The staircase has two 360 degree turns and no visible means of support. It is said that the staircase was built without nails—only wooden pegs. Questions also surround the number of stair risers relative to the height of the choir loft and about the types of wood and other materials used in the stairway's construction.
When the Loretto Chapel was completed in 1878, there was no way to access the choir loft twenty-two feet above.
Carpenters were called in to address the problem, but they all concluded access to the loft would have to be via ladder as a staircase would interfere with the interior space of the small Chapel.
Legend says that to find a solution to the seating problem, the Sisters of the Chapel made a novena to St. Joseph, the patron saint of carpenters.
On the ninth and final day of prayer, a man appeared at the Chapel with a donkey and a toolbox looking for work.
Months later, the elegant circular staircase was completed, and the carpenter disappeared without pay or thanks.
After searching for the man (an ad even ran in the local newspaper) and finding no trace of him, some concluded that he was St. Joseph himself, having come in answer to the sisters' prayers.
The stairway's carpenter, whoever he was, built a magnificent structure.
The design was innovative for the time and some of the design considerations still perplex experts today.
An amateur researcher named Mary Jean Cook unearthed documents in the early 2000s that led her to believe that the mysterious carpenter was most likely Francois-Jean Rochas, also known as Frenchy, a hermit rancher and carpenter who settled in New Mexico from France.
In Rochas obituary, which ran in the Santa Fe New Mexican newspaper in 1894, it was written that “he built the handsome staircase in the Loretto Chapel and at St. Vincent sanitarium”.
Although he kept mostly to himself, Rochas was known throughout Santa Fe and had earned a reputation as a skilled carpenter.
Although Rochas seems like a probable candidate, one question remains…why did no one identify him at the time of the construction or name him when the newspaper ad ran that asked the public for help identifying the carpenter.
https://www.lorettochapel.com/info/staircase
http://historydaily.org/mysterious-spiral-staircase-of-loretto-chapel-in-new-mexico
Đó là Giảng Võ Trường (nơi huấn luyện, giảng binh pháp cho quân sĩ) có từ thời Lê, khu vực này nay còn vương lại cái tên phố Giảng Võ. Đó là nơi sử sách nói đến, bản đồ còn vẽ, nhưng ở đâu trong lòng Hà Nội ngày nay, thì ít người biết được.
Cho đến một ngày, lòng đất Hà Nội bật lên một kho vũ khí thời Lê, giữa lòng hồ Ngọc Khánh, các nhà khảo cổ mới khẳng định được vị trí của Giảng Võ Trường xưa. Đó là vào ngày 2-4-1983, công trình thi công hồ Ngọc Khánh được khởi công nằm giữa ba con phố: Kim Mã, Cầu Giấy và Nguyễn Chí Thanh. Vùng này vốn thuộc địa phận thôn Ngọc Khánh, xã Giảng Võ của quận Ba Đình, Hà Nội. Một kho vũ khí được lấy lên từ lòng đất với số lượng hàng vạn loại, bao gồm: Súng lệnh bằng đồng, đạn đá, giáo sắt, giáo đồng...
Súng lệnh bằng đồng có chiều dài 39cm, có nòng, bầu nòng để nạp thuốc súng, rãnh khoan lỗ cắm dây cháy chậm. Khi bắn, người lính sẽ đốt dây cháy chậm làm nổ thuốc súng, đẩy pháo hiệu lên cao phát sáng làm hiệu lệnh cho quân sĩ. Đây có lẽ là một loại súng cầm tay cổ xưa nhất tìm được trong thời Lê sơ. Qua những chữ khắc trên súng được biết niên đại của súng vào khoảng năm 1466 dưới thời Lê Thánh Tông.
Lòng đất Ngọc Khánh còn cung cấp hơn 1.000 viên đạn đá ở gần khu ruộng vốn có tên là Bãi Đạn. Đó là những viên đá hình cầu, đường kính lên tới khoảng 12cm. Việc đào được khá nhiều đạn đá ở nơi có tên gọi như vậy lại càng chứng tỏ vùng Ngọc Khánh vốn là một phần của thao trường xưa còn lưu lại các tên dân gian như “Bãi Đạn”, “Trường Bắn”. Một số viên đạn còn ám khói chứng tỏ chúng được bắn đi từ nòng của một khẩu “thần cơ” nào đó, dùng sức ép của thuốc nổ bắn đạn đá.
Bên cạnh súng, đạn còn có những vũ khí “lạnh” như giáo sắt, giáo đồng hình lá lúa, giáo có một ngạnh, loại giáo lớn có tên là “mũi trường”, loại câu liêm, đinh ba, kiếm, qua, lao 3 ngạnh...
Một số vũ khí đánh xa lợi hại như móc câu chùm quăng xa cho dính vào đối phương để bắt sống hoặc quăng móc vào thuyền để giữ thuyền cho lính nhảy sang đánh thuyền địch. Một số mũi tên sắt đi kèm với những chiếc nỏ gỗ. Vũ khí phòng ngự có mũi chông 3 ngạnh...
Sưu tập vũ khí dưới lòng hồ Ngọc Khánh đã cho ta thấy trình độ quân sự của thời Lê sơ, ít ra cũng vào thời thịnh trị dưới triều Lê Thánh Tông. Đó là những vũ khí lợi hại, có thể đã có một số loại được dùng trong các trận chiến với giặc Minh từ thời Lê Lợi. Những vũ khí này đã làm cho Vương Thông, Liễu Thăng nhiều phen phải sợ “mất mật” khi nghĩa quân đã “đánh một trận sạch sanh kình ngạc, đánh hai trận tan tác chim muông” như lời Bình Ngô Đại Cáo nói đến.
Kho vũ khí thời Lê sơ được phát hiện năm 1983 giữa lòng hồ Ngọc Khánh đã được các nhà sử học khẳng định là thuộc vào một khu vực huấn luyện quân sự nổi tiếng có tên Giảng Võ Trường. Từ bản đồ thời Lê Hồng Đức có ghi dấu, thư tịch chép lại địa danh này đã hiển hiện bằng chứng di vật quan trọng trong lòng đất. Nhưng tại sao những vũ khí đó lại nằm... dưới lòng hô? Đó là do “vật đổi sao dời”, nơi xưa kia là Giảng Võ Trường đã bị san lấp, đào hồ mới.
Sử sách còn ghi lại: Vào năm 1467, vua Lê đã sai đào hồ ở đình Giảng Võ. Đến năm 1481, khu vực này lại được đào một cái hồ lớn có tên là Hải Trì, quanh co đến 100 dặm. Giữa hồ có điện Thúy Ngọc, bên hồ xây điện Giảng Võ. Đến thời hiện đại, việc đào hồ mới vẫn tiếp tục đã làm cho cảnh vật khu Giảng Võ đầy biến động mà ngẫu nhiên tìm được kho vũ khí này.
Thư tịch cổ còn chép, Giảng Võ Trường trước còn có tên là Giảng Võ Đường được lập ra vào tháng 8 năm Nguyên Phong thứ ba (1283), ngay sau khi nhà Trần đại thắng quân Nguyên Mông dưới sự lãnh đạo của vua đầu triều là Trần Thái Tông. Khi đó, Nhà nước Đại Việt đã củng cố xã tắc. Bên ngành văn, vua cho lập Quốc học viện (nay vẫn còn di tích là Quốc Tử Giám). Bên ngành võ, vua sai lập Giảng Võ Đường.
Đến thời Lê Thánh Tông, vào năm 1478, nhà Lê đã lấy sân điện Giảng Võ làm nơi quân tướng tập trận. Từ đó, Giảng Võ mới trở thành nơi huấn luyện quân sĩ lớn nhất Kinh thành Thăng Long. Vào thời vua Lê Hiến Tông, Giảng Võ lại là nơi nuôi voi trận. Chuồng voi ở đây được lợp ngói, có cả những người lính kiêm quản tượng ở vùng Bắc Giang chuyên huấn luyện voi. Đến thời điểm này, trong biên chế của quân đội Đại Việt có thêm một binh chủng đặc biệt: Tượng binh.
Giảng Võ còn là nơi để duyệt binh. Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư ghi lại: “Chúa ngự ở lầu Giảng Võ... duyệt quân thủy và bộ, bày thuyền ghe, voi ngựa để phô bày sự cường thịnh”. Đó là vào năm 1630, thời vua Lê Thần Tông và chúa Trịnh Tráng. Qua thư tịch, ngày nay ta còn biết được vị trí của Giảng Võ xưa khá gần với sông Tô Lịch và dòng sông này trước đây khá lớn, có thể đứng ở Giảng Võ mà xem duyệt binh trên sông Tô Lịch được.
Đội tượng binh của nhà Lê đã chọn khá nhiều voi ở các nơi về để tập luyện ở Giảng Võ. Có khi, voi trận còn tham gia cuộc đấu khốc liệt với... hổ để cho vua Lê Thánh Tông và quân sĩ xem, giải trí. Nhiều lần voi còn được mang ra đấu với... dê rừng. Dê bị cùng đường, dương sừng ra húc làm voi hết sức sợ hãi.
Trong số vũ khí tìm thấy ở Giảng Võ Trường, có thể có những vũ khí luyện voi lợi hại như các loại giáo dài và câu liêm.
Trong lịch sử quân sự nước ta, cái tên Giảng Võ Trường rất nổi tiếng, ngay sát chân thành Thăng Long. Đây vừa là doanh trại huấn luyện quân đội tinh nhuệ của nhà Lê, đặc biệt là đội quân voi trận, lại vừa là một căn cứ quân sự lớn để bảo vệ Hoàng thành Thăng Long nơi có vua thiết triều cùng văn võ bá quan.
https://baomoi.com/noi-luyen-quan-xua-giua-ha-noi/c/26636750.epi
Lịch sử hình thành Thăng Long là những giai đoạn xây dựng, phát triển nền kinh tế, văn hóa, giáo dục để Thăng Long trở thành “kinh đô của các bậc đế vương muôn đời” và đấu tranh chống xâm lược phương Bắc. Chính vì vậy mà các triều đại phong kiến Việt Nam xưa không chỉ chú trọng đến ôn văn mà còn quan tâm đến luyện võ.
Cùng với các di tích, danh sĩ tài hoa của vùng đất Thăng Long gắn liền với nền văn chương đỉnh cao thì những di tích, danh tướng gắn liền với nền võ học cũng đem lại một cái nhìn toàn diện về một vùng đất địa linh nhân kiệt, văn võ toàn tài.
Thời đầu nhà Lý, khi đất nước bước vào thời kỳ tương đối ổn định thì những công trình văn hóa, chùa chiền được xây dựng thể hiện một triều đại chuộng văn, chuộng đạo lý Phật. Tuy nhiên, nhà Lý cũng quan tâm đến việc tập luyện võ nghệ. Ngay từ khi vua Lý dời đô về Thăng Long đã cho xây dựng một khu vực điện Giảng Võ - nơi duy trì dạy và luyện quân sự nằm ở hai làng Giảng Võ và Hào Nam là hai trại thuộc tổng Nội, huyện Vĩnh Thuận cũ. Đến đời vua Lý Anh Tông đổi tên thành Giảng Võ trường.
Đến đời Trần, Giảng Võ trường chuyển đi nơi khác, đây chỉ còn là Võ Trại có dân cư sống xen lẫn. Tuy nhiên có thể nói Thăng Long thời Trần là Thăng Long chuộng võ. Năm 1253 vua Trần cho lập Giảng Võ đường, vương hầu tôn thất, quý tộc, các tướng sĩ, quân đội đến Giảng Võ đường tập luyện cưỡi ngựa, bắn cung, đấu võ, trau dồi binh pháp, và khuyến khích tất cả trai tráng trong nước đều phải tập võ. Vào những ngày lễ hội mùa xuân, không chỉ mang tính chất vui chơi giải trí mà tinh thần thượng võ cũng được đề cao trong những hội thi... Nhờ thế mà khi quân Mông Cổ tràn sang nước ta, nhà Trần đã có ngay hơn 20 vạn quân để chống giặc.
Còn có một giai thoại kể rằng: lúc bấy giờ các phương hầu phần nhiều lấy sự đánh nhau bằng tay không và một mình đi ăn cướp là dũng cảm. Vũ Uy Vương (con vua Trần Thái Tông) cũng làm thế. Một hôm, Vũ Uy Vương đánh nhau tay không ở Đông Bộ Đầu, vua đi vi hành trông thấy hỏi rằng: “người béo mà trắng là ai, bắt lại đây để sai bảo”. Vũ Uy Vương nghe thấy bèn trốn mất.
Ngoài Giảng Võ Đường, nhiều nơi khác trong kinh thành Thăng Long cũng được sử dụng làm nơi luyện tập võ nghệ như bến Đông ở Hồ Tây. Sử cũ còn chép lại ngự sử đại phu Trương Đỗ cuối thế kỷ 14 là người thanh liêm, phóng khoáng, có chí lớn, khi còn nhỏ ngụ ở phường Cơ Xá – Nghi Tàm có lần đi chơi Hồ Tây xem tướng quân tập bắn, nói đùa rằng: “Nghề ấy thì có khó gì”. Tướng quân ngạc nhiên hỏi: “Mày bắn trúng được không?”. Trả lời: “Xin thử xem”. Bắn ba phát trúng cả ba…
Dưới thời Lê, mặc dù Nho giáo được đưa lên tới đỉnh cao, Nho sĩ được coi trọng với nhiều đặc ân của vua ban nhưng nhà Lê vẫn chú trọng đến việc luyện tập võ nghệ cho quân lính. Vườn Bách Thảo ngày nay từng nằm trong khu vực Giảng Võ của triều Lê trước kia. Thời vua Lê Thánh Tông, vua cho dựng một quả núi đất (mà hiện nay vẫn còn) làm một duyệt võ đài để đứng đó nhìn xem quân sĩ thao luyện. Vì thế người người xưa mới đặt tên núi ấy là Khán Sơn.
Trải qua các triều đại Lê Trung Hưng, Trịnh - Nguyễn với những cuộc phân tranh quyền lực, đất nước chìm trong những cuộc nội chiến liên miên thì việc tập trung xây dựng một đội quân võ nghệ trong cả nước đã không còn được chú trọng như trước. Dưới thời Nguyễn, trước âm mưu xâm lược của quân Pháp với những trang thiết bị vũ khí hiện đại, quân đội của triều đình nhà Nguyễn không đủ sức mạnh để đánh bại kẻ thù nhưng tinh thần võ sư của người dân Hà Nội vẫn khiến cho thực dân Pháp nể trọng.
Sau khi thành Hà Nội bị thất thủ, Tổng đốc Hoàng Diệu tuẫn tiết. Một tùy tướng của Hoàng Diệu là cụ Cử Tốn - cử nhân võ triều Nguyễn - lui về ở ẩn, mở lò dạy võ ở khu vực phố Trần Quý Cáp bây giờ. Trong lòng viên tuỳ tướng của vị Tổng đốc bất khuất vẫn đau đáu một tâm nguyện khi Tổ quốc cần sẽ lại cùng môn sinh phò vua giúp nước. Giặc Pháp coi cụ như cái gai trước mắt. Chúng hãm hại làm cụ mù hai mắt. Song, những bí kíp võ công của cụ đã được lớp truyền nhân tinh hoa như Mùi Đen, Tư Côi, Lý Đen... lĩnh hội.
