Western History 167: What were the key milestones in the Railway Revolution during the 19th century?

One could look at the nineteenth century as the Age of the Railway such was the profound  impact on of the Locomotive on the history of transportation, the growth of Empires and rapid spread of the trans formative Industrial Revolution. 

Non-steam driven railways had operated in Great Britain  and the continent since the mid 15^th century. Many of these machines were employed in the mining industry and consisted  of horse drawn or  manually operated machines that where necessary interfaced at the receiving end with water transportation barges.

The first steam locomotive, the Salamanca , was built in 1812 by Englishman John Blenkinsop and was used in the Middleton Railway system.  However it had a limited range of use and was very expensive. As iron production demand increased during the First industrial Revolution the need for a more efficient railway transfer system became more apparent.

Richard Trevithick, a Cornish engineer was an earlier pioneer who adapted later designs from the inspirational work carried out by William Murdock to advance steam technology for use Locomotive use. He helped popularize the idea in the public imagination.

Richard Trevithick source: the famouspeople.com

However it was George Stephenson in 1814 (with the 'Blucher') and in 1827 (with the 'Rocket') who took the technology to a new level for industrial use. In fact in 1825 the Stockton to Darlington railroad became the first public ally subscribed railroad to use steam technology. It relied heavily on Stephenson’s designs. Five years later the longer Liverpool to Manchester line opened to greater fanfare.

The Stephenson Rocket Source: Science Photo Library

Besides the locomotives the development of the Hot Blast furnace (patented by James Beaumont Neilson) improved construction efforts for railroad building by enhancing the quality of the iron produced

Transportation systems expanded globally which would benefit the large European Empires and the Continental Powers in particular. Railway lines were set up in the United States (1828), Austria (1828), France (1830), Australia (1831), Ireland (1834), Bavaria (1835), Russia (1837), Cuba (1837), Netherlands (1839), Italy (1839) and Belgium (1843).

The first Underground railroad system opened in London in 1863 (the Tube). Later Underground subway systems would appear in Budapest (1896), Glasgow (1896), Paris (1900) and New York City (1904).

An Early Image from the London Underground source: Londonist

Long haul railway construction was a feature of the period from 1850-1899. The Warsaw-St. Petersburg route was opened in 1863 and the First Transcontinental Railroad in the United States was completed in 1869 with the famous “Last Spike” ceremony at Promontory Summit Utah. The vast Canadian Pacific Railway was finished in 1885 five years ahead of schedule with the even larger Trans- Siberian Railroad (joining Moscow and Vladivostok) ending Construction in 1904.

Last Spike Ceremony source: politco.com

Newer trains made use of vacuum brake technology and contained many features to assist passengers for the long journeys including lavatories and sleeping carts.

A typical Locomotive used in the 19th on the Intercontinental Railway source:Trains Magazine

The joining of Lines to complete the First Intercontinental Railroad source; Ducksters

Steam would continue to dominate for the rest of the nineteenth although there were important developments in Electric train technology ever since the first electric locomotive (that made use galvanic cells) was invented by Robert Davidson in Aberdeen, Scotland in 1837.  By the 1890s electric motor locomotives had come of age and would soon grow to replace the earlier steam vintage.

The first practical Electrical AC Motor (designed by Charles Brown) was used in Zurich in 1891. Hungarian Kálmán Kandó was a prominent  innovator in this field. He is credited with the invention of the phase convertor and had his fingerprint over many AC locomotive systems that were making their presence felt in Central and Southern European rail systems. Japan and Korea would follow suit.

Kalman Kando source: Geni.com

A further technology that would compete with steam was the Diesel motor (named after German inventor Rudolf Diesel). Early designs go back to 1888 but it wasn’t until the very early 20^th before its impact would be truly realized.

Schematic of the Diesel Engine source: Britannica

Once launched this was no stopping the railway revolution. It would be eclipsed somewhat by the development of aircraft and the car but on the European continent in particular it continues to this very day to be a critical means of transportation for both goods and people.

