Halo Stickman

I get where you’re coming from, T & G, but careful you don’t dissect the Beautiful Game too much – it will end up disappearing before our very eyes Then what the fu ck are we all gonna do?

1 May gets my vote - call it Saint Bobby's Day

Perhaps I’m being pedantic, Hockey, but South Africa dismantled its nuclear capability in 1989, slightly before the ending of apartheid. Also, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus gave up the nuclear arsenals they inherited from the Soviet Union

Nationalism has no future – due to tectonic plate movement all countries will end up as they began: one big homologous landmass.

Saint George is also the patron saint of quite a few other places including Russia, Georgia, Portugal and Greece. Good news for anyone travelling to any of those places – the banks will be open on saints’ day in all of those countries, apart from Georgia

We haven’t got time for all that nationalism stuff because here in Britain We like to build the world a home And furnish it with love Grow apple trees and honey bees And snow-white turtle doves …or something like that

Sounds like my missus

The monotonous vastness of the Soviet landscape was also a factor during the Germans advance. They would motor for days through an unchanging flat countryside without making contact with the enemy. The Soviets were very good at biding their time, conceding vast swathes of land holding no strategic value to either side. This allowed them the time to organise defences in areas that mattered; it also resulted in the Germans expending vital resources for virtually no significant gain. Almost as important as this, the vastness of the unchanging landscape with its enormous all-encompassing skyline – without an enemy in sight – had a debilitating psychological effect on many German soldiers

Charlie, you are right about the triple blows – Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Russian invasion of Manchuria – combining to precipitate Japan’s capitulation, but my limited reading of the subject suggests to me that the greatest blow to the Japanese hierarchy at that time was the Russian invasion. The argument I’ve heard is that the atomic bombs, whilst, of course, being devastating both in terms of material and human destruction, were not in fact hugely more devastating than the destruction already being inflicted by conventional bombing. On top of this, the Japanese hierarchy was apparently prepared to accept heavy material and civilian loses much more readily than they were prepared to accept any invasion to either homeland Japan or ‘greater Japan’ (i.e. Manchuria etc) My understanding of events – again, I stress it’s a limited understanding – is that at the Tehran Conference in Nov 1943, the British and Americans had pressed Stalin to help them with the Pacific campaign, but that Stalin was unwilling at that time to commit his forces to fighting on two fronts. Of course, it has to be remembered that not only were the Soviets not at war with Japan at that time, but also that Japan had started to sound out the Soviets with regard to the latter acting as go-betweens in potential peace talks between Japan and the allies. Fast forward to the Yalta Conference in Mar 1945 when the Soviets finally promised to enter the Pacific war, but only at a date three months after the end of the war with Germany. The war with Germany ended on 8 May 1945, and, true to their promise, the Soviets invaded Manchuria exactly three months later on 8 Aug 1945. Again, up until this invasion, the Japanese were not at war with the Soviets; and, indeed, were still hopeful that they (Japan) could use them (the Soviets) as go-betweens in a peace deal. The Soviets declaration of war and subsequent invasion was obviously a crushing blow to the Japanese. The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on 6 Aug 1945, two days before the Soviets’ invasion; the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki on 9 Aug 1945. Now, by the summer of 1945, all the major WWII participants knew they were playing the end game; they all had their long-term strategy focused on potential spheres of influence in the Far East in the years ahead. Metaphorically speaking, players needed to be in the right places, ready to go, when the slaughter music stopped. In some ways, all this jostling for position was reminiscent of the previous century’s scramble for, and subsequent carve-up, of Africa. But, how much did the major players – the Soviets and Americans – know about the timing of each others’ moves? It seems that the Americans knew the timing of the Soviet invasion, but did the Soviets know the timing of the first American atomic bomb drop? Reflecting on the fact that the outcome of countless games – much more innocuous games – often depends on which player makes the first move, I find myself asking the following question: Was the timing of the first American atomic drop in any way influenced by the timing of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria two days later; and, figuratively speaking, was the bomb aimed every bit as much at the Soviets as it was at the Japanese? P.S. Sorry, Pap, for the part I’ve played in deflecting part of this discussion away from the Russian / Germany theatre of your original post – it wasn’t me that started this diversion, honest gov! Perhaps we need to create a separate thread?