Để triệt hạ lò võ giàu tinh thần yêu nước này, giặc Pháp sắp sẵn mưu gian lập lôi đài treo thưởng cho võ sư ba xứ Bắc - Trung - Nam và toàn cõi Đông Dương đánh thắng thầy trò Cử Tốn sẽ được thưởng Bắc Đẩu bội tinh. Biết được âm mưu thâm độc muốn gây cảnh nồi da nấu thịt trong làng võ và để cho một số võ sư và dân chúng quên đi kẻ thù chính là giặc Pháp nhưng thầy trò cụ Cử Tốn cũng rất khó xử: không tham chiến thì quần hùng chê cười, không bảo vệ được danh dự môn phái mà thượng đài thì không tránh khỏi cảnh đầu rơi máu chảy, ân oán giang hồ.
Cụ Cử cùng các môn sinh suy nghĩ nhiều lắm, càng đến gần ngày hạn định, lòng họ càng như lửa đốt. Cuối cùng, họ cũng tìm ra cách hạn chế cảnh máu chảy mà vẫn bảo vệ được tiếng tăm cho môn võ của mình... Hồi đó Bách thú Hà Nội có con hổ cụt đuôi khét tiếng hung dữ. Hôm thi đấu, trước sự chứng kiến của các quan chức thực dân và Nam triều một đệ tử chân truyền của cụ Cử Tốn đã vào chuồng cọp đực diễn lại tích “Võ Tòng đả hổ”.
Mùi Đen tay không vào chuồng cọp đực, sau một hồi ác chiến đã đánh gục cọp đực, tóm gáy, bẻ chân đưa sang chuồng cọp cái và ngược lại. Những kẻ tưởng mình có mưu sâu kế hiểm đành bất lực, quần hùng ba xứ và Đông Dương thêm kính trọng cái nhân, cái trí, cái dũng của thầy trò cụ Cử Tốn.
Mặc dù Thăng Long – Hà Nội còn lưu giữ được một số di tích, danh thắng tiêu biểu gắn liền với nền văn chương đỉnh cao của vùng đất kinh kỳ nhưng những di tích minh chứng cho một Thăng Long – Hà Nội chuộng võ hầu như không còn tìm thấy. Thế nhưng, tinh thần thượng võ của các danh tướng, võ sư vùng đất kinh kỳ vẫn còn là dấu ấn khó phai trong lịch sử vùng đất ngàn năm văn hiến.
http://hanoi.vietnamplus.vn/Home/Lo-luyen-vo-cua-thanh-Thang-Long-xua/201212/8257.vnplus
La Thành, hay thành Đại La, là một phần trong quần thể kiến trúc Thăng Long xưa. Đó là vòng thành ngoài cùng bảo vệ Hoàng thành Thăng Long trải qua nhiều triều đại phong kiến Việt Nam. Tuy đức vua Lý Thái Tổ là người có công tìm ra Thăng Long làm “nơi thượng đô của Kinh sư muôn đời”, nhưng tên La Thành không phải đến triều Lý mới xuất hiện.
La Thành hay thành Đại La đều là những tên gọi xuất hiện từ thời nước ta bị nhà Đường xâm chiếm. Khi ấy, nhà Đường cho dựng thành Đại La làm nơi đóng An Nam đô hộ phủ. Tuy vậy, những vết tích còn lại của La Thành còn lại đến bây giờ không phải là La Thành do Cao Biền đắp, mà phần nhiều là do các triều đại từ nhà Lý tu sửa nhiều lần.
One is the 1490 map of Hồng Đức. From that old map of Thăng Long city, Hanoi locals can deduce that the Imperial Palace (the rectangle in the middle) stretches from Trần Phú town to Bắc Sơn road and Hoàng Văn Thụ road. The north-south axis is approximately 1300 meter. The east-west axis is approximately 1700 meter. The total area is approximately 2,210,000 meter square or 221 hectares.
Theo các tư liệu lịch sử, khi Lý Thái Tổ dời đô ra Thăng Long có chi tiết: Đoàn thuyền của nhà vua vừa cập bến Nhĩ Hà, bên thành Đại La, thời có rồng vàng bay lên. Bởi thế, nhà vua mới đặt tên Kinh đô là Thăng Long với ý nghĩa đây là mảnh đất rồng bay lên. Từ căn cứ này có thể khẳng định phía Đông thành Đại La giáp với sông Nhĩ.
Dựa vào tư liệu cổ, nhiều nhà khoa học cho rằng, vào thời Lý, sông Nhĩ ăn gần đoạn dốc Hàng Than (phường Hàng Mã, quận Hoàn Kiếm), chạy xuôi tới đền Bạch Mã (phường Hàng Buồm, quận Hoàn Kiếm) và đền Hai Bà Trưng (phường Đồng Nhân, quận Hai Bà Trưng). Như vậy, đoạn tường thành phía Đông của thành Đại La chạy dọc từ khu vực dốc Hàng Than, xuôi xuống khu vực đền Bạch Mã và đền Hai Bà Trưng.
Dựa vào cách gọi dân gian vùng Bưởi và Quần Ngựa, gọi phố Hoàng Hoa Thám là Lý thành, tức thành nhà Lý, các nhà khoa học đưa ra nhận định: Đoạn tường thành phía Bắc thành Đại La chính là đường Hoàng Hoa Thám, thẳng tới khu vực đường Phan Đình Phùng (nơi vẫn còn lưu giữ Bắc Môn, cửa thành phía Bắc thành).
Điều này cũng phù hợp với ghi chép tại Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư, rằng đền Đồng Cổ được vua Lý Thái Tông xây dựng theo sự báo mộng của thần, vị trí nằm “ở bên hữu, trong thành Đại La”. Mà đền Đồng Cổ hiện cũng đang nằm về bên phải của phố Hoàng Hoa Thám. Chính vì thế, nhiều nhà khoa học đã dự đoán, dưới đường Phan Đình Phùng là con hào bảo vệ mặt Bắc thành Đại La xưa kia.
The Thang Long Imperial Citadel was built in the 11th century by the Ly Viet Dynasty, marking the independence of the Dai Viet. It was constructed on the remains of a Chinese fortress dating from the 7th century, on drained land reclaimed from the Red River Delta in Hanoi. It was the centre of regional political power for almost 13 centuries without interruption. The Imperial Citadel buildings and the remains in the 18 Hoang Dieu Archaeological Site reflect a unique South-East Asian culture specific to the lower Red River Valley, at the crossroads between influences coming from China in the north and the ancient Kingdom of Champa in the south. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1328
Các thư tịch cổ chép rằng cửa Tây Dương của thành Đại La mở thông với cầu Tây Dương. Cầu Tây Dương xưa kia nằm ở khu vực Cầu Giấy, bắc qua con sông Tô Lịch hiện nay. Nói cách khác, cửa Tây Dương nằm ở khu vực cửa ô Cầu Giấy. Như vậy, đoạn tường thành phía Tây thành Đại La chính là đường Bưởi chạy ven sông Tô Lịch hiện nay, bắt đầu từ Yên Thái đến Cầu Giấy.
The Thang Long Imperial Citadel was built in the 11th century by the
Vietnamese Ly Dynasty, marking the independence of the Đại Việt. It was
built on the remains of a Chinese fortress dating from the 7th century,
on drained land reclaimed from the Red River Delta in Hanoi. It was
the centre of regional political power for almost thirteen centuries
without interruption.
Sử chép rằng khu vực luyện võ của các quan võ thời Lý là Xạ Đình, thời Trần đổi thành Giảng Võ đường, nằm ở phía Nam thành Đại La. Khu vực Xạ Đình, hay Giảng Võ đường, xưa kia nay chính là khu vực Giảng Võ.
Đàn Xã Tắc được lập ở ngoài cửa Trường Quảng mà thư tịch cổ có ghi cũng mới được phát lộ năm 2006 tại khu vực cửa ô Chợ Dừa. Như vậy, cửa Trường Quảng chính là cửa ô Chợ Dừa hiện nay. Di tích Đàn Xã Tắc được phát lộ nằm về phía ngoài đường đê La Thành là hoàn toàn phù hợp với cứ liệu lịch sử.
Năm 2007, các nhà khảo cổ học cũng đào thám sát tại khu vực ô Cầu Dền. Căn cứ vào những di vật thu được từ đợt đào thám sát này, các nhà khoa học đã đưa ra nhận định: Cửa Nam thành Đại La chính là cửa ô Cầu Dền và Đàn Nam Giao nằm ở khu vực Nhà máy cơ khí Trần Hưng Đạo nằm giữa khu vực phố Bà Triệu, Thái Phiên, Mai Hắc Đế, Đoàn Trần Nghiệp.
Từ những phân tích trên, các nhà khoa học khẳng định rằng đoạn tường thành phía Nam của thành Đại La bắt đầu từ khu vực ô Cầu Giấy, chạy qua ô Chợ Dừa, theo đường Kim Liên chạy thẳng tới ô Cầu Dền và ô Đống Mác, khép kín một vòng La Thành.
Như vậy, công trình thành Đại La thời Lý chạy từ khu vực dốc Hàng Than, bám dọc theo sông Nhĩ, xuôi xuống khu vực đền Bạch Mã và đền Hai Bà Trưng, ô Đống Mác, chạy qua ô Cầu Dền, ô Cầu Dừa, cắt qua Giảng Võ, về ô Cầu Giấy, chạy theo đường Bưởi tới Yên Thái rồi dọc theo đường Hoàng Hoa Thám khép kín tại khu vực dốc Hàng Than. Bốn mặt tường thành La Thành được bao bọc bởi con hào tự nhiên phía Đông là sông Nhĩ (nay là sông Hồng); phía Nam là sông Kim Ngưu; phía Tây Nam, phía Tây và phía Bắc là sông Tô Lịch.
http://www.hoangthanhthanglong.vn/blog/di-tim-dau-tich-la-thanh/682
Upon visiting Hanoi today, one can marvel at its many beautiful lakes and the grand French architectures. But little do people know that on this land a few centuries ago stood a huge palace complex - some of the largest in the region.
But it was there - the Imperial Palace of Thăng Long (Hoàng Thành Thăng Long 皇城昇龍). It served as the command center, the cultural center, the soul of the nation for thousand years, and was built in 1010 when King Lý Thái Tổ (李太祖) moved the capital from Hoa Lư to Đại La (present-day Hanoi).
Legend has it that the king saw a cloud in the shape of a dragon rising from the horizon of Đại La, thus he named the new capital Thăng Long (昇龍), which means "Rising Dragon." The city would serve as the country's capital for the next 800 years until it was replaced by Huế.
From the old map of Thăng Long city, locals can deduce that the Imperial Palace (the rectangle in the middle) stretches from Trần Phú town to Bắc Sơn road and Hoàng Văn Thụ road. The north-south axis is approximately 1300 meter. The east-west axis is approximately 1700 meter. The total area is approximately 2,210,000 meter square or 221 hectares
The red square is the boundary of the Forbidden Palace. The blue square is the archaeological site on Hoang Dieu street where ruins of palaces have been unearthed.
The area of the archaeological site (the blue square) is 18 hectares. Maybe we can fit about 18 blue squares into that big red square. So 18 x 18 = 324 hectares.
From another source, the perimeter of Hanoi citadel during the Nguyen dynasty was over 1285 "trượng". One trượng is about 3.7 - 4 meter. --> 1285 x 3.7 = 4754.5 meter
Assuming the dimension of the citadel was about 4:5 in width:length proportion. The area would be about 140000 meter square ~ 140 hectares, after you do all the math.
However, the so-called Hanoi Citadel during the Nguyen dynasty had been tremendously reduced in size compared to the previous Thăng Long Imperial Palace.
So with all the clues above, the size of Thăng Long Imperial Palace should be at least 140 hectares (the size of Hanoi citadel) but could be as large as over 300 hectares.
To help you appreciate the meaning of these numbers, let's put into comparison -
- The Grand Palace complex in Thailand is 218,400 square meters or 21.84 hectares
- The Forbidden City in Beijing is 723,633 square meters or 72.4 hectares
- The Kyoto Imperial Palace in Japan is 910,000 square meters or 91 hectares
- The Tokyo Imperial Palace with its three huge gardens cover 341 hectares
So Thăng Long Imperial Palace was approximately the size of Tokyo Imperial Palace with a portion of its garden. Now most Hanoians living crowded spaces wouldn't be able to grasp its vastness.
No palace, no citadel could be larger than the capital, Hue. Because Thăng Long Palace was too large for its new status, in 1805, king Gia Long ordered to tear its walls down and built new walls (in Western style) to make it smaller than Hue, to make it look just like an ordinary citadel, like citadels of ordinary provinces.
This tremendously reduced the size of Thăng Long. The area which the new walls surrounded then became known as Hanoi Citadel, within the province of Hanoi.
Palaces in Thăng Long were dismantled and materials were transported to Hue to build the new Hue Imperial Palace. Only a few structures stayed.
Later, because Hanoi citadel was taller than Hue, King Minh Mạng ordered to cut it down more than 1 meter. In 1848, most remaining palaces in Hanoi were dismantled by King Tự Đức to construct palaces in Hue.
Thăng Long city had 3 layers of walls.
The outermost wall, called "Thành Thăng Long" (Thăng Long Citadel) surrounded an area of approximately 10 kilometer square (1000 hectares). The east-west axis is 2000 meter long and the north-south axis is 5000 meter long. This is the wall layer that protected the entire capital in case of disasters and invasion.
The second wall layer surrounded an area of around 200-300 hectares. This layer is called "Hoàng Thành" (Imperial Palace/Citadel). It's the political center of the country with Royal courts where kings listened to reports from mandarins, and palaces for noble families.
The third wall layer is not far from the second layer. This layer is called Cấm Thành (Forbidden Palace/Citadel), where kings and their families resided.
Architectures inside the Imperial Palaces vary from dynasty to dynasty.
During the Lý dynasty, Buddhism was at its heydays. Temples and pagodas were numerous. In 1031, King Lý Thái Tông built 950 pagodas and temples! In 1056, a 30-floor pagoda tower was built (50 - 60 meter tall) called chùa Báo Thiên. Later another 70-meter-tall pagoda was built.
Majority of structures during the Lý dynasty were big and tall and served religious purposes (with prominent Cham influence).
One structure found at the archaeological site was 70 meter in length and 18 meter in width, with 9 compartments inside. Walking spaces were found to be generally 5.8 to 6 meter in width.
https://historum.com/threads/ancient-imperial-citadel-th-259-ng-long.41370/
Returning from last weekend in Lake Tahoe and Reno, we had taken some photos on our first visit to the lake that revealed, in two of the photos, a strange and very clear hexagon energy and orb that was over my lower torso. It seemed to slightly move by the second photo and in the next, was no longer there. I also noted that after this experience I realized that my several months coccyx pains had subsided enormously and miraculously, shifting energetically as well.
Other energies continued to show up in photos, but this was the most prominent in how it clearly showed up in geometric display.
Then, one week to the day of these photos being taken at the lake, a surprise thank you gift arrived at my door from a good friend and client. I was overjoyed to open the fun and thoughtful gifts, but one stood out, catching my attention immensely.
It was a beautiful Amethyst sphere – (Amethyst Metaphysical Properties include being a powerful and protective stone, guards against psychic attack, transmutes the energy into love and protecting the wearer from all types of harm including electromagnetic stress and ill wishes from others, is a natural tranquilizer, relieves stress and strain, soothes irritability, balances mood swings, dispels anger, rage, fear and anxiety, alleviates sadness and grief, dissolves negativity, activates spiritual awareness, opens intuition, enhances psychic abilities, has strong healing and cleansing powers, has a sobering effect over any kind of addictions, calms and stimulates the mind, helps you become focused, enhances memory, improves motivation, relieves insomnia, assists remembering and understanding dreams, encourages selflessness and spiritual wisdom…) – however, this was no ordinary sphere, Amethyst or otherwise.