Trans-Siberian Railroad source: Research Gate

Why did the Nazi Party lose 4% of the vote between the July 1932 and November 1932 elections?

 The NSDAP (the official acronym for the Nazi Party) did extremely well in the July 31st 1932 election winning 37.3% of the popular vote despite earlier internal rebellions by Walter Stennes (in Berlin) and Otto Strasser. There was much opposition in the rank-and-file to Hitler’s policy of courting Conservative allies. Hitler was also dogged by rumours of sexual abuse and the subsequent suicide of his niece Angela “Geli” Raubel (September 1931).

However the deteriorating economy and Hitler’s charismatic driven campaign strategy played to the Nazis strength. Air power allowed Nazi leaders to crisscross the country where they selectively targeted their message to receptive demographics.

By November 1932 the situation had changed. The party was struggling financially (having thrown a great deal of resources into the July election) and Hitler’s star was falling as a consequence of President Paul von Hindenburg’s refusal to appoint him chancellor.

The Communists were also in the ascendancy and together with the smaller German National People’s Party made a significant dent into the NSDAP base. THE NSDAP won 33.1% of the popular vote down over 4% from the July figure. The Communists increased their share from 14.6 % to 16.9%.

Intentionally directed vote splitting was a big factor and much credit for this strategy goes to von Hindenburg ally Kurt von Schleicher who served briefly as chancellor following the November election (December 3rd, 1932 - January 28th, 1933) .

Unfortunately the temporary respite didn’t last long. Von Schleicher would eventually be pushed aside by Frantz von Papen (himself a former Chancellor) and his long time political opponent.

Von Papen was backed by the German Nationalists and arguably made one of the greatest miscalculations in modern history in believing that he had the wherewithal to control Hitler. He consequently acted accordingly with this dangerous Faustian bargain. In late January a deal was agreed to making Hitler Chancellor with von Papen serving in the capacity of the Vice Chancellor role. The positions became official on the 30th of January 1933.

Source: Adolf Hitler: 1930-1933

Why was George H.W. Bush criticized for leaving Saddam Hussein in power?

 (My answer on Quora)

The chief criticism is that he left the business of demagogue removal unfinished, by kicking the powder keg of a can that was Iraq further down the proverbial road for others to deal with.

However to look at this in greater depth we need to travel backwards in time to the very early 1990s, when gas was considerably cheaper, late night talk show hosts were actually funny and the cesspool that is social media had not yet reared its head. The Cold War was winding down but in the political cauldron of the Middle East all was not well (hardly shocking). The Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was looking more powerful than ever and he had visions of territorial expansion in mind.

You see Saddam’s Iraq was in the ascendancy. So he thought anyway. His Iraqi troops had fought the Iranians to a stalemate in a brutal war that had lasted for most of the previous decade, but in the eye’s of the dictator this was a victory against the old foe (Babylon v Persia). His forces had thwarted Iranian designs to overthrow his authoritarian regime and he would frame his foreign policy around this narrative.

What was objectively clear soon after the war with Iran had ended was that Iraq had built up a large armed force with help from the Soviet Union and it was now battle hardened. This was further buttressed by the support he obtained from several Western countries (including the US, France, UK and Germany) in his struggle against the Mullahs. He stood in a position of strength and was well located to put pressure on his oil rich Gulf state neighbours.

In August 1990 he did just that using the pretext of a conflict over oil production to invade the sovereign nation of Kuwait. Unfortunately for Saddam he overplayed his hand. He had been misled to belief that the US would sit idly by as he pressed his fortunes. This was not the case.

A US led coalition with unlikely bedfellows was brokered with UN support to oppose him (a remarkable achievement for which James Baker deserves credit). The mandate of the coalition was to force the Iraqis out of Kuwait and guarantee the sovereignty of that tiny nation. Nothing more. At least that is what it seemed.