True, and there were also lots of fanatical Japanese soldiers that committed seppuku rather than surrender; but there were millions more that simply acquiesced with the surrender terms, and just got on with the task of rebuilding Japan – a task, I think most people would agree, they performed very successfully.

For most Japanese people that was the first time they had ever heard Hirohito speak. But give the chap his due – he’d certainly mastered the art of the understatement.

One of the most harrowing testimonies I ever heard was that of an old soldier describing what happened when his mate was caught supplementing his starvation rations with a dead rat. The Japanese soldiers decided it was beneath their dignity to execute the poor chap themselves, so ordered a reluctant member of their catering staff to despatch him with a blunt chopping knife. I shall never forget the old boy stuttering in a voice choking with emotion: “On the movies they show soldiers bravely facing their executioners; and it’s all over pretty quick, but let me tell you that wasn’t how it usually happened, we had to watch our mate crying and begging on his knees, pleading for his life. I counted every chop; I’d counted to fifty before he stopped screaming.” Oh that it was just fanatical Japanese WWII soldiers that committed barbaric atrocities such as these. Unfortunately, people have been visiting similar obscenities on their fellow man since the beginning of recorded time, and still do in some parts of the world.

Hey Charlie, I bet you know a darn sight more than a lot of university students – if for no other reason than you’ve had a darn sight more years to read up on stuff Seriously though, thanks for that comprehensive answer to my post – really interesting stuff, and much appreciated

Yes, Sergei, nothing beats a bit of humour to brighten up dark days.

Years ago, I read William Manchester’s Goodbye Darkness, a brilliant first hand account of the fighting on the Pacific islands. His descriptions of Japanese soldiers fighting to the death in sake-fuelled banzai charges left a lasting impression on me. This and other books persuaded me that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan actually saved lives – in harsh net terms – insomuch as they prevented the bloodbath that would have ensued if the Americans had had to fight with land forces on the Japanese mainland. However, a couple of years ago, I visited the Hiroshima museum, which, in my opinion, is a very objective and impartial museum, especially considering its location. My conviction that the atomic bombs had actually saved lives was no where near as strong by the end of my visit. The various exhibits on display went some way towards persuading me that, by summer 1945, Japan was totally depleted of resources, and its citizens had neither the will nor the means to continue the fight. But perhaps the most chilling exhibit was a secret despatch from an American general imploring the US air force to ease up on the conventional fire bombing of one or two of the Japanese cities in order for the atomic bombers to have something left to destroy. They wanted, of course, to make an impression, not just on Japan, but on the rest of the world, especially the Russians gathering to the north of Japan.

Very interesting post, Charlie. How much did the British know about Stalin and his methods at the commencement of Operation Barbarossa? Do we know if there were people at the British War Office as fearful of a swift and decisive Russian victory as they were of a German one?

At a match some years back, every time Wright-Phillips touched the ball the chap behind me shouted ‘Dyer, you’re effing useless!” Second-half, Wright-Phillips was substituted for Dyer, and every time he touched the ball the same chap shouted: “Wright-Phillips, you’re effing useless!” Couldn’t decide whether the chap was simply short-sighted or had some other non-football related issue.

Like your thinking, bletch! Might have to make a few exceptions to your no-name-changing rule though. I mean supposing someone came from Whitmouth and signed up typing ‘S’ instead of ‘W’ by mistake. It would be a bit hard creating a brand on here with everyone thinking you were PortsmouthSaint

Not sure I like the sound of that, bletch – it’s a long time since I crossed a man’s palm with anything, let alone with bjaji Perhaps I’m best sticking with who I am – if you’ve got a friend called Halo maybe it’s not so bad after all

Going off on a tangent… but I wish I could change my name! I dunno what I was thinking back in 2007. It was supposed to represent the old Saints’ emblem – the stickman with a halo. I don’t mind the Stickman bit; it’s the Halo bit that grates with me – it makes me sound all godly and churchy. Isn’t there any easy way I could change it to Ted or something?

