History Hub听 permalink
History Quiz
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Hi everyone
This might prove to be an easy question today but here goes:
Which world leader was born on 18 December 1879?
Good Luck
Katy -
Message 2
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Lenin
-
Message 3
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Bah - just checked it on Wiki and I'm wrong.
Hmm, how about Stalin? (moving logically on....)
Unless it was Churchill maybe? Would he be described as a world leader? Don't really think so. -
Message 4
Posted by Katy R (U14748743) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Congratulations Jenny your correct - it was Stalin
Your turn to set the question. -
Message 5
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Hmm - interesting info re Stalin's d.o.b. And not just the issue of the Russian calender either!
-
Message 6
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Thank you! I promise I didn't check beforehand - and even if I had, as I say, there seems to be a variety of dates suggested - you have gone (v. sensibly!) forthe 麻豆约拍 one on
Wiki gives 1878 (adjusted to 6th Dec for old Russian calender) and I think other sources, (inluding Enc. Brit?) give 21st December.
Guess it all ties in with what an untrustworthy sort of chap dear sweet kind Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili was!
Right, time to put my thinking hat on (and devise a question that might take you folk slightly longer than ten seconds to know the answer to!) -
Message 7
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Ok - here goes:
What do the following have in common?
Salvador Allende
Che Guevara
Papa Doc
Hastings Banda
Mahathir bin Mohammed
Bashar al-Assad
Which one is the odd one out (I'm not entirely sure about this!!!!) -
Message 8
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Baby Doc didn't study medicine?
-
Message 9
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Sigh.
You're not good for my ego!!!!
Though that wasn't quite what I was thinking of. I THINK it's that the Syrian guy is the only surgeon, the rest are physicians, but yes, they all did medicine (as you spotted within two nanoseconds!) -
Message 10
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Assad trained as an opthalmologist not a surgeon.
-
Message 11
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Yes, but
"An ophthalmologist is a medically trained doctor who commonly acts as both physician and surgeon. (S)he examines, diagnoses and treats diseases and injuries in and around the eye."
says (Royal College of Opthamologists) -
Message 12
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Friday, 24th June 2011
So Baby Doc was the only one not in the medical field? My question is... to what was Zhou Enlai referring when he answered a question with the words 'it's too soon to say'?
-
Message 13
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Friday, 24th June 2011
I'm away from a computer for quite a while, if someone gives an answer that meets with some kind of consensus, by all means introduce a new question.
-
Message 14
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th June 2011
An apocryphal remark but supposedly his answer to Henry Kissinger's query as to what he thought the consequences of the French Revolution were during President Nixon's ground-breaking visit to China in 1972.
-
Message 15
Posted by bandick (U14360315) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Actually鈥 to be annoyingly pedantic鈥 isn鈥檛/wasn鈥檛 Jean-Claude, aka Baby Doc the son of Fran莽ois Duvalier, aka Papa Doc鈥 felt sure the question was about Papa Doc, and others. The answer鈥 Baby Doc etc鈥 was therefore incorrect.
Easily over looked I suppose. -
Message 16
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th June 2011
In the absence of Stuart might I set another question to keep the thread moving?
A famous historian said of this man.
"...there was no limit to his acquisitions but his own moderation."
Who, and after what event? -
Message 17
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Friday, 24th June 2011
An apocryphal remark but supposedly his answer to Henry Kissinger's query as to what he thought the consequences of the French Revolution were during President Nixon's ground-breaking visit to China in 1972.
听
Hi. I've just returned. I wouldn't want to stop people trying answer your question so everyone feel free. But recent revelations suggest that your date is wrong- also the answer you offer is a long held incorrect assumption. -
Message 18
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Actually鈥 to be annoyingly pedantic鈥 isn鈥檛/wasn鈥檛 Jean-Claude, aka Baby Doc the son of Fran莽ois Duvalier, aka Papa Doc鈥 felt sure the question was about Papa Doc, and others. The answer鈥 Baby Doc etc鈥 was therefore incorrect.