Some critics lampooned the entire effort as a ‘war for oil’ with many arguing that the Iraqis had a legitimate claim to the occupied territory.

Nevertheless where it mattered the coalition was successful with the retake of Kuwait (Operation Desert Storm) in early 1991 going down in US history as a tremendous military success. Bush’s popularity rating stood north of 90% for a brief moment.

Saddam Hussein’s troops were reeling and the moment was right to extend the original mandate for the mission, by driving further into Iraq proper and toppling Saddam's Baathist regime. It would be good riddance to a dictator who ruled with an iron first, saw himself as a modern day Nebuchadnezzar and was not above using chemical weapons against his opponents. After all, who would shed a tear?

The Kurds in the North and the Shi’ites in the South of Iraq were anticipating this. Large segments of both populations rose up in revolt against his Sunni dominated regime. The Kurds in particular were encouraged by the US. The opportunity for effective regime change in Iraq was there for the taking all that was needed was the go ahead.

Then it stopped. The US offensive ground to a halt. President H. W. Bush declared the mission complete and refrained from extending it to deal what could have been the knockout blow for Saddam Hussein. The Kurds were stranded and Saddam pushed back. The US did declare No fly zones in both the northern and southern zones of the country to protect both the Kurds and the Shi’ites but momentum was lost.

Why he did this is somewhat debatable. The common view is that Bush 41 did not wish to destroy UN goodwill by exceeding the original mandate. He also seemed loathe to embroil the US in a more tricky end game especially after declaring how thew military had just kicked the malaise that was Vietnam. Others believe that there was a great fear of further destabilizing Iraq. All are legitimate arguments.

Whatever it was Saddam would live to fight another day. Many more in fact. Although he did not know it at the time he had bought himself almost a decade and a half of survival timeshare. George H. W, Bush would leave office in January 1993 with incoming President Bill Clinton left to deal with Saddam’s cat-and-mouse tactics as he time and again skirted UN authorized sanctions (with insider help as well). Occasional Cruise missile strikes were ineffective as a deterrent.

Eventually George W. Bush would inherit the poisoned chalice that was Iraq forcing the ouster of Saddam in far more inglorious circumstances in a post 911 world. An opportunity missed? Perhaps…but it does open up a tantalizing What if?

Who was the most bizarre African dictator?

 (My answer on Quora)

It would be a close call between Idi Amin Dada and Jean-Bédel Bokassa. However I would give Bokassa the nod. He had more style. Both though were weird but even more so they were downright evil.

Bokassa was the Second President of the Central African Republic (CAR) , a position that he held between 1966 and 1976 having seized power in the famed Saint-Sylvestre coup d'état when he overthrew the regime of his cousin David Dacko.

On December 4th 1976, Bokassa proclaimed himself Emperor and had himself crowned in a ceremony a year later to that day.

However the coronation spectacle was no run of the mill affair. Bokassa was willing to bankrupt the country to replicate as best as possible the coronation ceremony of his hero Napoleon Bonaparte. The Central African Republic was to become the Central African Empire and he was its absolute monarch.

Bokassa’s official title was: His Imperial Majesty Bokassa the First, Apostle of Peace and Servant of Jesus Christ, Emperor and Marshal of Central Africa

Here are some pictures from the ceremony.

Source: The Irish Times

Source: swan and other songs

Source: Getty Images

However even before he became Emperor Bokassa I he was a notorious big spender. So much so that Captain Alexandre Banze, an ally who had assisted Bokassa in seizing power in 1966, was left with little choice but to call him out on this. Unfortunately this did not work out well for Banza who was arrested on suspicion of fermenting a coup, personally beaten to within an inch of his life by Bokassa himself and then sentenced to death by a military tribunal. He was eventually executed. In Bokassa’s CAR there would be only one voice.