The only other time I have seen such defined geometric shapes, was in a Quartz sphere I once found and had then passed on to a new keeper. However, the shapes were circles. This Amethyst sphere has a clearly defined hexagon that in person, when looked directly at, has dimensional depth that draws and sucks inward to it’s center creating a portal energy.
As it sits on my desk in its lovely silver turtle stand, it also feels like this dimensional eye doorway peering at me and drawing me in. Super cool! It goes further, as the hexagon expands down the sphere, creating like four layers that get bigger and create a honeycomb, but also spider web effect, and at the bottom the edges of the hexagon sides of the hexagon start to curve from their original straightness and create four hearts all along the bottom of the sphere. Not to mention there are little cool rainbows throughout.
But what were the odds that I would get this miracle Amethyst with another hexagon energy, clearly defined, an exact week later? One in a billion maybe? Who knows…but it definitely has my attention, as everything to me has meaning and is not random.
I decided to do a little delving into hexagon symbolism, beyond the basics that I knew, to see what other interesting information I could find and what it might reveal. I haven’t fully integrated or processed the information, but know that it is all working its magic, regardless of me consciously formulating it or not.
That is the way I operate in my life is knowing on a deep level in words I can’t articulate, but can feel the immensity of energetically. And then later reiterations unravel what already has taken place whether my conscious mind mentally pieced it together or not.
Anyway, I did find some cool stuff (I love how right now my draft is being autosaved at 9:04:44 -444 again! that keep showing up tons lately) that I thought I’d share in case anyone else is having hexagon synchronicities. And perhaps you can piece the story together in your own way, as I am doing.
First I’ll start off sharing the more simple stuff. I always love Avia Venefica’s symbolism and meanings she writes on just about everything. Here is a brief meaning she shares for the number 6 in her post Spiritual Meaning of Numbers:
Six: The symbolism behind number Six is legend. With Venus as its ruler, Six represents harmony, balance, sincerity, love, and truth. Six naturally reveals solutions for us in a calm, unfolding manner. We invoke the Six when we need delicate diplomacy when dealing with sensitive matters. The spiritual meaning of number Six also deals with enlightenment; specifically “lighting” our path in areas we require spiritual and mental balance. Sixes beckon us to administer compassion and consciously choose forgiveness in a situation.
She then elaborates on this here in her post: Meaning of Six
I love the key words shared in that post:
Truth
Union
Lovers
Harmony
Balance
Equality
Perfection
Integration
Interfacing
Conjoining
Reliability
Dependability
Communication
All of which were very meaningful for me and I especially found resonation with this that jumped at me:
The number six is aligned with the: Cube, Hexagon, and Hexagram.
Each of these shapes is created from perfectly equal parts. This mirrors the underlying meaning of six as a symbol of perfect union, and the energetic emblem of soulful integration.
I rather like the simplicity nature provides in our understanding of number six through the symbolic language of bees. Their labyrinth-like homes are neatly formed hexagons.
(In particular this resonated, as yesterday was the day I received the Amethyst hexagon sphere and my coccyx pains have remained transformed with only minor bruising feelings at random times that had moved, but basically removal of the constant and painful stuff I had been experiencing for months had taken place.
Then yesterday afternoon after having the Amethyst on my desk with its hexagonal eye portal facing me, and having just finished even deeper integration of energies connected and writing my sacrum blog, I suddenly was hit with an internal major energetic pain that I haven’t had in a while which lasted for about a half an hour.
I laid on the floor, doing Reiki and reviewing the information and found a trigger point to the left side of the coccyx/sacrum that when pushed would release not only the energetic pain, but shifted my equilibrium, creating an altered state effect and dimensional kind of shifting.
The Snail Seller was showcased at the Paris-Bois de Vincennes International Exhibition from May 6 to November 15, 1931, where Chanh displayed six of his works.
In 1931, Chanh made two silk paintings, which were considered master pieces --- Choi O An Quan (Playing O An Quan Game) and Child with Bird.
The Snail Seller was collected in 1931 and was occasionally displayed at exhibitions here and there. Its most recent appearance was in 2002 at the Mariemont Royal Museum in Belgium.
During his life, Chanh made some 170 paintings, most of which measure 65x50cm.
Although he painted about various topics, he was known for his paintings of ordinary people and popular images in the northern region of Vietnam.
Chanh (1892-1984), considered one of Vietnam's foremost silk artists, worked prolifically during the war era.
Film producer Tsutomu Nakamura was instantly captivated by the art form, which he saw depicted on a calendar in HCM City and began researching the life and work of the painter.
Chanh, who was among the first students of the Indochina College of Fine Arts (now Hanoi University of Fine Arts), was one of the greatest Vietnamese painters in the 20th century, pioneering his own style and technique of painting on silk.
Before painting, the silk canvas was washed in warm water.
When the first layer of colours was finished and dried, he washed the painting again before adding new colours until he was satisfied with the work.
Nakamura read an article in the Japanese edition of the New York Times in 2008 about silk paintings that had been damaged by time, including works by Chanh.
'I wondered how to preserve these paintings for future generations because they didn't just belong to the painter's family and Vietnam but humanity as a whole,' he said.
Using his own money, he launched a project to preserve silk works with the help of painters, researchers and filmmakers, who visited Tu's house in 2009.
Tu allowed them to take three damaged paintings – Hun Thuyen (Fumigating the Boats), Co Gai Cuoi Bo Qua Song (Young Girl Crosses River on Cow's Back) and Don Cui (Cutting Wood) – to Japan for restoration.
The group of Japanese specialists included Kikuko Iwai, who has restored works by Picasso and Monet, came to the painter's homeland to find out more about his life and work.
'To restore Chanh's paintings, I needed to learn more about him and his technique,' Iwai said.
She said she had no idea how to restore the colours of the sunset and the girl's appearance in the painting Young Girl Crossing a River on Cow's Back, which were badly damaged.
Knowing that the painter often brought a bottle of water and bread and rode his bicycle along the Hong (Red) River's dyke for inspiration, Iwai said she stood for hours by the river watching the sunset.
She met a couple of farmers, who were aged about 80, on the dyke and asked them what it was like working in the alluvial plain of the river with buffaloes and cows.
When it came to the actual restoration work, she said one of the hardest tasks was to remove the layers of paper pasted on the back of the painting to strengthen it.
She added: 'Chanh had to work in extremely poor conditions during the war, so he had to strengthen the painting with bad paper. I feel great admiration for him.'
Last year, the restoration work was finished and three paintings were displayed at the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art in Japan .
Interviews with Chanh's daughter and family and his student, painter Nguyen Thu, as well as the work of the Japanese researchers were included in the 57-minute film made by Nihon Denpa News.
Tu was invited to visit the exhibition, which she said was very moving.
'Iwai and I couldn't hold back our tears when seeing the paintings.
In a place very far from Vietnam, I felt my father's presence in each painting,' Tu said.
'The paintings were seriously damaged but thanks to the Japanese specialists' skill and enthusiasm, they were restored to their former glory.'
Chanh's paintings captivated Japanese audiences and art specialists returned to Vietnam last month and took away some more badly damaged paintings.
Suzanne Lecht is the Art Director of Art Vietnam Gallery. While living in Tokyo in the early 1990’s, Suzanne was captivated by images of the works of Hanoi’s “Gang of Five,” early pioneers of contemporary art in Vietnam. Compelled to move to Hanoi to follow her dream, Suzanne has been working with Vietnamese artists since the day she moved from Tokyo to Hanoi in January 1994, a year and a half before diplomatic relations were restored between Vietnam and the U.S. Her first exhibition was in Hong Kong in 1997, The Changing Face of Hanoi. Art Vietnam Gallery has continued to exhibit internationally and locally promoting local as well as international artists. https://www.societyforasianart.org/programs/member-events/vietnamese-art-new-view-suzanne-lecht
They plan to open an exhibition of Chanh's work, including the restored painting and artworks borrowed from museums and private collections around the world, in Japan in October.
https://en.nhandan.org.vn/culture/heritage/item/1250902-.html
https://www.vir.com.vn/painting-by-vietnamese-artist-sold-for-record-price-59617.html
The Black Rain Frog is a burrowing amphibian that is native to the southern coast of Africa. One nifty characteristic possessed by this frog is that they burrow to create tunnels up to 150 mm deep.
In actuality, this frog isn't really crotchety. In fact, they're very considerate!
The lady-frogs will secrete a special sticky substance from their backs, so that the male frogs don't fall off during the act of intercourse.
During mating season, the male frogs will actually stay in the burrow to guard their eggs and will send out little chirps as part of their calls.
This frog has a special defense mechanism in case of attack. When someone scares him or tries to grab him, he puffs himself up with air to make his body more rotund.
Occasionally, he will do this while he is burrowing so that whatever is grabbing for him is unable to pull him out of his hole. So, he ends up looking like a cranky little balloon.
https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/meet-worlds-grumpiest-frog/
Yayoi culture. Yayoi culture, (c. 300 bce–c. 250 ce), prehistoric culture of Japan, subsequent to the Jōmon culture. Named after the district in Tokyo where its artifacts were first found in 1884, the culture arose on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu and spread northeastward toward the Kantō Plain.
--------------
Qin dynasty | China [221–207 bc] | Britannica.com
--------------
Các sách cổ nói đến nhiều nhóm Bách Việt khác nhau, trong đó có Câu Ngô (句吳), Ư Việt (於越), Dương Việt (揚越), Cán Việt (干越), Sơn Việt (山越), Dạ Lang (夜郎), Điền Việt (滇越 / 盔越), Mân Việt, Sơn Việt, Lạc Việt (雒越), Âu Việt (甌越 - hay còn gọi là Tây Âu - 西甌)... Các bộ tộc Bách Việt không phải là một khối thống nhất, giữa các bộ tộc này có nhiều sự khác nhau về địa bàn cư trú, văn hóa và ngôn ngữ, nhưng ngày nay khó xác định vì các nhóm bộ tộc này đều không có chữ viết nên không để lại các văn bản ghi chép.
Phần lớn các tộc Bách Việt đã bị đánh bại sau cuộc chinh phạt xuống phía Nam của nhà Tần trong giai đoạn 220-210 trước công nguyên. Trong thời nhà Hán họ dần dần đồng hóa với người Trung Nguyên để trở thành tổ tiên của người Hán phía nam sông Trường Giang hiện nay. Chỉ còn sót lại Lạc Việt và Âu Việt, là 2 nhóm cư ngụ ở miền Bắc Việt Nam ngày nay, không bị đồng hóa. Âu Việt là tổ tiên của người Tày -Nùng, Lạc Việt là tổ tiên trực tiếp của người Kinh ở Việt Nam ngày nay.
Irrigation, agriculture (primarily rice farming), weaving and iron and bronze casting techniques were introduced to Japan from Korea and China between 300 and 100 B.C. Iron was used in weapons and farming tools. Bronze was made into swords, spears, dotaku (cylindrical bell-shaped objects) and mirrors used in religious rituals. The Yayoi people also used wooden ladles, hammers, ploughs and pestles. Yayoi pottery resembles pottery produced in Korea at the same time. The technique of weaving clothes arrived from China around 300 B.C. Early fabrics were made from hemp (for commoners) and silk (for nobility). Some were dyed red with an herb called madder.
“Although the pottery of the Yayoi was more technologically advanced--produced on a potter's wheel--it was more simply decorated than Jomon ware. The Yayoi made bronze ceremonial nonfunctional bells, mirrors, and weapons and, by the first century A.D., iron agricultural tools and weapons. The Yayoi people lived in homes with proper entrances and windows, elevated floors supported by pillars, and roof ridges surmounted by ornamental wooden blocks. There were also high-floored warehouses and granaries. A 2000-year-old rice ball was discovered in the town of Rokuseimachi in Ishikawa Prefecture in December 1987.
Đầu thời kỳ chiến quốc, thế nước Việt vẫn còn rất mạnh. Qua các đời vua tiếp theo sau Câu Tiễn, nước Việt tiếp tục tiến hành tiêu diệt và thâu tóm các nước chư hầu nhỏ khác khiến lãnh thổ tiếp tục mở rộng lên phía bắc. Bấy giờ, lãnh thổ của nước Việt đã rất rộng, giáp ranh hai nước Sơn Đông khác là Lỗ và Tề. Trước khi có sự trỗi dậy của nước Tần, Việt cùng với Sở và Ngụy là một trong ba nước mạnh nhất thời điểm lúc đó. Cũng trong thời gian này mối quan hệ giữa hai nước Tề và Việt không mấy gì là tốt đẹp.
Tuy nhiên, những tranh chấp trong nội bộ dòng tộc đã khiến nước Việt suy yếu, kèm theo đó là những lần bại trận trước nước Sở trong những lần tranh chấp lãnh thổ biên giới đã khiến nước Việt mất dần địa vị bá chủ.
Năm 306 TCN, Sở đánh bại Việt, Việt vương Vô Cương bị sát hại. Vào năm 334 TCN, nước Sở mở một cuộc tấn công bất ngờ vào lãnh thổ nước Việt và đoạt lấy vùng Giang Tô, kinh đô cũ của nước Ngô. Cuộc tấn công của nước Sở đã cắt đôi lãnh thổ nước Việt, bấy giờ phần phía bắc của nước Việt đang giáp với nước Tề.
Sau nhiều năm kháng cự, cuối cùng nước Việt cũng bị nước Sở tiêu diệt, Việt vương Vô Cương thất trận và bị giết. Lãnh thổ nước Việt bị nước Sở và nước Tề sát nhập. Con thứ hai của Vô Cương là Minh Di được vua Sở cho cai quản vùng đất Ngô Thành (nay ở huyện Ngô Hưng tỉnh Chiết Giang), nằm ở phía nam Âu Dương Đình, được đặt tên như vậy bởi vì nó được xây dựng ở phía nam và là phía dương (mặt trời) của núi Âu Dương, vì thế ông được đặt danh hiệu là Âu Dương Đình Hầu.
The thoughts and actions we have today will ultimately determine the way we live later.
Angel number 144 is telling you to be focused on your own goals and not to give up easily. Now when you know the meanings of all these numbers that are hidden in angel number 1144, we hope that you can understand the meaning of this unique and magical angel number.
When it comes to the meaning of angel number 1144, we can say that it is strongly connected with your intuition and positive energy. Your angels will tell you what you should do to have success and they will inform you about the next steps that you should take.
It is important to have faith in your angels, because they will help you reach your goals.
The secret meaning of angel number 1144 is always associated with changes that are going to happen in someone’s life. You should know that now is the right time for changes and you should not be afraid of them.
Your angels will help you if you are not feeling well and they will show you the right way where you should go in your life.
The secret message that your angels are sending to you through number 1144 is associated with self-confidence as well. It means that you should trust more in yourself. If you love yourself, everything in your life will be much easier for you.
Also, other people will love you and respect you more. Angel number 1144 should be your encouragament to go forward and not to give up from your dreams.
Very often angel number 1144 resonates with our emotions. It may happen that you are overwhelmed with your own emotions and you are not brave enough to express them clearly. Your angels will help you in that, so you need to follow their message and their advice.
We have already said that angel number 1144 is related to new beginnings and it can be associated with love as well. If you don’t have your emotional partner, you should not be depressed, because something will change very soon.