Easily over looked I suppose. 听
Well spotted. I typed in the wrong Duvalier! -
Message 19
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Yes, but
"An ophthalmologist is a medically trained doctor who commonly acts as both physician and surgeon. (S)he examines, diagnoses and treats diseases and injuries in and around the eye."
says (Royal College of Opthamologists)
听 Don't think I'd particularly want him poking around in my eyes, in any event. -
Message 20
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Apologies, jumped the gun. My bad!
-
Message 21
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Friday, 24th June 2011
A famous historian said of this man.
"...there was no limit to his acquisitions but his own moderation."
Who, and after what event?
**
I'm wondering if it was Churchill (as historian) of his ancestor, the first John Churchill, when he'd won at Blenheim and was rewarded by 'a grateful nation' (yeah, right, like I'm sure the peasantry and taxpayers were REALLY grateful....!) with his eponymous palace. ?? -
Message 22
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Perhaps the remark applies to a later French Revolution that fizzled out fairly swiftly in 1968, then. Although the linking of Chou's quote with the more historically significant 18th century one appears to date from the 1950s which tends to imply that it is indeed an invention.
-
Message 23
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th June 2011
No to either (or neither). Churchill would never have been so rude about the Great Duke (whose legacy he benefitted from - it provided his birthplace after all) but you're along the right lines and in the right era (or century, at least).
-
Message 24
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Friday, 24th June 2011
OK, how about somebody I don't know speaking (sarcastically?) of Cecil Rhodes.
Or, less sarcastically, how about Gibbon on, I don't know, Marcus Aurelius, Trajan, a.n.other emperor? -
Message 25
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 24th June 2011
An Indian nabob, I suspect. Could have been Warren Hastings, or possibly Clive? If the former, it would have been at his impeachment, if the latter, after Plassey, I suppose?
-
Message 26
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th June 2011
The historian was one whom Churchill very much admired and upon whom he modelled his own prose style, to some extent, and he would have been very familar with the quotation.
-
Message 27
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th June 2011
2nd guess is right, U-L. The full quotation runs as follows:
As to Clive there was no limit to his acquisitions but his own moderation. The treasury of engal was thrown open to him. There was piled up, after the usage of Indian princes, immense masses of coin, among which might not seldom be detectedb the florins, and byzants with which, before any European ship had turned the Cape of Good Hope, the Venetians purchased the stuffs and spices of the East. Clive walked between heaps of gold and silver, crowned with rubies and diamonds, and was at liberty to help himself.听
The writer is, of course, Lord Macaulay in his "Essay on Clive". It was the 254th anniversary of the Battle of Plassey yesterday. Over to you, U-L. -
Message 28
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Well, I'm orfff shopping soon (normally my Saturday penance, but we are going to a family birthday 90th party then) so best let someone else have a go!
-
Message 29
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Macaulay was, of course, echoing Clive's own words when questioned by a Parliamentary committee regarding the opportunites for personal enrichment that came to him in the wake of the victory of Plassey: "By God, Mr Chairman, at this moment I stand astonished at my own moderation."
-
Message 30
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Perhaps the remark applies to a later French Revolution that fizzled out fairly swiftly in 1968, then. Although the linking of Chou's quote with the more historically significant 18th century one appears to date from the 1950s which tends to imply that it is indeed an invention.听
Allan D,
I think you are right about the date of the meeting after all. But from the FT on 10/6....
"Thus did Zhou Enlai 鈥 in responding to questions in the early 1970s about the popular revolt in France almost two centuries earlier 鈥 buttress China鈥檚 reputation as a far-thinking, p...atient civilisation.
'The former premier鈥檚 answer has become a frequently deployed clich茅, used as evidence of the sage Chinese ability to think long-term 鈥 in contrast to impatient westerners.