Bokassa was a strict authoritarian. He was also concerned about morality (other people’s not so much his own). Begging was banned so was tom-tom playing during the day (go figure). All dances and bars would be monitored. However he did abolish female circumcision and put an end to polygamy and dowry payments. Yes there was a stopped clock there somewhere.

Meanwhile rumours circulated about a strange fetish for cannibalism (he was charged for this in 1987 and subsequently cleared).

On the foreign policy front he enjoyed a warm relationship with Muammar Qaddafi (always the favourite go to guy for despots), cozied up to Mao’s China and supplied France with their much needed Uranium. Both the US and the USSR found him unpredictable though as a Cold War ally. Despite these idiosyncrasies he still won medals and honours from no less than 16 countries.

Suffice it to say his regime was unsustainable. Free speech was repressed and corruption was endemic. Bokassa’s spending emptied the coffers. The economy began to take a turn for the worse with food prices rising. In January 1979 riots broke out and there was a massacre of civilians. All of this reached a head when school children refused to wear a uniform with Bokassa’s image emblazoned on it. The blow to his ego was severe and he responded with outer depravity killing around 100 school children and arresting many more

This heinous action was condemned worldwide. A French backed coup followed suit and Bokassa was forced to flee the country. The military seized power with Operations Caban and Barracuda forcing Bokassa to seek exile in the Ivory Coast.

His reign finally came to a close on the 21st of September 1979 and in 1980 he was sentenced to death in absentia. However Bokassa had accumulated so much personal wealth during his time in power that he could actually live in luxury abroad where he enjoyed the luxuries of a historic French chateau.

In 1986 he returned to the CAR (it was no longer known as the CAE) and faced a trial where he was accused of 14 illegal actions He was found guilty of all charges other than that of cannibalism. The overall trial was harrowing with some of the school children witnesses who had survived Bokassa’s mass actions testifying against the demagogue.

Two years later the death sentence was reduced to solitary life imprisonment. Later on this further changed to twenty years imprisonment. In 1993 he was released following a general amnesty. Three years later Bokassa, who had once declared himself the 13th Apostle dropped dead from a heart attack. Apparently he couldn’t cheat the celestial.

Despite his tumultuous rule though he enjoyed somewhat of a post-modern rehabilitation in his home country. In fact the CAR”s president François Bozizé (in 2010) actually called him a "a son of the nation recognised by all as a great builder". Just goes to show. History is indeed kind to some. His victims will beg to differ.

Sources: Ex-President Jean-Bedel Bokassa rehabilitated by CAR

Dark Age | McGill-Queen’s University Press

Western History 166: What were the causes of the Crimean War and what were its outcomes?

By the mid 19^th century the Turkish dominated Ottoman Empire was in obvious decline prompting debate about its eventual fate. This was the famed Eastern Question. Although the Turks themselves were Muslim there were substantial Christian minorities living in the Empire. France saw itself as the champion of the Catholic minority in the Ottoman territories while Russia viewed its role as the guarantor of the Empire’s Eastern Orthodox populations. 

Friction was inevitable between the two European powers especially over church rights in the Ottoman controlled Holy Land ( a key sticking point centered over the exclusive rights that the Greek Orthodox church had to the keys to the Church of the Nativity - the birthplace of Jesus Christ).    

The Ottoman Empire source: SlidePlayer

However there were deeper rifts as well. The weakening Ottoman Empire was viewed opportunistically by the Russians, who were seeking to extend their territory with an eye to further expansion around the Black Sea, the Caucasus regions and various parts of the Balkans.

While the two Christian churches had worked out an agreement with the Ottomans  the Russian Tsar Nicholas I chose to strengthen his hand by demanding that all Eastern Orthodox subjects in the Ottoman Empire be placed under Russian protection. The Ottomans refused the request necessitating British entry into the impending fracas on a mediator level. As tension mounted the Russians moved troops into the Danubian Principalities (modern day Romania).