A new romance is waiting for you, so you need to have faith and to believe in your angels.
On the other side, if you are already in a relationship, angel number 1144 means that you will get married soon. This number is telling you that you will reach the next level in your relationship. But, if you were not happy in a relationship, you will probably break up with your partner.
In any case, we can say that many things in your love life will change soon, but those changes will be good for you.
When it comes to the love symbolism of angel number 1144, we have to say that it is related to honesty as well. It means that this number may help you to express your emotions and to tell your loved ones how much you love them.
https://angelnumber.org/1144-angel-number-meaning-and-symbolism/
We think of chicken as the healthy option for our Sunday roast, but even organic or free-range birds lack the protein and nutrients of a generation ago, reports Andrew Purvis - and the veg ain't what it used to be either
Sun 15 May 2005 11.34 EDT.
It is, on the face of it, the opposite of junk food - a low-fat chicken (long promoted as a healthy alternative to red meat) brushed with olive oil and roasted, with no chemical additives, no batter, no breadcrumbs, no smiling Colonel Sanders and no Happy Meal toy. Last month, however, Britain's favourite bird was shown to contain as much fat, gram for gram, as a Big Mac.
Professor Michael Crawford and Yoqun Wang of London Metropolitan University found that a chicken in 2004 contained more than twice as much fat as in 1940, a third more calories and a third less protein - when protein is what the consumer is paying for. As Professor Crawford says, 'We now need a new definition of what we mean by a healthy food.'
For the first time since records began inthe 1870s, the fat in a Sunday roast outweighs its protein by a factor of 1.4. Today, a 1.3kg supermarket bird leaves behind 275g of fat in the roasting tin and, of the remaining lean, four-fifths is water (though this is determined by cell biology and has not changed since 1940). 'When people see this, they begin to realise that food is not as cheap as they think it is,' Professor Crawford says.
'Six times as many calories are coming from fat as from protein, you are being sold a pup down the line.' Even organic chickens, assumed to be a healthier option, contain only slightly less fat (17.1g per portion) than protein. It may have had more space to roam than a conventionally reared bird but is still given high-energy feed, takes little exercise and is bred for rapid weight gain, when the development of meat takes time. 'A free-range bird is the best,' says Crawford, 'but even that depends on its diet.'
In 50 years, poultry has gone from being a health food to a junk food - and some scientists claim other natural produce is going the same way. Last month, delegates at the conference Overfed and Undernourished (organised by BANT, the British Association of Nutritional Therapy) heard that, between 1940 and 1991, many fresh fruits and vegetables had lost large amounts of minerals and trace elements.
David Thomas - a geologist turned chiropractor (who also happens to sell mineral supplements) - analysed data from McCance and Widdowson's epic work, The Composition of Foods (a reference manual republished and updated by Government biochemists every few years). During that 51-year period, potatoes appeared to have lost 47 per cent of their copper, 45 per cent of their iron and 35 per cent of their calcium while carrots showed even bigger declines. Broccoli - a 'superfood' rich in micronutrients and cancer-busting antioxidants - suffered an 80 per cent drop in copper while calcium content was a quarter of what it had been in 1940, a pattern repeated in tomatoes. As Thomas pointed out: 'You would need to have eaten 10 tomatoes in 1991 to have obtained the same copper intake as from one tomato in 1940.'
His theory, largely unproven, is that modern horticulture methods such as hydroponics (growing fruits and vegetables in irrigated matting rather than soil) and chemical fertilisers, together with new varieties of crop, longer storage times and long-distance transport, may havecaused changes in the nutritional value of the foods we eat.
In a recent talk, he presented charts (based on US government figures) suggesting a correspondence between increases in deficiency disease (cardiovascular problems, asthma, bronchitic and orthopaedic deformities) and declining levels of magnesium in the US diet - specifically tomato, lettuce, cabbage and spinach. 'I'm convinced mineral depletion is part of our current health crisis and increase in lifestyle diseases. I'm not saying it's the whole problem - but if we want to be happier and healthier, we have to understand we are part of the environment and not separate from it. A significant part of that environment is our food, and that is declining in quality over time,' says Thomas.
Professor Richard Mithen, head of phytochemicals and health at the Institute of Food Research (IFR), disagrees. 'I don't want to be unduly negative about David Thomas's work,' he says, 'but it is merely anecdotal; it doesn't stand up to analysis. In 50 years, mineral levels will have changed due to di. erent agronomic practices. We use different fertilisers now, we have different pollution which may have an effect. Some of these minerals may have gone down, others will have gone up. However, the health implications of this are not at all apparent.
OK, potassium levels have declined in leafy vegetables - but so what? People eat bananas now, which are rich in potassium - and how many of those would they have eaten in the 1940s? Carrots may have lost 46 per cent of their iron but they are not a good source of iron in the diet anyway. It's better to eat liver.' Minerals in vegetables may be an irrelevance, but what about vitamins? In 2002, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that fruit and vegetables bought in Canadian supermarkets had shown marked declines over a 50-year period. Analysing food tables prepared by government scientists between 1951 and 1999 (roughly as David Thomas had done), researchers found that potatoes had lost 100 per cent of their vitamin A (important for good eyesight) and 57 per cent of their vitamin C, while today's consumers would have to eat eight oranges to get the same amount of vitamin A as their grandparents obtained from one fruit.
Professor Mithen of the IFR says the same false logic is evident in these Canadian claims as in David Thomas's. 'It may be true that you need to eat six,' he says, 'but my children eat far more oranges now than my grandparents ever did. It all has to be looked at in the overall context of how our diet has changed.' Last year, a study of 43 vegetables and fruits published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition found significant declines for six nutrients (protein, calcium, phosphorous, iron, riboflavin and ascorbic acid) between 1950 and 2000.
Comparing old and new figures from the US Department of Agriculture, Donald Davis, author of the University of Texas study, concluded that changes in cultivated varieties, rather than horticulture practices, accounted for the depletion. 'In those 50 years,' he said, 'there have been intensive efforts to breed new varieties that have greater yield, or resistance to pests, or adaptability to different climates - but the dominant effort is for higher yields. New evidence suggests that, if you select for yield, crops grow bigger and faster but they don't have the ability to make or uptake nutrients at the same rate.'
So far, so academic - does any of this matter? Even if Davis's analysis is correct, there is no evidence that nutrient deficiencies in crops are making human beings ill. Indeed, such are the known health benefits of eating plenty of fruit and vegetables (as outlined in the Government's Five-a-Day campaign and the World Health Organisation's directive for beating cancer), any reduction in mineral content is massively outweighed by the health-giving vitamins, minerals, fibre, phytochemicals and micronutrients that were abundant in the plant-based diets of our ancestors.
'It is more an issue of consumer rights,' says Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, London. 'We think of something like an orange as a constant, but it isn't.' Professor Phil Warman of Nova Scotia Agricultural College in Canada expressed a similar view when the Toronto Globe and Mail published its story. 'I want to eat a product that is as high in nutritional value as possible,' he said, 'otherwise I'd just eat sawdust with nitrogen fertiliser.'
However, Lang and Warman's ethical argument is invalid if the methodology of such historical comparisons is flawed. Critics say analytical techniques have changed since the 1950s, the original US government figures may have been wrong and all kinds of variables could have changed.
The same criticisms were levelled at David Thomas's work, but Professor Michael Crawford (co-author of the chicken study) says this is a red herring. 'The traditional methods used by physical chemists are still the most accurate on the planet for measuring weights and components,' he says.
'What has changed is not the accuracy of the methodology but the peripheral stuff - like linking it to a computer and being able to do 300 measurements in an hour. It's wrong to say people measuringcopper in the 1940s were measuring something different.'
Studying The Composition of Foods, I can see why this kind of analysis leaves plenty of room for error. Its dense rows of tabulated figures are littered with footnotes as the compilers struggle to incorporate new food knowledge into old. Some results are listed as ranges rather than single figures because there are so many variables - how long a broccoli sample was boiled (15 minutes in 1991, a staggering 45 minutes in 1940) and the length of time a crop was stored.
One addendum says, 'Fresh dug potatoes contain 21mg of vitamin C per 100g. This falls to 9mg per 100g after three months' storage and to 7mg after nine months' storage' - appearing to support David Thomas's claim that some modern agricultural practices may be compromising nutritional value.
In fact, the most worrying deficiency in the British diet has nothing to do with storage times, transport methods or the farmer's alleged obsession with higher yield. It is caused by the natural idiosyncrasies of our soil - something David Thomas, as a geologist, overlooked. 'Since the 1970s,' says Professor Richard Mithen of the IFR, 'the selenium in our blood plasma has gone down and is currently half the recommended intake.
This is very well documented, and we know that selenium levels are very important for maintaining health.' Deficiency in selenium may be linked to infertility, depression, heart disease and increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, colon, lung and breast cancers.
From the 1940s to the 1960s, Professor Mithen adds, we imported all our bread wheat from Canada and the US; British varieties were good for making biscuits but not much good for making bread. 'At that time,' he says, 'we had a very good plant breeding industry, a lot of it government-controlled.
They bred new wheat varieties for the UK and were very successful, so in the 1970s we stopped importing wheat because we could grow it ourselves.' One consequence was that the wheat grown in Britain had only about a quarter of the selenium content of imported wheats, due to lower levels in the soil. 'It's a very real concern,' says Mithen, 'but we are now addressing that.'
The Food Standards Agency is funding a project at the IFR, looking at the role of selenium in immune function in human volunteers. 'The effects of eating selenium, either in supplement form or in selenium-rich food such as onions, will be studied,' says Dr Rachel Hurst of the IFR. 'It is vitally important to understand how much and which type of selenium would offer most health benefits and to find ways of increasing selenium in the foods we eat.' In the meantime, Waitrose is selling a selenium enriched bread grown by a farmer in East Anglia who fertilises his soil with selenium.
In Finland, the government introduced a policy in the 1990s of fertilising all agricultural land after experiencing the same problems as Britain. 'Nobody could have anticipated what would happen with selenium,' Professor Mithen says. 'It makes you wonder what else we are doing in our food production system now that we can't predict.'
Gundula Azeez, policy manager for the Soil Association, thinks she knows. She cites a (disputed) 2001 review study, published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, showing that nutrient levels, including vitamin C, are lower in crops grown with chemical fertilisers. Organic spinach, lettuce, cabbage and potatoes showed relatively high levels. 'Unlike minerals, vitamins and antioxidants are not supplied by the soil,' she says, 'so you cannot add them using fertilisers.
They are produced by the plants themselves and are natural pest-defence compounds, part of a range of chemicals we are just beginning to understand. Studies have shown that levels are up to 40 per cent higher in organic produce. If you're using artificial pesticides, plants don't have to produce these protective chemicals. Levels in non-organic foods are likely to be lower.'
However, the Food Standards Agency maintains there are no clear nutritional or health benefits of organic food over conventional and that further research is needed. Azeez claims this research is 'now coming out', suggesting one further impact of chemical fertilisers on the composition of plants. 'Studies show that organic food has 15 per cent more dry matter than non-organic food,' she says, 'so for each kilo of organic fruit or veg you are getting 15 per cent more nutrition. Some of the high yield in conventional farmed crops is just water. By using a lot of NPK [nitrogen phosphorous potassium] fertilisers, the plant is forced to grow faster - and our measure of growth is just the weight at the end. There is no focus on what growth really means in plants and animals. With livestock, too, you are giving them unnaturally high-energy diets to force them to grow a lot faster.'
In the past, according to the 1996 book Food Ethics, it took a steer more than six years to reach a body weight of 500kg; now, it takes an unnatural 20 months. A dairy cow produces 9,000kg of milk per year compared with 2,000kg in 1956. In a pattern pertinent to Professor Michael Crawford's work, a 2kg broiler chicken is now produced in six or seven weeks instead of 14. Can such rapid growth really be sustained without a loss of meat quality? Professor Crawford believes it can't.
'This whole focus on rapid growth, achieved through a high-energy, cereal-based diet has changed the lipid composition of the chicken meat itself,' he says, 'and you cannot escape that - even by removing the skin and scraping away the subcutaneous fat stuck to the meat.' As evidence, he shows me slides of meat taken from a wild African buffalo (eating a natural grass-based diet) compared to that of a domestic beef animal.
When stained with red dye and examined under a microscope, the first looks uniform and fibrous while the second is striated with ridges and ripples of white lard. 'That pattern is the fat infiltrating between the muscle fibres that have died, or atrophied, as a result of lack of exercise when the animal is immobilised in stocks in the final finishing stage. It's known as "pathological fat infiltration" - which most of us refer to as marbling.'
I ask whether marbling is what gives meat its flavour, a story I have heard from chefs. 'I would contest that,' says Professor Crawford, who turns out to be a wild meat connoisseur. 'The roast pig sold in the market in Perugia comes from the woods and is out of this world in flavour and texture,' he says. 'It was the next best thing to the warthog we ate in East Africa. The texture of that was so firm that you could slice it thin with a razor. The flavour was exceptional.'
With diffculty, I lure him out of his reverie and ask whether marbling ever occurs naturally. 'You would never get anything like that in a wild animal,' he says, 'or even domestic cattle that are allowed to run out in the wild by the Masai in Africa. They eat a natural grass-based diet.'
By comparison, domestic livestock overdose on cereal-based feed and have historically been fed everything from animal droppings to other animals. Beef tallow, the fat trimmed from cattle carcasses, is still used in the United States to boost the calorific value of chicken feed. 'The whole idea is that, if you have a pound of beef fat in the chicken feed, you get a pound of weight gain in the animal,' Professor Crawford says.
By feeding beef tallow back to beef cattle, the industry is underlining the dangers of placing rapid weight gain and profit over responsible animal husbandry. That, after all, is how BSE began. In Britain, there is no evidence that beef tallow still goes into animal feed but artificial, high-energy diets are a concern.
'As we demonstrated with fatty chicken,' Professor Crawford says, 'feed is one factor in this enormous disproportion in the calorific value coming from protein and the calorific value coming from fat. That fat has to go somewhere.' In his view, the current obesity epidemic in the West, with its knock-on effect on coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and other lifestyle illnesses, is the result. We are becoming obese, he maintains, because we are eating obese farm animals.
In the case of chicken, this undermines previous health advice. In 1976, the Royal College of Physicians and the British Cardiac Society recommended that we eat less red meat (high in saturated fats) and substitute it with lean poultry in an effort to halt heart disease. As a result, chicken consumption in Britain has doubled, with each of us consuming almost 30kg per year.
Recent fears about cheap foreign imports, battery farming, campylobacter food poisoning and chicken carcasses adulterated with beef protein to make them absorb water (cheating the consumer) have slightly dented sales - but chicken is still seen as a healthy option.
Brigid McKevith, a scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation, believes we should still eat it if prepared in the right way. 'A roast chicken is fine once in a while,' she says, 'but it's a good idea to pour off extra fat and remove the skin.' With his intimate knowledge of chicken anatomy, Professor Crawford disagrees, believing the high level of saturated fat in chicken is a recipe for heart disease.
In his view, however, there is a far more important human health risk inherent in the diet fed to livestock. 'Our physiology is adapted to eating wild food,' he says, 'but that is not what we are getting with today's animals.' A 100g portion of chicken in 2004 contained just 25mg of DHA - a long-chain omega-3 fatty acid, now known to be good for the heart by suppressing 'thrombotic' tendencies - compared to 170mg in 1980.