'The trouble is that Zhou was not referring to the 1789 storming of the Bastille in a discussion with Richard Nixon during the late US president鈥檚 pioneering China visit. Zhou鈥檚 answer related to events only three years earlier 鈥 the 1968 students鈥 riots in Paris, according to Nixon鈥檚 interpreter at the time.
'At a seminar in Washington to mark the publication of Henry Kissinger鈥檚 book, On China, Chas Freeman, a retired foreign service officer, sought to correct the long-standing error.
'鈥淚 distinctly remember the exchange. There was a mis understanding that was too delicious to invite correction,鈥 said Mr Freeman.
'He said Zhou had been confused when asked about the French Revolution and the Paris Commune. 鈥淏ut these were exactly the kinds of terms used by the students to describe what they were up to in 1968 and that is how Zhou understood them.鈥'"
-
Message 31
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Friday, 24th June 2011
Thanks for the update, Stuart, very interesting. HoweverI think Iprefer the original version, true or not. I would have thought that the consequences of the 1968 student riots would have been all too discernible even to the Chinese by February 1972 when Nixon visited China.
They may have played a part in de Gaulle's decision to step down in April 1969 but many, even in his own party thought he had passed his sell-by date anyway. Despite, or maybe because of, his departure the Fifth Republic was as firmly entrenched as ever with the Gaullists having managed the succession with relative ease (Pompidou had been one of the few politicians who had emerged from the crisis with his reputation enhanced).
The main political effect was on the electoral prospects of the Socialist Party which did not win a national election until 1981. On the other hand what we are currently witnessing in the Middle East is part of a process which stems from the events which began in 1789 with the same scenario of a popular uprising against a corrupt and remote autocracy with the prospect of the whole process being hijacked by extremists. As the late Yogi Berra said:
It's deja vu all over again听
Meanwhile you may be interested by this article, along the same lines, that I came across yesterday:
-
Message 32
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Sunday, 26th June 2011
I would have thought that the consequences of the 1968 student riots would have been all too discernible even to the Chinese by February 1972 when Nixon visited China. 听
I kind of take your point about France specifically at that point in time, although much of Europe was affected in a similar way (as was parts of Latin America and even the US) and things had not died down by 1972 in fairness- although who knows exactly what Zhou Enlai was really getting at?
On the other hand what we are currently witnessing in the Middle East is part of a process which stems from the events which began in 1789 with the same scenario of a popular uprising against a corrupt and remote autocracy with the prospect of the whole process being hijacked by extremists 听
A questionable use of the term 'extremists' IMO. I think with revolutionary situations there can come a point at which, by necessity, the process can only move forward by using more radical (by which I assume you mean 'extreme') measures which can amount to a departure from what the original objectives appeared to be. Failure to take such measures can easily leave the revolution open to a counter-revolutionary - and sometimes very violent- backlash. A safe, middle course, is not IMO- at least sometimes- a genuine option. -
Message 33
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 26th June 2011
In both France and Russia, after 1917, the result of the revolutions were tyrannies, more remote and corrupt, as well as more autocratic than the ones they had replaced. The "more radical measures" were directed against those who had helped bring about the initial revolution. In the words of Vergniaud, himself to be a victim of this process:
There is a reason to fear that, like Saturn, the Revolution may devour each of its children in turn听
In the words of Joseph Conrad:
The scrupulous and the just, the noble, humane, and devoted natures; the unselfish and the intelligent may begin a movement - but it passes away from them. They are not the leaders of a revolution. They are its victims.听
The only revolution that could be said to have adhered to the principles of its instigators (apart from perhaps the Glorious Revolution of 1688) is the American Revolution -
Message 34
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 26th June 2011
I remember when I was first studying French History in the early Sixtiies with very English eyes it seemed to me via Cobban's Penguin History that French history from 1789 was a permanent version of at best that Holy penance favoured in Papal times and circumstances of going up some steps on your knees a couple of marches and them back down again. And in many ways the dreams and aspirations of the French Revolution for a world of freedom and human rights based upon a Western State model have still to be realised.