Britain and France made it clear that they would back the Ottomans and in October 1853, with such assurance guaranteed,  the Ottomans declared war against Russia. A Russian advance was stopped at Silistra but the Russian fleet responded by defeating the Ottomans at Sinop. Fearing the consequence of an Ottoman collapse the British and French naval forces entered the Black Sea. The Crimean War now pitted a British, France, Ottoman Alliance (later augmented by Sardinia) against Russia and their Kurdish partners (with some Greek support).

Although the Black Sea theatre (in particular the Crimean peninsular) would dominate most fighting in the Crimean War there were noteworthy skirmishes as well in the Caucasus, the White and Baltic Seas and even the Northern Pacific.

Key battles for the war as a whole included Alma (1854 – Allied victory), Balaclava (1854- indecisive),the Siege of Sevastopol (1854/1855 – Allied victory) and Inkerman (1854 – Allied win).

None of these fights were renowned for military brilliance . In fact the reverse was often true. The ill-fated Charge of the Light Brigade (immortalized in a Tennyson poem) highlighted the consequences of the ossified thinking that was endemic within the British army.

Charge of the Light Brigade (an incorrectly interpreted order caused 110 unnecessary deaths and 116 wounded casualties) source: Britannica

The Crimean War also played out in the British press, in much the same way that the Vietnam war would do so in the United States over a century later. Incompetence was rightly skewered forcing a necessary review of the actions of the top military brass. 

However all was not negative,  the actions of  Florence Nightingale and others provided the framework for the development of nursing as legitimate profession. Its importance in battle field support could not be understated. The Crimean War emphasized the reality..

Florence Nightingale - Nursing pioneer - nicknamed the Lady of the Lamp source:History.com

It was also from the Crimean War that Britain’s highest order of military merit in action – the Victoria Cross – has its place and time of origin.

Victoria Cross source: Legion Magazine

By 1856 the war had come to an end.The Allies had almost 235,000 troop casualties with the Russian figure totalling just less than 540,000 (estimates vary).  The Treaty of Paris ended hostilities, with the Allies who held the upper hand forcing Russia to return Bessarabia to Moldovia (it would later join with Wallachia to form the bulk of Romania).  The Black Sea would become a neutral body thereby frustrating Russian ambitions for the time being.

 Romania - a country in three parts source: Timewise traveller

Like the British the Russians would embrace military reform and other modernizing initiatives. Eventually these changes would spread beyond the military leading to the eventual abolition of serfdom in Russia in 1861 and the growth of anti-Tsarist revolutionary sentiment. More was sure to follow.

Are Conservatives ideas essentially Liberal ones?

Indeed this is the case. The Authentic Liberal position that emerged in the British Isles during the Age and Reason and the Scottish Enlightenment and greatly influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States was largely associated with the left of the political spectrum.

It stood against an absolute monarchy and took a dim view in opposition to the hierarchies of entitlement that dominated the political, social and economic strata of the time. What Liberalism valued was the right of the individual to equal protection before the law and the ownership of private property. Freedom of speech and a respect for practical empiricism, suffused with necessary rationalism were essential ingredients of the Liberal model. It abhorred tyranny and stood firmly against both coercion from the elites above and indeed the mobs elsewhere. At its core the political philosophy is consistent with civil liberties and stands in opposition to state overreach.

Liberalism correctly rejected the abhorrent and bloodthirsty Jacobin terror that saw a great deal of horror perpetrated in its name during the French Revolution, in favour of a system that valued market forces and the maintenance of a framework that allowed the individual to chart their own life pathway.

Today most of these view points are seen as being part of the conservative or the libertarian right portion of the political axis.

So what happened? What bought about this so-called classification change in the United States in particular?

To answer this we need to go back across the Atlantic to the old world of Europe where various collectivist radical ideologies espoused by Proudhon, Marx and others were gaining traction. While such radicalisms failed to topple permanently existing regimes (although not for a lack of trying in 1848 and 1871) they did enjoy tremendous success in forcing the establishment orders to incorporate a great deal of collectivist thinking in their new governing policy.