(In our year of comparison, 1940, DHA content was not analysed.) At the same time, levels of linoleic acid - an omega-6 fatty acid, essential for brain development and other important functions but having a 'pro-inflammatory' effect opposite to that of the omega-3s - had risen to 6,290mg per 100g portion compared to 2,400mg in 1980, some 2.6 times the amount.
Why do these proportions matter? 'During human evolution, the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids in the diet was probably something like 1:1,' says Dr Alex Richardson, senior research fellow at the University Laboratory of Physiology, Oxford. 'These days it is more like 15:1 in favour of the omega-6s.' By eating animals with even higher ratios - 20:1 in the meat of a farmed pig, compared to 3:1 in a wild warthog - plus an unnatural amount of cereal-based foods (which are high in omega-6), we are altering or natural diet and risking chronic illness.
In 1978, the WHO recommended a ratio of 5:1 or less in the general diet; the optimum target for brain development, it said, should be 2:1 at the most, achieved by eating more oily fish, fewer cereals and less milk and meat. Current ratios are nothing like that. Correcting this, Crawford says, would require 'a revolution in the animal industry' because all livestock is fed cereals. 'Animal husbandry started with grass and green foods,' he says, 'which are rich in omega-3.
That is the beauty of fish and seafood because it's still largely wild, it's still living in an omega-3-rich environment. The same used to be true of livestock animals - even chickens used to roam free and live off seeds and herbs - but that is no longer the case. It really is a question of redesigning our food and agriculture systems so they are more keyed in to the pivotal priority of human physiology - namely, our original genome being shaped by wild foods.'
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2005/may/15/foodanddrink.shopping3?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&prerenderSize=1&visibilityState=prerender&paddingTop=32&p2r=0&horizontalScrolling=0&csi=1&aoh=15693830978509&viewerUrl=https%3A%2F%2F
Pycnoscelus surinamensis 'black' or the surinam roach is a beautiful soft bodied roach native to Florida. Surinam roaches are probably one of the easiest species to keep. Just a box, substrate and some grease around the top of the enclosure for the adults and job done.
P. surinamensis reproduces through parthenogenesis meaning it’s an all female colony that reproduces with no males present. No need to cull males or worry about ratios here, just leave the colony alone and let them do their thing. We recommend using Climb Stopper silicone grease to keep this species inside their enclosure. https://capecodroaches.com/products/surinam-roach
The Surinam Roach (Pycnoscelus surinamensis) is a unique feeder roach in many ways. Originating in Asia and Indonesia, this burrowing roach has been shipped all over the world in tropical plant soils and is legal to culture in Florida where Dubia Roaches are not allowed. One of the few roaches requiring no males, every adult is a female nymph producer.
The ootheca is carried internally and live nymphs are born about every 1-3 months, making this one of the fastest breeding roaches. The nymphs are a shiny black/dark brown with light brown stripes, are soft bodied, and plumper than Dubia. The adult females have light brown shiny wings. Adult Females are ¾ to 1-inch long. Florida Legal.
https://www.fullthrottlefeeders.com/product-page/surinam-roach
Dual wielding is using two weapons, one in each hand, during combat. It is not a common ... a Japanese swordsman and ronin, was said to have conceived of the idea of a particular style of swordsmanship involving the use of two swords.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2xmfyZSn80
Shinmen Musashi no Kami Fujiwara no Genshin, better known as Miyamoto Musashi is probably the most famous historical samurai today as a result of his highly acclaimed martial arts text, The Book of Five Rings.
His story has been told and retold down the ages and many of his ideas on fighting technique and strategy have become commonplace amongst warriors as a result of his teachings.
He claimed to have fought in over sixty duels between c.1604 – 1613, despatching all who stood in his way and building a reputation for himself as the finest swordsman in the country.
Born in 1584 in Miyamoto village, much of the detail about Musashi’s childhood is obscure however it is known that he was born into a samurai family and probably grew up with his mother or step mother. His father, Shinmen Munisai, was an accomplished warrior who would regularly visited his son and give him instruction on swordsmanship and other aspects of samurai culture.
However by the time he was around 10 years old, Musashi’s mother was dead and his father had either died also or completely abandoned him, so he found himself living in a monastery where he learned Zen Buddhism from the monks there.
At the age of 13 he was already confident enough to challenge an older samurai named Arima Kibie of the Shinto Ryu (school). Arima made the mistake of disrespecting Musashi by treating him like a child, which resulted in Musashi throwing him on the floor and beating him with a six foot wooden staff until his opponent died vomiting blood.
At 16 Musashi left the monastery and it would not be long before he found himself fighting his second duel, which he won easily. Soon after he would face a tougher challenge when he fought in the Battle of Sekigakarai (1600) on the side of the Ashikaga Clan against the victorious army of Ieyasu Tokugawa.
Despite being on the losing side, he fought bravely and somehow managed to survive both the battle and the ensuing massacre of Ashikaga troops that followed it. The aftermath of the Battle of Sekigakarai left Miyamoto Musashi in the position of being a master-less samurai (known as a ronin) so he began to wander Japan on a type of warrior pilgrimage known as a musha shugyo. During these years, he would hone his fighting skills and philosophy in a series of duels, many of which were to the death.
The young samurai began his pilgrimage by making his way to Kyoto in around 1604, where he would have a series of challenges against the heads of one of the most notorious schools in the city, the Yoshioka Clan. There were three contest in all which would set the swordsman on his path to becoming a great warrior, building his reputation while ruining that of his opponents, they were;
Seijuro Yoshioka – This duel was fought with bokken (wooden sword) and like many instances of one-on-one combat at the time, was not meant to be to the death. Both warriors agreed beforehand that the winner would be declared by a single blow which was promptly administered by Musashi, who broke Seijuro’s arm in the process. After the battle, Seijuro retired from his position as head of the Yoshioka Ryu and became a Zen monk.
Denshichiro Yoshioka – As the brother of Seijuro, Denshichiro became the head of the family and soon challenged Musashi in order to regain honour for his family name. This time the duel would be to the death and as was his custom, Musashi turned up late in order to get his opponent angry, a tactic that worked well on both the Yoshioka brothers. Fighting again with a bokken, Musashi won the fight easily, killing his opponent instantly with a head blow and leaving the reputation of the Yoshioka Ryu in ruins.
Matashichiro Yoshioka – The new head of the Yoshioka Clan was a 12 year old named Matashichiro, who also challenged the warrior who had brought dishonour to his family. As the time requested for the fight was at night, Musashi became suspicious that foul play was afoot so he turned up early and hid himself from sight.
Sure enough, when the boy arrived he had a retinue of men armed with swords, bows and rifles who all found a hiding place intending to ambush Musashi while Matashichiro acted as bait. When the time was right, Musashi charged the young warrior and cut his head clean off. Surrounded by the boy’s retinue, he then drew his second sword and cut himself a path through the men trying to kill him before escaping into nearby rice fields.
This not only ended the Yoshioka Ryu, but was also a pivotal moment for Musashi according to many historians as it is believed that it was his first conception of fighting with two swords, a style that would become his trade mark in later years.
The most famous duel Miyamoto Musashi fought while on his musha shugyo was against Sasaki Kojiro in 1612, who at the time was the Shogun’s martial arts teacher and the most feared and respected warrior in the land. Kojiro was seen as the ideal warrior who looked and acted the part of the samurai as laid out in the bushido code to a tee.
Musashi on the other hand was the complete opposite who was less concerned with his image or how society perceived him and more concerned with beating anyone who faced him in battle. The two agreed to meet on an island and unsurprisingly Kojiro turned up in a timely manner, sporting the best clothes and swords money could buy.
Musashi however made his opponent wait knowing that his turning up late would anger him, thus having a negative effect on his concentration and focus; Kojiro’s anger would have only increased when his opponent did finally arrive sporting his usual dirty rags instead of attire befitting a man of their social class.
Kojiro had his swords made just a little longer than the average sword length to give himself reach advantage over his opponents however it seems Musashi knew this and devised a strategy to combat it. It is believed that he fought with a bokken that he fashioned out of an oar on the boat ride to the island, making it longer than his opponent’s sword in order to beat him at his own game.
When the fight began, the two moved to attack simultaneously and Musashi’s reach advantage showed through from the start as while Kojiro managed to cut a nick in Musashi’s clothes, he himself was cut in the head. The two great samurai warriors moved towards each other for a second attack and once again Kojiro could only cut his opponent’s clothes while the extra few inches of the bokken allowed Musashi to cut his opponent’s throat, killing him instantly. In other versions of the story, Musashi uses two sticks to defeat his enemy and in others still he wins the fight with two swords (as depicted below).
The Later Years of Miyamoto Musashi
In 1614, Musashi once again found himself at war and again is believed to have sided against Ieyasu Tokugawa, this time in favour of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Both winter and summer battles were fought at Osaka and Musashi was on the losing side once more, though some believe he switched allegiances before the end of the conflict.
After Osaka, Musashi spent a number of years teaching his sword skills until in 1620, he decided to undertake another musha shugyo, this time less to fight and test his abilities, and more to learn and develop his skills. During this time the master did partake in a number of duels, he won all of them though none of them were to the death.
By 1640, Musashi had become the retainer of Hosokawa Tadatoshi, Lord of Kumamoto for whom he would write his first book, the Hyoho Sanju Go (The Thirty-Five Instructions on Strategy). Two or three years later, the samurai became sick and sensing that his end was near, he retired to a cave where he would write his masterpiece, Go Rin No Sho (The Book of Five Rings). While in the cave, he also managed to write a book on self-discipline called Dokkodo (The Way of Walking Alone), which he completed in 1645, just months before he died.
The influence of Miyamoto Musashi on future generations of martial artists cannot be overstated. He became known in Japan as a kensai (sword saint) and many see him as the greatest swordsman that ever lived. While this is debatable, his skill with the pen has insured that his legend lives on and his main work, The Book of Five Rings, is today studied as a guide for strategy all over the world by martial artists and non-martial artists alike.
http://www.historyoffighting.com/miyamoto-musashi.php
Helpful to pump gas pedal to get car to start
Bought our RAV4 (V6) new and not a bit of trouble until 3 months ago. At 35K, it started to take a second try before starting. Once started, it ran great and always started after shopping or a movie, …until recently. If I do not touch the gas pedal it takes 9 tries before it starts. Cranks like a champ. If you pump the gas pedal, you can get it start in two or three tries. Time is a factor. If stopped a short period of time, the car starts on the first try. Leave it for 4 hours or more and it takes 8-10 tries or once again, pump a few times and the car starts in two or three. Recently, I put a 16 ounce bottle of Seafoam in a 3/4 full tank and am planning on trying a fuel systems cleaner and premium gas when refilling. Please do not tell me this may be the fuel filter, which is part of a $600 fuel pump, located in the gas tank. We typically get gas from a large volume national chain. Never any sputtering or hesitation.
What does it do when you turn the key just before the start position and do that a couple of times? Does it then start up like normal?
I ask because the fuel pump gets primed by running it for a second or two before starting. If that isn’t happening, it may be something electrical.
Have you noticed any black smoke from your tail pipe when the car finally does start?? After you get it running does it run rough for a few seconds??
Run back to the dealer and stop trying to fix this. This is a failure that likely is under warranty or undisclosed recall. Approach the dealer with righteous indignation and serious insistence for a free repair. Did I say right away? And don’t mention the seafoam. Or for that matter anything at all, just that it does not start right and it is too new to be a problem unless the manufacturer had a mistake. There is absolutely no reason to use the gas pedal at all to start this car, something has failed and the dealer needs to fix this under warrantee.
Are you pumping the gas pedal while cranking it, or before trying to start it? If while cranking it, try holding it to the floor instead. If before cranking it, you’re doing absolutely nothing whatsoever. Fuel injected cars completely ignore input from the throttle when the engine is not running or at least being cranked. Like pushing buttons on your remote with the TV unplugged from the wall. If you’re pumping the pedal while cranking it, it’s probably doing the same thing as holding it to the floor would do–this tells the computer to not inject any fuel, and is programmed to work like doing the same in a carbureted vehicle–it clears a “flood” condition. If this works, you may have a leaking fuel injector or bad fuel pressure regulator.
As said by @oblivion, I don’t think this is related to pumping the gas pedal. Or if it is, it is only indirectly related. It appears to me to be some fault in the fuel injection system which is yielding an incorrect fuel/air ratio at cold start. The most likely cause I’d guess is a problem w/ the cold start injector or it’s associated electronic timer. The timer meters out some extra gas at start-up depending upon the coolant temperature. Mechanics have several good ways to test it – often they disable the ignition system and listen for the cold start injector timer to to kick-in the cold start injector. Usually this causes the fuel pump to run too. Don’t try this yourself. Get someone who knows exactly how to test the cold start gadgets on your make & model.
Oh, one more thing. There’s been some gasoline recalls in some areas due to bad gas making it to some gas stations, and the bad gas clogging fuel injectors. Google to find out if this affects your area. Best of luck.
George, Most cars now do not have a cold start injector. The temp sensor is the master control usually until the o2 sensors
How many miles on the Rav 4 now? Some Toyota’s call for new spark plugs at 30K miles. My Camry is 60K miles on the plugs. Check for a dirty air filter also.
You say it takes mutiple TRIES to start the engine. Why do you stop and TRY again? wh ynot stay with the starter until it starts?
@euryale1 … I didn’t know that. Do you mean most “new” cars no longer sport cold start injectors? These used to be common. My early 90’s Toyota Corolla has one. And my 70’s VW Rabbit had one as I recall.
Have they eliminated this component now, in favor of just letting the existing injectors put out a bit more fuel at cold start based on the engine coolant temp? Do you know what model year appx the manufacturers made this transition? It makes sense, as it elimates an extra fuel injection component.
If the OP’s car doesn’t have a cold start injector, then would the symptoms reported most likely be caused be a failing coolant temp sensor then? Or would it be the ECU? Or the injectors themselves? What do you think?
Here’s some more info about the elimination of the cold start injector on Toyota engines.
On page 22 of the link below, it says starting with the 91 model year, cold start injectors have been eliminated on 3e-e and 4a-fe engines. It uses the THW signal (water temp sensor) as input, and lengthens injector pulse wide to supply enough fuel to start the engine.
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h22.pdf 6
Note: This must not apply to all Toyota engines post 91, as mine is post 91 model year, a 4a-fe, and retains a cold start injector and associated timer.
As others have said, pumping does nothing. What might be happening is that one of the injectors is leaking with the car off, and pushing down on the gas opens the throttle, letting in extra air and helping to clear out the excess gas. So get all the injectors tested, along with the fuel pressure, see if it drops off when the engine is shut off (if it does an injector is leaking).
https://community.cartalk.com/t/helpful-to-pump-gas-pedal-to-get-car-to-start/74263
Used until just 30 years ago, the humble canary was an important part of British mining history.
Mining foreman R. Thornburg shows a small cage with a canary used for testing carbon monoxide gas in 1928. (George McCaa, U.S. Bureau of Mines)
Never mind the gas—it was automation that got them in the end.
On this day in 1986, a mining tradition dating back to 1911 ended: the use of canaries in coal mines to detect carbon monoxide and other toxic gases before they hurt humans. New plans from the government declared that the “electronic nose,” a detector with a digital reading, would replace the birds, according to the BBC.
Although ending the use of the birds to detect deadly gas was more humane, miners’ feelings were mixed. “They are so ingrained in the culture, miners report whistling to the birds and coaxing them as they worked, treating them as pets,” the BBC said.