Having been part of a French "teachers' " camping club for about forty years I know the special warmth with which the older members sitting around camp-fires sing the song "Le temp des cerisses" which remembers the brief flowering of the Paris Commune as another moment when it was bliss to be alive. And a family photograph from 1968 shows my wife (as she became that summer) with my parents-in-law out in a street-demonstration with "their eyes on fire", such were the hopes, that French old-Sixties people look back upon with nostalgia at every date-line milestone.
But I was drawn to the thread by the mention of Chou En Lai, who featured very prominently in the last volume of Han Suyin' "China. History/Autobiography" covering the late Sixties and the Seventies- with the death of Chou En lai- as a significant milestone. This last volume begins around 1966,around the time that I chanced to meet and travel with Han Suyin in a train from Dover to London, and it seems likely that this was in January 1966 when she was moving from Paris, where she had talked with the great French writer Andre Malraux and was soon to meet Bertrand Russell. And Han Suyin's conversations with Chou En Lai place him in that kind of company: namely people who did have a commanding view of what Malraux described as "La Condition Humaine".
Perhaps less prestigious was the Oxford Historian H.A.L. Fisher who entitled his 1933 last volume of his History of Europe "The Liberal Experiment", because it seemed- as he explained in the Preface- that a whole tide of Liberalism which could be traced back to the start of the Age of Revolution was now very much on the wane and under attack.
Nothing shows this perhaps more clearly than Malraux who was a hero of the Spanish Civil War fighting for Socialism and Communism, but, just as Stalin called the Soviet people away from internationalism and communism and back to old-fashioned struggle for the fatherland, so Malraux joined the French Resistance against the Nazi occupation, and accepted De Gaulle's leadership during the war, and after the war, when national unity and reconstruction were the first priority, he remained in Gaullist administrations.
Much the same could be said of the priorities for China then and now, when the whole question of "western" Human Rights remains a crucial one.. One of my fellow campers a few years ago talked of a fabulous visit to China: but also his guilt. His American Express card was stolen. He reported it to the police. A few days later he was called to go and collect the retrieved card. And insisted on knowing how they had got in back. They had found the culprit and had executed him with a bullet through the head.
Yes. it is too soon yet to see whether the spirit and the dreams of the French Revolution will succeed.
Cass -
Message 35
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 26th June 2011
Perhaps as an addendum, it might be pointed out that French culture does still seem to be less parochial and self-interested than British culture, especially popular culture, and therefore less struck with the "Chinese" nature of Chou En Lai's thinking.
If it seems to a British or American point of view that Chinese intellectuals like Chou En Lai tended to place the Present in a very long and continuous history much the same could be said of the French, certainly of that kind of generation.. and the next.
If Malraux emerged from the Resistance years with credit, so did Albert Camus. And much of Camus' work (including his most famous work "La Peste") urged that the current challenges facing post-war France should be best tackled by a restoration of Greek Hellenism, vestiges of which had inspired him in his North African childhood.
Back to the roots. As Han Suyin describes it, during those turbullent years of Chinese recovery it was of vital importance that every effort should be made as far as possible, to keep the rural peasantry happy, especially in the light of disastrous policies like the one that caused the "Birdless Summer" and huge famines as a result..
So the "Cultural Revolution" that attacked the intellectuals and the urban establishment could be seen as an unavoidable backlash, rather as the Inner London Education Authority advised its teachers that, because of racism and abuse suffered by Afro-Caribbeans in the past, there would have to be a period during which teachers should expect to be abused and submitted to racist hostility.
As Allan D has commented from a British- and perhaps particularly an English- perspective it seems that revolutions so often produce a vicious backlash.
A couple of years ago a camper railed to me against Napoleon, whom he described as just being another Hitler. Perhaps a bit extreme.