An accelerating momentum emerged that fused Rousseau’s popular will of the people with the growth of bigger government. By a cleverly worked sleight of hand the establishment won over the masses and buttressed themselves against an inevitable power challenge from an emerging middle class. It was 4-D chess at its finest.

The Gotha program in Germany was a typical example as were the reforms of Benjamin Disraeli in the United Kingdom. Otto von Bismarck effectively established the welfare state in Germany as a way of solidifying the nationalistic impulse in the newly unified Deutschland. In doing so he deliberately undercut his opponents to the far left and at the same time dealt a blow to the fledgling forms of English Liberalism that existed on the continent itself.

Others countries followed suit on the continent with many of Bismarck’s policies being re-branded and incorporated into the Progressive Movement in the United States as well. This influenced both of the Big Two parties.

The elites had the answer and if they used the tools of science and social transformation properly the necessary progress and march to a realized Hegelian ideal was possible. What it required though was for everyone to get with the program...oops progress and place themselves on the ‘correct side of history’. The powers that be understood what change was necessary. All too often the end justifies the means.

Sounds familiar? Well it should. The same cliches are in ubiquitous use today. They frame many a mainstream media narrative.

However the horse fly in the ointment (it is that big) is that Progressivism had to come up against a political philosophy that had made the United States unique as a nation, a philosophy that was the bedrock of the rapid growth and development of the country since its founding: This was of course Liberalism.

As mentioned, Liberalism at its very core is individualistic. It eschews political identity politics and has no time for such easily corruptible ideals as the will of the people or the collective. Distrust of elitism was part of its lifeblood. It also stood on a far stronger footing in the United States than it did in continental Europe. A different strategy was needed.

The populace had to be convinced that Progressivism was not threatening to their cherished freedoms (after all we are the government and we are here to help) and how better to do that then by redefining their statism as a benevolent form of ‘liberalism’?

It is easier to score goals when you widen the posts and tamper the hard change that smacks you over the head, with what looks to be a soft sell. Coating the population in veil of ignorance, as you march through the institutions helps.

It is all effective and part of a Progressive end game that no self respecting Hegelian should leave home without.

Remember to many a Progressive their ideals are the truth. Their opinions are fact and therefore opposition by its very nature is reactionary and dangerous. Contradicting narratives must be misinformation.

This of course requires control over the institutions of education and academia. Winning the culture wars is critical and unfortunately it appears to be working.

But there is more to all of this. Beachheads gained must be strengthened by the national crisis of the day: WWI, The Great Depression, WWII, Racial Disharmony, the Vietnam War, Climate Change and now the Covid-19 Pandemic. No opportunity would and should ever go to waste.

Progressivism pivots on a forward motion that cannot afford to abate and allow for deconstruction of its obvious weaknesses.

But what to do about those pesky Big L Liberals not to mention the social conservatives, Burkeans and others who won’t play nicely? The answer is to drive them to the periphery, re-frame their ideas as outdated conservatism, gaslight counter-concerns, de-platform opposition voices, weaponize the surveillance state and lump all opposition into a catch bag of right wing ideology that must be deplored.

Oh you can allow for a controlled opposition…you can’t have the illusion of democracy slip…for now.

Where did the Finns superior military prowess to that of the Soviets in the Winter War come from?

(My answer on Quora)

The Finns as a people greatly value their independence and are extremely pragmatic. They were resolute in their stance against Soviet aggression and maximized the three cards that they held in their favour - knowledge of their territory, competent field commanders and an understanding of the ramifications of General Winter.

The nation’s leadership utilized their population very well in the war effort. It is important to note that many of the troops that were used in the defense were volunteers. If ever there was a David v Goliath War this was it.

Finland was also let down by promises of support from France and Britain that never arrived, although there were a non-insignificant number of volunteers from Sweden in particular who signed up to fight alongside the Finns.

Looking at the odds.