At the time, it was the latest of many changes in the British mining industry, which was a source of great strife in the country through the 1980s. Pit ponies, the other animal that went underground with human miners to haul coal, were also phased out by automation. The last of them retired in 1999, wrote Clare Garner for The Independent.
The idea of using canaries is credited to John Scott Haldane, known to some as “the father of oxygen therapy.” His research on carbon monoxide led him to recommend using the birds, writes Esther Inglis-Arkell for Gizmodo. He suggested using a sentinel species: an animal more sensitive to the colorless, odorless carbon monoxide and other poisonous gases than humans. If the animal became ill or died, that would give miners a warning to evacuate.
Why was a canary Haldane’s suggested solution? Canaries, like other birds, are good early detectors of carbon monoxide because they’re vulnerable to airborne poisons, Inglis-Arkell writes. Because they need such immense quantities of oxygen to enable them to fly and fly to heights that would make people altitude sick, their anatomy allows them to get a dose of oxygen when they inhale and another when they exhale, by holding air in extra sacs, he writes. Relative to mice or other easily transportable animals that could have been carried in by the miners, they get a double dose of air and any poisons the air might contain, so miners would get an earlier warning.
Britain wasn’t the only place to adopt Haldane’s suggestion. The United States and Canada both employed canaries, as these images from the Department of Labor show. Miners are pictured holding the birds in small everyday cages and returning from the scene of an explosion with a canary in a special cage intended to resuscitate the bird after exposure.
The modern carbon dioxide detector is certainly a less romantic image than a canary in an overused saying. Remembering the canary, though, is an opportunity to remember a world of coal mining that no longer exists.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/story-real-canary-coal-mine-180961570/
Africa’s ancient baobab, with its distinctive swollen trunk and known as the “tree of life,” is under a new and mysterious threat, with some of the largest and oldest dying abruptly in recent years.
Nine of the 13 oldest baobabs, aged between 1,000 and 2,500 years, have died over the past dozen years, according to a study published in the scientific journal Nature Plants.
The sudden collapse is “an event of unprecedented magnitude,” the study says.
Climate change, with its rising temperatures and increasing drought conditions, is a suspected factor but no definite cause is known. The deaths occurred in the southern African countries of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
“The trees that are falling over are at the southern range of the distribution of baobabs,” said Stephan Woodborne with South Africa’s National Research Foundation, an author of the study. “What we believe is happening is that the climate envelope in which they exist is shifting, and so we are not talking about the wholesale extinction of baobabs.”
Researchers are seeing very few juvenile trees in the affected region while the mature trees are dying off, “so what we are probably looking at here is a shift in their distribution in response to climate forcing,” Woodborne said.
Baobabs stud southern Africa’s hot, dry stretches of savanna and are often in areas roamed by elephants, rhinos and other wildlife. Elephants help to propagate the trees when they eat baobab fruit, with seeds often sprouting in the nutritious elephant dung.
“Baobab trees are obviously iconic because of their size and their shape and they are very distinctive on the African landscape, and communities have been using them for various reasons through time,” Woodborne said. “We find many archaeological sites underneath these trees, and when we have trees that are more than 1,000 years old we are talking about occupations that took place many hundreds of years ago.”
Baobabs store large amounts of water in their trunk and branches, giving the trees their bulbous shape. Large trees can store as much as 140,000 liters (37,000 gallons) of water sucked up during rainy seasons. Thirsty elephants often strip a baobab of its bark and wood to get their moisture.
The trees are often revered by local communities which sometimes gather around them to hold traditional religious ceremonies and communicate with their ancestors. People also use the tart baobab fruit to make drinks and mix with milk for a yogurt-like food, or simply shelter in the trees’ shade on a sweltering summer day.
“Long, long ago there were no shops, so we used those baobab seeds and water to make our yogurt,” said Anna Munzhelele of the Pafuri region near the Limpopo River in South Africa.
“We would become strong ... it’s like a type of medicine, we get energy from it.”
https://apnews.com/dee9b829ca494c8883400d4502572255
Here in Australia I’m currently drinking some UK ales from the Black Sheep brewery in Yorkshire, UK.
Aldi currently have a huge selection as a special deal for their monthly beer specials and have imported masses of Black Sheep. However unlike in the UK where these beers are served from the cask on hand pump, these bottled beers are filtered and pasteurised. Ignore glass in picture, that’s just condensation as it’s currently around 35C here in my part of Australia.
Looking at the dates on the bottles these are fresh beers imported directly by Aldi for the special. However despite being flavourful with magnificent hop and malt characteristics I realise, as I drink them, that they are a shadow of their true selves.
Hmm. flights to the UK are comparatively cheap right now… let’s check bank balance…..
The main reason for pasteurizing beef is shelf life, as with other pasteurized products. Beer is inherently a little better at resisting spoilage than most foods, for many reasons (alcohol of course; hops are a preservative; the brewing process involves the beer up to boiling; the yeast will usually kill off any competitors, etc) but it can go bad.
For example, a popular beer brand around here is Straub, which doesn’t pasteurize their beer. As a result, it’s not uncommon for some random bottle from a case of Straub to have gone off. Bars around here generally take it in stride and just give the patron another bottle.
https://www.quora.com/Why-drink-unpasteurized-beer-vs-pasteurized-beer-Healthier-better-tasting-etc
Beers normally undergo pasteurization to ensure longer shelf life and uniformity.
Craft brewery, also called micro brewery, generally means a brewery which produces a limited amount of beer. In the U.S.A, the "Brewers Association" use a fixed maximum limit of 15,000 US beer barrels (1,800,000 l; 460,000 US gal; 390,000 imp gal) a year to define microbrewery. An American "craft brewery" is a small, independent and traditional brewery.
Craft Beer (produced from a Craft Brewery or Micro Brewery) is an American term which is also common in Canada and New Zealand and generally refers to beer that is brewed using traditional methods, without additives such as rice or corn; brewed for distinction and flavor rather than mass appeal. In the early 1980s, with just a dozen or so national brands of beer to choose from, microbrewers were established in the U.S. so as to offer the full-flavored beers available in Europe. It wasn’t until the mid 1990s, however, that these craft brewers started gaining real momentum. According to the Institute for Brewing Studies, there are now nearly 1500 microbreweries and brewpubs that produce 3% of all the beer consumed in America.
By the late 1990s, certified organic beers started appearing on the shelves nationally. Craft beers uses the best quality malts and hops. Take the case of the Czech pilsner, now the most common style of beer brewed worldwide. Craft brewers follow the course of their European ancestors, making all-malt pilsners with a full-bodied flavor and generous helpings of hops. Because of the increased percentage of specialty malt and hop ingredients you are going to experience flavors and aromas not found in light Industrial style lagers. Craft beer means natural beer brewed in a non-automated brewery of less than 50-barrel brew length, using traditional methods and premium, whole, natural ingredients, and no flavor-lessening adjuncts or extracts, additives or preservatives
There is a resurgence of appreciation for craft beers in many countries of the world as a product of fine craft, like wine. In general almost all mainstream commercial and mass-produced beers (Budweiser, Coors, Miller), except for some keg beer or draught beer, is pasteurized. The list below shows list of craft beers that have confirmed that they don’t pasteurize their beers, either their bottled beers or keg beers version.
Pasteurization is named for French scientist Louis Pasteur, who discovered that fluids can be partially sterilized at high temperatures. This process enables the brewer to kill traces of live yeast or other organisms which helps the beer stay fresh longer. The filled and closed packages are conveyed through different sections of a "tunnel" pasteurizer, and are sprayed with heated water. Pasteurization is also needed to preserve product uniformity. The brewer has only minimal control of the conditions and the length of time packaged beer will be stored, particularly by the retailer and the consumer.
The downside of pasteurization is that it alters the taste and destroy the natural yeast and enzymes in the beers, and along with them, potential health benefits.
Non pasteurized beers have better taste and better health benefits since it is not subjected to heat.
Drinking unpasteurized beers is safe. An unpasteurized beer is "live" beer, containing living micro-organisms such as yeast. The alcohol in beer will kill any harmful bacteria, which is why unpasteurized beer is not a health risk. Unpasteurized beer has health benefits. It has live yeast, which is one of the most effective ways of getting vitamin B complexes. (The B vitamins also counteract hangovers, just an added benefit of unpasteurized beer.) Certain types of beer contain lactobacillus, which is the beneficial bacteria in fermented vegetables and dairy ferments (yogurt, kefir). Sour beers are the ones which usually contain lactobacillus. Of course, only an unpasteurized beer will contain live lactobacillus that are beneficial for you. Almost all or all commercial beers are pasteurized, which makes the yeast not very useful, and the lactobacillus useless.
Beers that are “bottle-conditioned” are not pasteurized. Many Belgian Ale and U.S craft beers are bottle conditioned. Big Beer (Budweiser, Coors, Miller) pasteurizes beers after bottling to prevent microbes from causing “off” flavors. These microbes, however, do not cause illness. Craft brewers do not typically pasteurize, and while there is little evidence to support any claims, I expect that research will ultimately reveal that unpasteurized “live” beers are nutritionally superior to pasteurized beers. The major difference between Big Beer and craft brewers extends beyond pasteurization to filtration. The big beers companies filter their beer to remove yeast and protein that causes the beer to cloud at lower temps, called chill haze. But filtering the yeast removes most of the B vitamins – think brewer’s yeast – and other nutrients like chromium, evidence that unfiltered beers are more nutritious.
Some brewers are reverting back to “bottle-conditioning”, a centuries-old tradition of preserving beer. Bottle-conditioned beers undergo a second brief fermentation – in the bottle – which carbonates the beer naturally. In addition, the added yeast fights off the microbes that cause “off” flavors and enables the beer to improve with age, like a bottle of wine.
There are health benefits associated with moderate beer consumption. Keep in mind, too, that darker beers contain more antioxidants than lighter beers.
Thank you again for your inquiry. At this time none of our brews are pasteurized. We may consider it with beer aged in oak barrels but only the barrel aged portion of the brew would be pasteurized. We prefer un-pasteurized brews as well. Hope this helps. :)
Thanks for the inquiry. All our bottled beer is brewed, filtered and packaged without the use of isinglass, bone char or any other animal by-product. Pale Ale, Celebration and Summerfest is filtered using cellulose trap filters coupled with centrifugation. All others use centrifugation only.
We do not pasteurize at all as the heat would kill the yeast and the beer would not bottle condition. Bottle conditioning is unique to Sierra Nevada beers. We dose back a small amount of yeast in the bottle. The yeast ferments the priming sugar and creates the finish carbonation and flavors unique to our beer. Hope this helps.
Beck’s Beers: Beck’s beers from Germany is not a craft beer, but I wrote to them and was not surprised to learn that all Beck’s beers are pasteurized.
All beers from Budweiser, Millers, and Coors are all pasteurized for both keg and bottle versions. I have visited and done brewery tour of the Budweiser brewery in Fairfield, California; and one of the stops in the brewery tour is to see the pasteurization machine where they spray all the beers with hot water to pasteurize their beers.
Live beer, however, generally refers to the presence of noble yeasts left over from the brewing process. Beers that have been bottled unpasteurized and unfiltered, with a significant amount of live yeast, are called "bottle-conditioned" beers. The purpose of bottling beers in such a manner is to give them the potential to age and develop more complexity. Yeast inhibits oxidation and contributes complex flavors as it breaks down slowly in the bottle. Many Belgian ales are traditionally bottle conditioned through a secondary fermentation in the bottle, in a process similar to that which produces champagne. Some bottled beers from U.S.A, such as Mendocino RedTail Ale from Mendocino Brewing Company are bottle-conditioned. is brewed in the traditional "old world" manner, using premium two-row malted barley, hops and our own special proprietary yeast strain. It is an amber ale with a rich complex refreshing flavor and a crisp dry finish. Red Tail Ale is "Bottle Conditioned." Like good wine, Red Tail Ale is a perfect complement to fine dining. Mendocino Blue Heron Pale Ale is a delightful, medium bodied smooth ale, with a distinctive crisp mouth-feel and a fresh hoppy finish. It is brewed using premium two-row Pale malted barley, generous amounts of both Cluster bittering hops and Cascade finishing hops and our own special proprietary yeast strain. Blue Heron Pale Ale is "Bottle Conditioned.
An unpasteurized beer bottled with its yeast will not age in the manner of a conventionally processed beer. With age, bottle-conditioned beers develop a rounded, smoother mouthfeel, and over the course of years, often take on winey, vinous flavors.
Bottle conditioning is an economical means for small-scale craft brewers to bottle ales without the need for costly pasteurization or filtration equipment. How long one cellars bottle-conditioned beers is a matter of personal taste and will also depend on the specific character of the beer in question.
Fresh, well-brewed beer that has traveled only a small number of miles will invariably taste better than an equivalent beer that left the brewery a few months ago. Indeed, a draft beer that has traveled a great distance (almost all beers on tap that are imports, such as Beck’s, Heineken, Stella, Guinness, etc) will certainly have been pasteurized, thus is slightly handicapped from the start. The flip side to this is that a pasteurized imported keg of beer will certainly last longer when it is tapped than an unpasteurized, "live," craft beer. The latter needs to be drunk fresh. A conscientious draft bar should keep a few tap handles devoted to local craft brews and ensure that they remain fresh.
If a beer fails to live up to its obligation of being fresh, send it back over the bar-politely of course. Beer condition must always be the primary concern of any good bar. When confronted by a long line of tap handles, your first question to the bartender should be, "What’s fresh?"
For the most part, keg beer brewed and packaged in kegs in the U.S. is not pasteurized although the big three (Budweiser, Coors, Miller, plus some such as Anchor Steam) pasteurize even their keg beers. During the packaging process non pasteurized draft beers are sterile filtered and chilled to the point that any surviving bacteria, which could ferment the beer, become dormant. Kegs are kept cold ( < 50°F ) from the brewery to the point of dispense. Draft beer dispensed from a keg should be fresh by storing as short as possible, and serving cold at 38°F.
Temperatures above 38°F may promote non pasteurized draft beers to turn sour or cloudy. Should the temperature rise above 50°F, the dormant bacteria which ferments and spoils beer will once again become active and, subsequent growth will rapidly begin to spoil flavor and cloud the beer.
Most of the keg beer brewed and packaged outside the U.S. (Import beers), are heat pasteurized during packaging. This process kills off the bacteria that ferment and spoils the beer.
Pasteurized draft beer kegs can be transported and stored at room temperature. The beer in these kegs can be flash cooled at the point of dispense. However, most imported kegs are stored and dispensed at the same temperature (38°F) as domestic, non pasteurized kegs.
You were wondering if we pasteurize our Beck’s bottled beers. Yes, we do. Furthermore, I’d like to explain the process a bit more in depth. Pasteurization allows packaged beer to be shipped and stored without refrigeration.
Beck’s beer is a Classic German Pilsner and features a light grainy malt character and distinctive flowery or spicy noble hops. Brewed according the German purity law, this classic German Pilsner carries a distinctive full-bodied taste, with a fresh “hoppy” bouquet, golden color and rich full head. The taste doesn’t end there. With a slightly fruity but firm crispness, this exciting blend of intriguing flavors ends with a clean, dry finish.
I hope this information is helpful, and that you’re able to raise a cold glass of Beck’s and celebrate your San Francisco Giants winning the World Series (if you’re a fan). Feel free to get back in touch anytime about the beer or anything we do. Until then, I raise my glass to you.
Thanks for the short, well written article. I live in a small town Wyoming and we are fortunate enough to get Sierra Nevada and Deschutes ales out here. I'll have to do more research on the local breweries, but this information is encouraging!