Cass -
Message 36
Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Sunday, 26th June 2011
A couple of years ago a camper railed to me against Napoleon, whom he described as just being another Hitler. Perhaps a bit extreme.听
But with a grain of truth, perhaps. Napoleon emerged as a figure of stability in a nation gripped by chaos, almost exactly as Burke had predicted, who replaced revolutionary fervour with foreign expansion. Hitler emerged similarly in the conditions created by the 1918 revolution in Germany. Neither could have emerged into a position of leadership were it not for the revolutionary situation that preceded them. Both of their pan-European aspirations ultimately perished in the snows of Russia.
Churchill, typically, provided a neat bit of compare and contrast in his radio broadcast following his return from the conference with Roosevelt off Newfoundland in August 1941.
Napoleon in his glory and his genius spread his Empire far and wide. There was a time when only the snows of Russia and the White Cliffs of Dover with their guardian fleets stood between him and the dominion of the world. Napoleon's armies had a theme: they carried with them the surges of the French Revolution. Liberty, Equaliy and Fraternity - that was the cry. There was a sweeping away of outworn mediaeval systems and aristocratic privilege. There was the land for the people, a new code of law. Nevertheless, Napoleon's Empire vanished like a dream. But Hitler, Hitler has no theme, naught but mania, appetite and exploitation.听
Churchill was obviously a good deal fonder of Napoleon than he was of Hitler! -
Message 37
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 26th June 2011
Allan D
That is very much as I see it too-- But what is interesting to my mind is just how much German thinking went into the Post-1945 planning and execution of the essential rebuilding of a shattered Europe and Japan. The British Cabinet in the summer of 1940 were really worried that Hitler would offer a Europe based upon a Zollvereign type of customs union- creating the greater potential for managing the economy after Britain's long-cherished aspirations of Free Trade and World Peace had foundered and failed amidst the World Chaos.
I was fascinated when I found a volume of Julian Huxley's "On Living in a Revolution" published as a collection of pieces in 1944 in which he argued as an Oxford Biologist that the totalitarian states had been able to steal a march in the use of the latest Science and Technology because the political instabilities associated with political change made it easier to impose radical change. In such desperate times the "way ahead" is often difficult to discern. Many good people do nothing, leaving extremists to fight it out.
Huxley argued that these were revolutionary times whether "we" liked it or not, and that -if democracy did not embrace the potential of the age- victory would go to the Axis powers that had done so. So the "boffins" were given extensive powers to build a new Britain and Europe after 1945 in line with much of the Social Darwinism of Huxley's articles.
Cass -
Message 38
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Monday, 27th June 2011
In both France and Russia, after 1917, the result of the revolutions were tyrannies, more remote and corrupt, as well as more autocratic than the ones they had replaced. The "more radical measures" were directed against those who had helped bring about the initial revolution听
In Russia the situation facing the Bolsheviks was that any alliance with Mensheviks or SRs would have meant defeat at the hands of White generals backed by foreign powers- victory to the counter-revolution. According to Menshevik leader Martov, in 1917,... 鈥 'almost the entire proletariat supports Lenin and expects its social liberation from the uprising '
In the words of Vergniaud, himself to be a victim of this process听
In France the Jacobins were pushed into action by the 'sans-culottes' who demanded price controls on bread ('chase these venomous creatures back into their lairs' ordered one Girondin leader according to Soboul), the Girondins formed part of the counter-revolutionary forces alongside the royalists.
In the words of Joseph Conrad:听
In the words of Mark Twain..'There were two reigns of terror: one lasted several months, the other 1,000 years'.
The only revolution that could be said to have adhered to the principles of its instigators (apart from perhaps the Glorious Revolution of 1688)听
But you cannot start to understand 1688 without understanding the revolutionary upheavals during the 1640s, and as late as 1647, Cromwell was saying..'no man could enjoy their lives and estates quitely without the King had his rights'.
is the American Revolution 听
As late as 1776, Thomas Jefferson would say it was neither American's 'wish, nor interest to separate'.
Churchill, typically, provided a neat bit of compare and contrast 听
Churchill on meeting Mussolini in 1927....'If I had been an Italian, I am sure I should have been whole-heartedly with you in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism'.