The Finns faced a Soviet force that could bring into play over twice as many troops, almost eighty times as much tanks and thirty-four times the number of aircraft than they could muster yet the Finns held out against the Soviets for over three months.

Between the 30th of November 1939 to 13th of March 1940 the Finns inflicted somewhere between 320,000–360,000* casualties on the enemy at a cost to Finland of 70,000 casualties including almost 26.000 deaths (the population of Finland at the time was slightly less than four million people).

(*Soviet deaths may be as high as 167,000 and but probably no lower than 126,000…over three times the losses the US suffered during the Vietnam War)

Carl Gustaf Mannerheim source: NIPHT

Much credit goes to Finland’s Commander-in-chief Gustaf Mannerheim who would later serve as the country’s 6th President. His forces held firmly to the famed Mannerheim line and delivered high causality rates on the Soviets by a combination of the effective use of small group Nordic ski units, sniper fire, booby traps, and molotov cocktail attacks on enemy tanks.

Simo "Simuna" Häyhä -Finnish sniper. He is believed to have had over 500 kills during the Winter War. Source www2.gravestone.com

The Finns also employed a locally developed attack mechanism known as the Motti that encircled and isolated smaller pockets of the long Soviet military lines before targeting them for destruction. The Finnish victory at the Battle of Suomussalmi is testament to the efficacy of this creative and lethal tactic.

Finish encirclement (Blue) of a Soviet unit (Red) using Motti tactic. Source: Winter War

However the Finns had other factors that indirectly served them well. The Red Army showed a lack of competent leadership in the early part of the war (a likely consequence of Stalin’s military purges), struggled to motivate their troops, were caught up in the hubris surrounding their military superiority and sent troops into battle that were ill prepared for the brutal winter conditions. Frost bite numbers were very high. Soviet Winter clothing was inadequate in temperatures that dropped to -40 C.

Finish soldier clad in all white - they were dubbed the ‘Ghosts of War;’ Source: Business Insider.

Ultimately though the Finns could only hold off the Soviets for so long especially as supplies dwindled. The Soviets had too much firepower at hand especially when the offensive thrust directed by Semyon Timoshenko kicked into play (he would play a key role later in modernizing the Red Army based on the Winter War experience).

Hostilities ceased and the Finns agreed in the signing of the Moscow Peace treaty to hand over the Karelian Isthmus, Ladoga, Salla and the Rybachy Peninsula . Hanko was also leased to the Soviets. In exchange the Finns secured their independence. That in itself was a success.

Treaty of Moscow territory transfers. Source: Talviosta

Information Sources: The Winter War (includes casualty numbers).

• Ahtiainen, Ilkka (16 July 2000). "The Never-Ending Karelia Question". Helsinki Times. Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 5 November 2009.
• Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses in the Twentieth Century

Bring on the Clowns

The US economy is struggling. The debt is skyrocketing. Covid-19 deaths have sat around the 2000-3000 mark per day since the Biden inauguration. Governors in California, New York and elsewhere are being attacked for their incompetence in the face of the pandemic (not to mention their disdain for civil rights). Far Left rioting has not dissipated and divisive race politics loom larger than ever before.

Many Kids have been out of school for far too long with no signs of a return to in-person education likely to return for some time. You have an aging President, who appears to be barely in control of his faculties, governing by Executive Order in a way that would make the Founding Fathers have convulsions. The media obliges his whims by feeding him soft ball questions.

Freedom of Speech is under threat with Big Tech acting as a political arm as the same loathsome players who put together and managed the surveillance state return to office. China and Iran are flexing their muscles in predictable fashion. Meanwhile toxic national divisions have widened with a huge proportion of the population believing that this election was stolen. Calls for unity ring hollow as actions indicate otherwise.

So why not spend more time on a circus trial against a former POTUS that will likely go nowhere thereby furthering the divide and achieving absolutely nothing?

Just goes to show how much disdain the establishment has for the American people.