Oh, that’s interesting, tim, I didn’t realise thermometers were that accurate back then. Yes, I appreciate in the grand scale of things that it wouldn’t matter too much – unless people were rounding up (or down) their readings to the nearest whole number… and even then, I suppose, rounded up numbers would cancel out rounded down numbers. Anyway, it’s not such an issue as something I read the other day; apparently, the average man sleeps with 11.7 different women in his life time. How many men sleep with 0.7 of a women? Some of us struggle to score 11 whole women ffs!

Regarding the video in saintbletch’s excellent post, there are times in a politician’s life – indeed, there are times in many people’s lives – when they have to play to the audience, and sometimes they have to say or do things that they don’t really believe in. To my mind at least, Mandela is singing that song with about as much conviction as an England footballer singing the national anthem. I don’t really know enough about Mandela’s history to be able to comment on the degree to which he was or wasn’t responsible for terrorism; however, I would like to say that I believe there is absolutely no justification under any circumstances for the killing or maiming of innocent people in the name of terrorism. Of course, I’m well aware that I’m saying this as a middle-aged white man living in a democratic country in 2013, not as a young disenfranchised black man living under apartheid in the 1960s; but saintbletch has already eloquently made this point, so I’ll move on… What role do I think Mandela played in ending apartheid? Well, first, let’s rewind the history of the ‘civilised’ world back about 500 years to a time when people were broken on the wheel, hung, drawn and quartered, and burnt at the stake for following the wrong monarch or religion; when serfs were yoked to the plough, women were mere chattels of men, and slavery was commonplace. Fast forward to the 1990s, passing lots of cultural milestones on the way: the ending of cruel and barbaric tortures and death penalties, the abolition of serfdom and slavery; the introduction of human and woman’s rights; and the desegregation of different races on all American buses, schools and collages being just a few of them. Let’s call this a ‘civilising’ process; let’s not concern ourselves with the driving forces behind this process, except to appreciate the fact that eventually it cuts through all national boundaries, and no country – at least no country in the ‘civilised’ world – can remain forever isolated from this process. Now, South Africa in the 1990s wanted to be seen – indeed, needed to be seen – as a ‘civilised’ country. How could they be seen as such, whilst keeping an apartheid regime in place? The answer is they couldn’t. Mandela and the South African government knew that the days of apartheid were numbered. Mandela’s release and his subsequent denouncement of violence and advocation of equality for all South Africans simply aided an already inevitable process. How difficult was any of this for Mandela? Well, if nothing else, the mere fact that the man spent 27 years incarcerated, often in solitary confinement, breaking rocks on Robben Island, yet still emerged as a seemingly personable, well-rounded, conciliatory individual must give even his most strident detractors cause for admiration. How does someone survive such a confinement? Does the degree of their guilt or innocence make it easier or more difficult? But, how difficult has it been for the loved ones of the innocent victims of ANC terrorism in the intervening years? Was it made easier for them when the leader of that organisation ended up being lauded as one of the greatest statesmen of all time? Only they can answer that question. But I suspect if someone had told them – back in the 1960s – that that would be the case, it would have felt like scorn being poured onto their misery. I suspect they would have been as astonished as I would have been if someone had told me – back in the 1970s – that Martin McGuinness and Ian Paisley would end up sharing a joke together on the same stage. But, perhaps that’s all just part of an inexorable ‘civilising’ process?

Thanks Bexy, that’s interesting. I wonder how long people have been able to measure temperatures that accurately? I find it hard to believe they could have recorded them with that about of precision back in the1880s, yet temperatures pertaining to that period are often quoted to 3 decimal places.

No lie, Smirking_Saint! I placed this bet with BetFred, first week in October – at the time I figured those odds represented better value than the lottery, and also better value than the price they quoted for Saints reserves to win a cup competition. Anyway, until the last 4 results, the pleasure I derived from dreaming about how I would spend my £30,000winnings was worth the £20 stake money on its own.

Dig dig you’re having a laugh – but I wish you weren’t, partly because I’ve got £20 on Saints winning the title at 1,500 to 1