stage even Nelson's mighty flagship, the Victory, was in grave danger of being boarded by the French 74 Redoutable laying close alongside her, only for the famous 'Fighting Temeraire' to intervene at the crucial moment and save the day - too late for England's greatest ever sailor alas. Tragically for our surviving crews (not to mention those poor souls left aboard) the fruits of their hard won victory were snatched away from them when nearly all the captured enemy ships subsequently floundered in a great storm that arrived with hours of the battle ending. Had Nelson lived the authors argue that he had intended to anchor the fleet and thus might well have saved many a ship from the full fury of the storm. A 'ripping' yarn this ... ripping in every sense of the word that is.

Maybe he'll come good in time - I hope he does - but right now I see no evidence that Gazzaniga is anywhere near good enough to keep goal for us. There are situations where you can perhaps get away with fielding an inadequate player on occasion - but not in this crucial position, and certainly not in the Premier League. I feel Kelvin would almost certainly be playing now instead if he were fit to do so, but let's face it, he's not really the answer either is he? The multiple errors this club this has made in selecting goalkeepers recently are unacceptable. I rate Artur Borac as a fine (if occasionally mad) keeper, but let's remember he's here not as the result of good long term planning, but rather because of pure luck - he just happened to be available on a 'free agent' basis when both our other keepers were failing last season. I admire Kelvin Davis greatly and recognize the (big) part he played in getting us where we are today. However, rewarding him with a new contract last summer looks to me like a decision based more on sentiment, rather than a hard headed evaluation of his true suitability to play at this level. As for Gazzaniga, well he may have been highly rated by some scout in his youth, but you have to say that faith seems to have been premature if not entirely misplaced. It's not bad luck that got us into this situation - it's bad planning. Looking at the upcoming fixture list ... well unless Artur's hand makes a miraculous recovery I just can't see where our next point is coming from frankly.

A miserable 81% I'm afraid. This dismal failure however is as nothing compared to the wave of depression that swept over me last night when the 'The Joy of Logic' (BBC4 10pm) left me feeling both depressed and not a little baffled I must admit. Oh well, being aware of the irony is something I suppose. I really must get around to swapping this knackered old brain for a better one.

If Kelvin is fit - or even nearly fit - then he'll start. It's pretty obvious really. I see plenty of wishful thinking - and not a few excuses - on here from those who favour Gazzaniga, but if you really believe the manager shares in that view then please tell me why is it then that Kelvin has been our recognized second choice keeper all season? I don't suppose many on here will think this is anything close to being a ideal situation, but the truth is Davis is still ahead of Gazzaniga ... and rightly so methinks.

Paper talk, but let's face it £30m is a hell of a lot of money for any teenage lad. But I don't happen to believe that the club would do that deal because I'm not sure we need the money and, more importantly, selling Luke would go against everything this club currently stands for. If we're serious about becoming a club capable of regularly challenging at the top of the Premier League - and all the indications are that the Chairman is deadly serious in that grand/insane ambition of his - then we'll obviously need players of Luke's ability and potential to achieve that aim. From that perspective it would surely be counterproductive to lose him. If we are indeed serious about building a team based around young English talent, in large part generated from our own academy, then selling them off before they even reach their full potential would smack of opportunism - a form of short term thinking that runs counter to the medium/long term (rather Germanic style) business model Cortese is pursuing. Above all if Luke is worth a huge £30m today as a mere 18 year old, then God alone knows what he'd command when he reaches his prime in five or so years time - Gareth Bale type money possibly. So for a club in a fortunate position like ours, a club that does not desperately need the money, then arguably such a deal would not even represent good business. No, as long as Luke Shaw wants to stay here - and I see not one scintilla of evidence to suggest otherwise - then methinks he's going nowhere.

From my extensive research (IE I've watched the Youtube clip) he looks like a strong and very 'English style' player who might fit in well with the rough and tumble of the Premier League - dare I say more so than a certain expensive Latin midfielder of our acquaintance. At the age of 27 a couple of caps for his national team doesn't mean all that much frankly, but Werder Bremen are a big club and the fact that other decent clubs (such as Newcastle and Spurs) have also apparently been sniffing around suggests he's rated highly by those in the know. However, he may not be first choice penalty taker here ...

How delightfully medieval Ken ... the spirit of old 'Longshanks' lives on!