Hitler emerged similarly in the conditions created by the 1918 revolution in Germany听
He emerged as a result of the defeat of the revolution, a defeat that could in large part be blamed on the behaviour of 'moderate' socialists like Ebert and Noske who arranged the far-right, anti-semitic, Frekorps, to crush the German revolution. Just over a decade later von Papen was telling he British ambassador, 'It would be a disaster if the Hitler movement collapsed or was crushed for, after all, the Nazis were the last remaining bulwark against Communism'. -
Message 39
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 27th June 2011
Perhaps it is appropriate to point out that revolutions in the true sense usually involve a "Big Bang" vision that seeks to break out of the steady state associated in the West with various kinds of States. Even Stalin's "Socialism in one country" policy was in line with the kind of temporary short-term pragmatism that Lenin resorted to in his New Economic Policy.
Just like the "internationalism" of the Richard Cobden interpretation of a world order based upon Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" Communism saw nations and states as peversions of history relating to an age when the spirit of over-arching community that was re-discovered in Christendom had broken down. Of course Marx saw this as progress. The weakening of organised religion as it became a house divided. The industrial revolution too Marx saw as being essential progress: and states too, therefore, as part of that historical inevitability that would eventually empower the mass of humanity to throw off the mechanisms and powers of local elites and governments and produce a new order.
As major politicians consider the dangers of allowing the post-war political structure to unravel starting with the Greek state and then the Eurozone and possibly the EU, just at a time when the "Arab Spring" seems to be tapping into the revolutionary aspirations of sections at least of the Moslem world- sections which want the "middle-class" lifestyle enjoyed by the Citizens of the West- it is appropriate to consider the Nihilistic roots of Russian Communism and the threat that this posed for the fragile World Order of the Twenties. For Lenin was in no doubt , and undoubtedly correct, in believing that Russia was not sufficiently advanced to lead humankind towards the Promised Land of Communism. As in the famous Einsenstein scenes of the Storming of the Winter Palace, Russian masses could force the gates open, and hold the breach. But others more advanced would have to build Communism out of the ruins of Europe.
And that, as Marx and Engels had said in the Communist Manifesto, could only be achieved once the masses in the most industrialised countries had fully grasped the potential within the urban Proletariat. But this pre-supposed that given the opportunity to win a victory over Beveridge's Giants that blighted the life of the Common People the Proletariat would seize the opportunities to build a Brave New World.
However as C.R. Fay in the added section of his Economic History of Great Britain- the country that really created the idea of genuine global progress, as opposed to French assertions and declamations- noted c 1949:
"In 1925 Mr. Churchill introduced Widows and Orphans Pensions an extension , which carried with it a change of principle. They were in part contributory, but they were not true insurance. The part-contribution removed the stigma of charity, but the extensions were mainly at the ultimate charge of the State. How long and how far will the young and fit be willing to work for the old and unfit? Perhaps only so long as the young and fit believe that they can do it intermediately by squeezing the erstwhile rich".
In 2011 Western Politics shows very little sign of any real day to day acceptance of "The Brotherhood of Man", and the crises of 2011 show just how readily people shout "Wolf" when the State can no longer supply the services and resources that they can not access other than through the use of State powers and subsidies, powers and funds that are by definition ultimately based upon the State's possession of power to coerce and compel.
But I do not know where the quiz has got to in all this.. though both Lenin and Stalin (or rather Joseph Ilyanovich Djugashvili as he was soon after his birth)- did feature at the start.
Cass -
Message 40
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 27th June 2011
I think it was actually my turn to post a question when I was due to go out, so I offered it to anyone else who wanted to.
No-one took up the challenge.
So, apart from the wreck of the former HMVS Cerberus, where could you find a Coles type turret, such as those aboard HMS Captain (as I was discussing elsethread with Cass), and what other weapon did the ship concerned see the first (unsuccessful) use in action of?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.