To further clarify, the only MillerCoors product that is pasteurized is Blue Moon. Coors Light, Miller Lite, PBR, Mickeys, Milwaukees Best, Batch 19, Killians, Keystone, etc are all UNpasteurized.
Great List! One thing to mention, Coors Light is not pasteurized. The cold filtering is equal to what home brewers call "cold crashing" to drop the sediment out of the beer. That is how they clarify it. This includes bottles and cans, no pasteurization at all with Coors Light.
Trust me on this one you need the probiotics in you diet in some way. The government is trying to kill us with their regulation to pasturize and preserve our food to the point it is too sterile. I home brewed and got well then foolishly went back to commercial beer and got sick again.
Hady Chahine profile image
Budweiser kegs are not pasteurized. I've been on the tour in Saint Louis twice, and they clearly say that the bottles are pasteurized, but not the kegs.
Nice hub! I ran through it pretty quick (as I am at work right now) but this has a lot of good information and detail. There are some excellent British ales that are bottle conditioned that you should check out if you can: Old Speckled Hen has a bottle conditioned ale that is far superior to the regular (albeit pretty tasty) offering. Also Hopback Brewery has several including Summer Lightning... And while you are at it try St. Peters organic and bottle conditioned ales!
https://hubpages.com/food/Unpasteurized_Beers
When looking at the greatest bodybuilders, those with the most awesome density and thickness to their physiques, those who come immediately to mind for me are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lee Haney, Lou Ferrigno, Tom Platz, Sergio Oliva and, of course Franco Columbu. All of these great bodies were built on a combination of bodybuilding and powerlifting movements. These great bodybuilders and many like them have spent many thousands of hours over and under a bar of iron.
What is so outstanding about these physiques is their intimidating size and shape. Some forget how Tom Platz achieved such awesome legs. He did not merely wake up with them. Tom must have close to 20 years of training under his belt. When I was reading this magazine in the early '70s and onward, Tom was noted for powerlifting as well as bodybuilding competitions. The Austrian lad who at one time was a European champion in powerlifting, with the greatest pecs, delts and biceps in bodybuilding history, is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Then, of course, we could never forget the giant killer of his era, one of Arnold's best friends as well as one of his main rivals. This man could outlift Arnold in any of the power movements as well as being able to outlift any man in the game during his powerlifting days - the one and only Franco Columbu. In 1976 at the Mr. America competition in the Scottish Rite Temple in Los Angeles, I was fortunate enough to witness a 750-pound deadlift by Franco. He also deadlifted 710 for 3 reps. You can get an idea how this build was achieved through heavy power movements. In my opinion no one has matched Franco's cobra-like lat spread.
Helpful to pump gas pedal to get car to start
Bought our RAV4 (V6) new and not a bit of trouble until 3 months ago. At 35K, it started to take a second try before starting. Once started, it ran great and always started after shopping or a movie, …until recently. If I do not touch the gas pedal it takes 9 tries before it starts. Cranks like a champ. If you pump the gas pedal, you can get it start in two or three tries. Time is a factor. If stopped a short period of time, the car starts on the first try. Leave it for 4 hours or more and it takes 8-10 tries or once again, pump a few times and the car starts in two or three. Recently, I put a 16 ounce bottle of Seafoam in a 3/4 full tank and am planning on trying a fuel systems cleaner and premium gas when refilling. Please do not tell me this may be the fuel filter, which is part of a $600 fuel pump, located in the gas tank. We typically get gas from a large volume national chain. Never any sputtering or hesitation.
What does it do when you turn the key just before the start position and do that a couple of times? Does it then start up like normal?
I ask because the fuel pump gets primed by running it for a second or two before starting. If that isn’t happening, it may be something electrical.
Have you noticed any black smoke from your tail pipe when the car finally does start?? After you get it running does it run rough for a few seconds??
Run back to the dealer and stop trying to fix this. This is a failure that likely is under warranty or undisclosed recall. Approach the dealer with righteous indignation and serious insistence for a free repair. Did I say right away? And don’t mention the seafoam. Or for that matter anything at all, just that it does not start right and it is too new to be a problem unless the manufacturer had a mistake. There is absolutely no reason to use the gas pedal at all to start this car, something has failed and the dealer needs to fix this under warrantee.
Are you pumping the gas pedal while cranking it, or before trying to start it? If while cranking it, try holding it to the floor instead. If before cranking it, you’re doing absolutely nothing whatsoever. Fuel injected cars completely ignore input from the throttle when the engine is not running or at least being cranked. Like pushing buttons on your remote with the TV unplugged from the wall. If you’re pumping the pedal while cranking it, it’s probably doing the same thing as holding it to the floor would do–this tells the computer to not inject any fuel, and is programmed to work like doing the same in a carbureted vehicle–it clears a “flood” condition. If this works, you may have a leaking fuel injector or bad fuel pressure regulator.
As said by @oblivion, I don’t think this is related to pumping the gas pedal. Or if it is, it is only indirectly related. It appears to me to be some fault in the fuel injection system which is yielding an incorrect fuel/air ratio at cold start. The most likely cause I’d guess is a problem w/ the cold start injector or it’s associated electronic timer. The timer meters out some extra gas at start-up depending upon the coolant temperature. Mechanics have several good ways to test it – often they disable the ignition system and listen for the cold start injector timer to to kick-in the cold start injector. Usually this causes the fuel pump to run too. Don’t try this yourself. Get someone who knows exactly how to test the cold start gadgets on your make & model.
Oh, one more thing. There’s been some gasoline recalls in some areas due to bad gas making it to some gas stations, and the bad gas clogging fuel injectors. Google to find out if this affects your area. Best of luck.
George, Most cars now do not have a cold start injector. The temp sensor is the master control usually until the o2 sensors
How many miles on the Rav 4 now? Some Toyota’s call for new spark plugs at 30K miles. My Camry is 60K miles on the plugs. Check for a dirty air filter also.
You say it takes mutiple TRIES to start the engine. Why do you stop and TRY again? wh ynot stay with the starter until it starts?
@euryale1 … I didn’t know that. Do you mean most “new” cars no longer sport cold start injectors? These used to be common. My early 90’s Toyota Corolla has one. And my 70’s VW Rabbit had one as I recall.
Have they eliminated this component now, in favor of just letting the existing injectors put out a bit more fuel at cold start based on the engine coolant temp? Do you know what model year appx the manufacturers made this transition? It makes sense, as it elimates an extra fuel injection component.
If the OP’s car doesn’t have a cold start injector, then would the symptoms reported most likely be caused be a failing coolant temp sensor then? Or would it be the ECU? Or the injectors themselves? What do you think?
Here’s some more info about the elimination of the cold start injector on Toyota engines.
On page 22 of the link below, it says starting with the 91 model year, cold start injectors have been eliminated on 3e-e and 4a-fe engines. It uses the THW signal (water temp sensor) as input, and lengthens injector pulse wide to supply enough fuel to start the engine.
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h22.pdf 6
Note: This must not apply to all Toyota engines post 91, as mine is post 91 model year, a 4a-fe, and retains a cold start injector and associated timer.
As others have said, pumping does nothing. What might be happening is that one of the injectors is leaking with the car off, and pushing down on the gas opens the throttle, letting in extra air and helping to clear out the excess gas. So get all the injectors tested, along with the fuel pressure, see if it drops off when the engine is shut off (if it does an injector is leaking).
https://community.cartalk.com/t/helpful-to-pump-gas-pedal-to-get-car-to-start/74263We cannot overlook the thick physique of one of the greatest in the bodybuilding world, with the Mr. Olympia under his belt and once Arnold's nemesis, he has a chest, arms and deltoids to match anyone's in the world. My understanding of his workouts from years ago included bench pressing 500 pounds for reps. I am talking about the one and only Sergio Oliva.
Many other bodybuilders have achieved that same thick look but it would take too much time to name them all. But we must single out the current Mr. Olympia, Lee Haney. Haney has spoken out more than once in this magazine about training heavy with power movements, especially for his legs.
Let's get back to the point at hand. All of these bodybuilders have reached the top of their field and are considered the world's finest. All except Haney are also over the age of 30. All of them have trained 15-20 years or better and they have all used powerlifting movements to help achieve their awesome size. Not all of us can be as thick as these great athletes, although we can become thicker than we are through heavy lifting.
When you see a routine written by a pro, understand that he more than likely started where you may be right now - thinner, younger, and hungry for size. His workouts were more than likely much different and heavier than his movements today. Once you have reached your size, then you can concentrate more on the sculpture and shape of your body, not being as concerned about the weight on the bar as much.
If you are at a point where you need more size, you might look back at some pictures of these giants when they just started. Then look again at year 10 to see their development, and then again at year 15, and finally today. We all started out much smaller.
You might consider lifting more like a powerlifter. Don't give up your bodybuilding movements. Just enhance them by lifting heavier with fewer reps, and allowing more time for the muscles to recover by only lifting four days a week instead of five or six. You will be stronger and able to handle more weight in all your exercise movements.
Don't fear your added strength, for if will give not only the size but the desire to compete in competitions you may never have thought of before. This can improve not only the body but the mind.
My own personal experience started as a bodybuilder, winning some local, state and regional shows. Through me lifting I found my strength as a bench presser became greater and in the off-season of my bodybuilding competition I started competing in bench press contests. It was a great joy and filled a void during the beefing up period prior to dieting before a bodybuilding show. You will find many very hard, lean, muscular physiques in the power game. Many of these men and women could stand on a national platform in bodybuilding across the country and fare quite well.
In conclusion, let us remember that the two sides of the lifting game are not disparate but rather integral parts of a total process. Your goals should not exclude one in favor of the other. The benefits derived from powerlifting can be easily transferred to bodybuilding and vice versa.
Do not limit yourself by being too narrowly focused.
http://ditillo2.blogspot.com/2019/03/powerlifting-benefits-for-bodybuilder.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeNN1UnILhU
La Jument lighthouse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx706olUG-g
Holland Tunnel from New Jersey to New York
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatktnbxsg0
The Seventh Annual Arnold Classic, 1995
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfi8EQTAhtw
Tokyo Today 07 Underground Regulating Reservoir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VMhR6fpC-E&app=desktop
minotaur island
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tymp0tJ8s_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVKy8WpAw2s
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ERVsTICv8gc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_RkbIRn6L4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uGSPevyOZso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RhFSR5wU8A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUmihaflUws&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u00WB4Yhvw8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA3MTU0v-nQ&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txAUO0zjdqc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3hv5AkMI4Q&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EpuOCIx6OA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ85r89d_Tc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTTQK3bUCSs&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9s9rrNnyl_o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WomUnDHpFZ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heBuAZolrM4&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPw5yf6ezFk&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RG9TMn1FJzc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1S6UCX4RAA&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TTxPZkIGKMo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XZComkkxeEI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=devo3kdSPQY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEa3P3d9ugk&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V_NgZocg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAdht6Lr8z0&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBM8_A1QFII&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2CAVWeWnMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSHMOAJcp_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatktnbxsg0&t=537s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMkeys67-i8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Rq7km6yK4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB5RnaUlS8A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV2EPaICXO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_xr0PFsDSo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8C4VSPzpng&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK657-YaXMc&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3-lqtQWgvw&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmq4WIjQxp0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PTJJC4gfSAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOk7IczsIrA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdx6lLvvRyg&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDrVzyQNpaw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5AdFuEkPmM&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4qiCV8sIXQ&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rewvqm4pdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpESCE-XWjw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22y6L0nlfPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3Iyytuqzw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ztbQbo48Jc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5hQ-aW3VRk&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HQKlBss0b9s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDyPwiVObzg&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyBg3o42mFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VMhR6fpC-E&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfD6jY6Cv5A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh-evsJ1RMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24rYz9QAvdQ&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLw-okCdSKE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Wf142VMX4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BNP126zgPU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65mfotO_Bo0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBTHnRNbGe8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp2l6nFIsZA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME8wzyR6pO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA3MTU0v-nQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHxIB5Hk_v8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujs84tvAra4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=505&v=S_kdGJ8l0Fg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EpuOCIx6OA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLh0YZS9mEQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9BSsIX2j7M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocwrnSkD-VI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-dHiAHJnM0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DSbxx-U6S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-eIxwY5a6k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEbbzLkhrUg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoKllU-zoSo&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsJfZcpkBes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x0oG0yHkAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=376&v=BS-X_3A35xA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D1tQ3vCdYQE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jPhO9ouiYBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcBhQpRBWgU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-xHUhvlTgY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8t6aG_hANk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxvbb2VzMrU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44y-iFb_sCA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp3KL_oip0I&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x0oG0yHkAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew9-IMbCyKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsSERCBWTbc&list=PLCpoJzS9saKOhNwcID3mE7A5heFrAHDiH
This is the second Association video I've watched this evening. Each have started with an interesting intro to the song. Such great music. Too bad most of today's kids have little understanding of harmony are have not been exposed to this type of music. Rap - Hip Hop can not hold a candle to quality music.
That's a very short sighted comment. Hip Hop is one of the best genre's of music, it certainly comes the closest to modern day poetry. What you know as hip hop is just pop music with rappers on. go listen to Wu-Tang Clan, or Erik B & Rakim. Just because they are not playing instruments does not make them any less talented.
As a girl born in 54, growing up with such wonderful groups, The Association, wow, had to be one of MY favs!! Especially this song!!
Thanks, John. I recently watched the Monterey Pop Festival footage and saw how they seemed so out of place in changing times. But the fact is that it's The Association's music that has withstood the test of time with so much beautifully written and rendered pop. These songs are what have stuck in people's consciousness for decades! RIP Larry. LOVE you guys!
I went to almost all of their gigs in Glendale at under the icehouse. One of the best groups, ever.
Loved the Association from the first time I heard them. Fantastic harmonies. My favourite is Everything That Touches You.
LOL. That tape recorder on her lap. That was high tech in 1967.
One of my very favorite artists of all time, Todd Rundgren, took some influences from these guys regarding vocal harmony. I love that influence in his music.
Beautiful,my all time favourite Association song.brings back memories of great 60's American harmony groups.I was born in 1943 ,just don't hear harmony groups like this anymore.
I keep on coming back to this. It's not just the intro, it's not just the camaraderie, it's not just the song - although that's a huge part of it - it's the lyrics, the music, the harmony, the whole thing. Sorry to gush, but WOW!
very beautiful song, great memories of life
I think the world could do with a sunshine pop revival right now.
Kinda sad that they had to cater to the ego in that form, so as to diffuse irrational distractions latent in any audience back in those days, and which still are. But they did that well.
It is interesting to hear the original, uncut and "unmastered" version of this song, i.e. the "live" version. Being haunted by the mastered recording obstructs the ear at first when listening to the REAL original, and one must listen more carefully for the nuances that are edited out or masked over by the process of making the recording "fit for mass production" in some record producer's mind.
The last line is very different from the radio version. Here the way they say "cherish is the woooooord" is more natural in length, and more down to earth, more earnest in a way which jibes with how people really talk, whereas in the recorded version played on the air it has a much dreamier and long-winded sound, that has a magical ending effect that is much more "pop".
You can tell they put a lot of work into this piece of music
+Jeff Enad I'm married to a Cebuana, so I know Filipino love soft rock, but still many would be surprised to know that Never My Love, one of the most played songs ever on the radio, is sung by a Filipino American Rest in Peace, Larry. Salamat.
The "Silk Road" was an ancient network of trade routes that extended across Europe and Asia, linking powerful civilizations such as China and Rome. The Silk Road flourished from about 1500 B.C. to A.D. 1500 and extended from China through Central Asia to the Caspian and Black Seas. Bounded by mountains to the north and south, this central corridor consisted of a broad desert punctuated by oases.
Silk actually composed a relatively small portion of the trade along the Silk Road. Eastbound caravans brought gold, precious metals and stones, textiles, ivory, and coral; while westbound caravans transported furs, ceramics, cinnamon bark, rhubarb, and bronze weapons. The oasis towns that made the overland journey possible became important trading posts—commercial centers where caravans would take on fresh animals, goods, and merchants.
These cities prospered considerably, with merchants and traders making large profits on the goods that were bought and sold. Most traders sold their loads to middlemen who would make the final transaction further down the line.
Very few caravans, including the people, animals, and goods they transported, would complete the entire route. Instead, goods were passed along through an intricate network of middlemen. These businessmen had to contend not only with the usual concerns of supply and demand but also sandstorms, ice storms, thieves, and feudal warlords.
Travel along the Silk Road was very difficult and extremely dangerous. Dry deserts with no water for miles and mountain passes with avalanches, heavy snow, and spring flooding made the road perilous at all times of year. Bandits lay in wait to rob travelers. To protect themselves, traders often traveled in large groups.
Traders often used camels to travel the Silk Road and carry their goods from one place to another, because camels could travel a long distance without water. But camels could not carry extremely heavy goods over the mountains and across the deserts. As a result, the Silk Road was not used to carry raw materials, such as lumber. Instead, it was used primarily to transport small, luxury goods such as silk and porcelain.
https://archive.artic.edu/chinese/resource/1878
------------------------
After 1434, European world maps changed. There was a shift away from the circular maps centred on Jerusalem, emphasising religious subjects, to depictions of the world as it really is. Toscanelli sent Columbus a map of the Americas; Regiomontanus advertised a world map for sale;
Magellan possessed a world map; Andrea Bianco showed Florida on his Atlantic chart of 1436; on his 1448 map, Bianco described Brasil; then, in 1507, Waldseemueller published his amazing world map accurately rendering North and South America. All of these maps had something in common: they accurately depicted parts of the New World before Europeans ever reached those parts.
They are also all copies, in whole or in part, of Zheng He’s 1418 map. It was a deliberate policy of Zheng He’s mission to distribute Chinese maps of the world. However, the transfer of knowledge went further than maps. It was that combination of a massive transfer of new knowledge from China to Europe and the fact that it came in one short period that created a cumulative effect and hence the revolution we call the Renaissance.
So at this point, not only did kings, captains and navigators have, for the first time, maps which showed them the true shape of the world but they also acquired instruments and tables which showed them how to reach those new lands by the quickest route and how to return home in safety.
When they arrived in the New World, an international trading system created by Chinese, Arabs and Indians awaited them, built up by thousands of sea voyages over hundreds of years honed by centuries of experience of monsoons and trade winds. When China left the world stage this trading system was Europe’s for the taking.
Europeans found not only rich new lands but the results of sophisticated transplanting and genetic engineering pioneered by the Chinese. Raw materials had been mined and transhipped across continents.
Europeans found worked gold mines in Australia, iron mines in New Zealand and Nova Scotia, copper in North America, and a sophisticated steel industry in Nigeria. Knowledge of printing spread the riches of the New World accurately and rapidly and with gunpowder weapons European rivalry took a new potency and urgency resulting in frenetic competition to conquer the New World.
The same dramatic changes can be seen in Europe, not least in food production, mining and processing of raw materials. In art and architecture the new rules of perspective explained by the rational mathematics of Alberti and perfected by the genius of Leonardo da Vinci could be applied to create all manner of new buildings – which could be accurately and quickly explained and described by printing.
Perhaps the most important single transfer of knowledge from China to Europe was how the universe worked. Everything could be explained without the blessing of the Church. Man’s thought was freed from centuries of religious dogma.
The transfer of intellectual knowledge from China to Europe in 1434 came from a people who had created that civilisation over thousands of years. It was given to a Europe which was just emerging from the thousand year stagnation which followed the fall of the Roman Empire.
Until now the Renaissance has been portrayed as a rebirth of the classical European civilisations of Greece and Rome. Chinese influence has been ignored. Whilst Greece and Rome were unquestionably important, in my submission the transfer of Chinese intellectual knowledge was the spark which set the Renaissance ablaze.
https://www.gavinmenzies.net/Evidence/chapter-21-chinas-contribution-to-the-renaissance/
----------------------
In the depths of the ocean, life can extend far beyond its usual limits. Take the tube worm Escarpia laminata: living in an environment with a year-round abundance of food and no predators, individuals seem to live for over 300 years. And some may be 1000 years old or more – meaning they would have been around when William the Conqueror invaded England.
“E. laminata is pushing the bounds of what we thought was possible for longevity,” says Alanna Durkin at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These tube worms live between 1000 and 3300 metres below sea level in aggregations from five to more than 200 individuals around cold seeps. This environment also provides a habitat for brittlestars, shrimps, crabs, mussels, clams, snails, limpets and a huge variety of smaller species of worms.
“The tube worms look like oversized plastic straws with a delicate pink flower at the end when the animal extends its petal-like plume – a gill-like organ for gas exchange – out of the top of its tube,” says Durkin. They can measure more than 1.5 metres, and feed through a symbiotic relationship they form with bacteria that thrive in these seeps.
Finding out exactly how old the worms were was tricky, says Durkin, given that they don’t produce a hard, permanent skeleton or tissue with annual, countable “growth rings”. Instead, her team had to rely on a growth model from an earlier study of a different worm species, which predicts how much a worm grows each year. “The idea behind the growth model is that it lets us simulate how these tube worms grow and age without us having to wait hundreds of years to watch them grow in real time,” says Durkin.
Researchers fed real-life data into the model by looking at how much worms of different sizes grew over a single year. This served to reveal how fast they grow at varying stages of their lives, Durkin explains. “Then we can use that data to simulate tube worms growing over time to find out how many years it would take these animals to reach a particular size,” she says.
According to the model, some of the tube worms have been around for hundreds of years – with some maybe even thousands of years old. It is hard to put an upper limit on their age, because they grow more slowly as they get older. “There may indeed be large E. laminata over 1000 years old in nature, but given our research we are more confident reporting a lifespan of at least 250 to 300 years,” says Durkin.
This suggests that the tube worms are the second-longest-living non-colonial species ever found in the depths of the ocean – the deep-sea clam Arctica islandica can live for 500 years or more. Colony-forming animals, including some corals, are estimated to live for over 4000 years. “It’s possible that new record-breaking lifespans will be discovered in the deep sea, since we are finding new species and new habitats almost every time we send down a submersible,” says Durkin.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2141387-giant-deep-sea-worms-may-live-to-be-1000-years-old-or-more/
----------------------------------
Researchers studying the microscopic roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans recently discovered a set of mutations that extended the worms’ normal 2-3 week lifespan by up to 30%. This was exciting, not least because discoveries in animals such as roundworms can sometimes help us understand processes like ageing in humans.
This was not the end of the story though, as the researchers found that the descendants of the long-lived roundworms could also live longer than normal, even if they only inherited the non-mutated version of the genes from their parents.
This doesn’t seem to make sense at first; surely characteristics such as hair colour, height and even how long we or a microscopic worm could potentially live are carried in the DNA sequence of the genes that we inherit from our parents. So how can we solve the conundrum of how the roundworms inherited the long lived characteristic, without inheriting the DNA sequence that initially caused it? The answer is epigenetics.
It’s not all in your DNA - In a nutshell, epigenetics is the study of characteristics or “phenotypes” that do not involve changes to the DNA sequence; and the long-lived roundworms are just one of many examples.
Others, as we will see below, include how queen and worker honey bees can appear so different despite being genetically identical, how starvation in human populations may affect the health and longevity of the next generation, why all tortoiseshell cats are female and even how we all develop from a single cell (a fertilized egg) to end up with bodies containing many different types of specialised cells but which all contain the same genes and DNA sequence.
So what is epigenetics? Another way of looking at epigenetics is like this; while traditional genetics describes the way the DNA sequences in our genes are passed from one generation to the next, epigenetics describes passing on the way the genes are used. To make a computer analogy, think of epigenetics as metadata, information describing and ordering the underlying data. If you own an MP3 player for example, it will contain a lot of data, the MP3 files.
Think of these as analogous to genes. But you will also probably have playlists or you may play tracks by artist or genre. This information, playlist, artist, genre etc. is metadata. It determines which tracks are played and in what order, and this is what epigenetics is to genetics. It is a set of processes that effects which genes are switched-on, or “expressed”, as molecular biologists would say.
How does epigenetics work? So epigenetics is about how genes are expressed and used, rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves, but how does this work? Many researchers have been studying epigenetics over the past few decades, and it is currently an area of intense research activity. We know that a part of how epigenetics works is by adding and removing small chemical tags to DNA.
You can think of these tags as post-it notes that highlight particular genes with information about whether they should be switched on or off. In fact the chemical tag in question is called a methyl group (see Diagram 1) and it is used to modify one of the four bases or “chemical letters”, A, C, T and G, that makes up the genetic code of our DNA. The letter that is tagged is C or cytosine and when it is modified, or methylated it is called 5-methyl cytosine. Methyl groups are added to DNA by enzymes called DNA methyl transferases (DNMTs).
Diagram 1. Two chemical tags, methyl and acetyl groups that are central to epigenetic phenomena and the chemical structure of cytosine and 5-methyl cytosine in DNA. The pentagonal part of the molecule forms the continuous “backbone” of the DNA . Only one of the two strands of DNA that makes up the familiar double helix is shown.
Queen bee status is partly determined by fewer methyl tags - In most cases, more methylated Cs in the DNA of a gene results in the gene being switched off. Honey bees provide us with a good example of how this can work. Worker bees and the queen have very different bodies; the queen is much larger, longer lived, has an enlarged abdomen and lays many thousands of eggs, while the smaller workers are sterile but have complex foraging and communication skills.
Despite this, the queen and workers in a hive are female and genetically identical. The clue to how this comes about lies in royal jelly, a secretion that is fed to some developing larvae, and which results in these larvae becoming queens rather than workers.
We will come back to royal jelly and its queen-making properties later, but a fascinating piece of research showed that if the amount of the methyl group adding DNMT enzyme was artificially reduced in bee larvae, then the larvae developed into queens, even if they weren’t fed royal jelly. Thus, the switch between queen and worker can be flipped by the abundance of methyl tags on the bee larvae’s DNA. Fewer methyl tags leads to switching on of a special gene or genes in the developing larvae that results in the development of the larvae into queens and not workers.
Tags on tails also operate gene switches - DNA methyl tags are only one part of the story though. In the cells of all plants and animals, DNA is packaged or wrapped up into nucleosomes where the DNA double helix is wrapped around a central core of protein (see Diagram 2). About 150 letters-worth of DNA (or base-pairs) is wrapped around each nucleosome, and this helps package the 3 billion base pairs of genetic code into each of our cells.
Nucleosomes are too small to see using conventional microscopes, but biologists use a technique called X-ray diffraction to work out the shape and organisation of objects like nucleosomes, and in 1997 this technique revealed the beautiful structure of nucleosomes at high resolution – see
(http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=1aoi).
Diagram 2. The familiar DNA double helix (blue) is wrapped around nucleosomes (grey cylinders) in cells. The string of nucleosomes can be coiled into a thicker filament, called the 30 nm fibre and this can be further coiled into a still thicker chromatin fibre. When genes are switched on their nucleosomes are more uncoiled like the 10nm fibre.
Nucleosomes are compact, but the ends or “tails” of the proteins that make up the nucleosome, which are called histones, stick out from the otherwise compact nucleosome structure. Like the methyl tags on DNA, small chemical tags can also be added to these histone tails (see Diagram 3). Two of the chemical tags that are added to these tails are acetyl groups and methyl groups.
Methyl, acetyl and a few other types of tags can be added to the tails in a large number of combinations and this effects whether an underlying gene is switched on or off. In fact genes can be switched right off (this is called silencing), full on, or somewhere in between by DNA methyl tags and histone tail tags. The combination of DNA and histone tags can also effect how easily a gene is turned on or off.
Diagram 3. Chemical tags can be added to the “tails” of the histone proteins that make up nucleosomes. Grey cylinder, nucleosome; curved black lines, histone tails; green circles, methyl tags; red triangles, acetyl tags; mauve hexagons, other types of tag.
When cells divide - When cells divide, the entire DNA sequence from the original cell (3 billion base pairs contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes in a human cell) is duplicated so that both daughter cells receive an exact copy. What, you might ask, happens to all those epigenetic tags? We have known for some time that the DNA-methyl tags are copied too, so that both daughter cells have the same pattern of DNA methylation.
We now know that the pattern of histone tags is also mostly duplicated as cells divide, although this is currently less well understood. Nevertheless, cell division is also a time when epigenetic tags can most easily be changed.
Return of the long-lived worm - Right at the beginning we came across the story of the long-lived microscopic worms thatpassed on their longevity to their offspring even if the individual offspring did not inherit the variant gene (mutation) that originally caused the extended lifespan. We are now in a position to explain this apparently strange result.
In most cases genes contain the information to make a protein molecule, and the protein molecules might be enzymes that carry out chemical reactions in the cell, or parts of the structure of the cell itself. It turns out that the genes that were mutated in the worm study make proteins that work together to add a methyl tag to nucleosomes.
This tag is an on-switch. When one or more of the genes were mutated this tag was absent and several genes that should be on, including some involved in ageing, were switched off and the worms had a longer lifespan. The unexpected thing is that the epigenetic tags were thought to be completely erased or reset during the formation of sperm and egg, and so unlike the genes themselves they shouldn’t be passed on to the next generation. But this result and other research that shows that this is not always the case and that sometimes, the pattern of epigenetic tags are passed on.
How to make a queen - Whether a larval honey bee becomes a worker or a queen depends on an epigenetic switch, and this switch seems to be “flipped” by royal jelly. But what is it about royal jelly that leads a larva that would otherwise grow up to be a worker, to become a queen? The answer lies in understanding that the individual chemical tags that are added to the histone tails of nucleosomes are constantly being revised by the cell. Acetyl tags are added by enzymes called histone acetyl transferases and they are removed or erased by a second group of enzymes called histone deacetylases (HDACs). Both of these enzymes are present in most cells and this allows genes to be switched on or off over time.
More acetyl tags help deliver queen bee status - Recently, researchers set out to identify compounds in royal jelly that could alter this process, and what they found was something known as an HDAC inhibitor. This was a relatively simple chemical compound that is present in royal jelly and that stops the action of HDAC enzymes that normally remove acetyl tags from histones. This results in a build-up of acetyl tags in the cells of the bee embryos, and like the reduction in DNA-methyl groups described previously, this is thought to switch on key genes required for development of a queen. Without the HDAC inhibitor in the royal jelly, the larvae follow a “default” set of genetic instructions and develop into workers.
HDAC inhibitors are not only important to queen bees, but are also part of a small but growing number of medically useful drugs that target epigenetic tags and which are useful in treating some kinds of cancer. Furthermore HDACs also have a role in the way our brains form memories, and novel drugs that affect histone acetylation may have a role in the future in treating memory impairment in elderly patients.
The environment and epigenetics - We have seen how the difference between a queen and worker bee is determined by exposure to a chemical that directly alters epigenetic tags such as acetyl groups; but are there examples where nutrition or other aspects of the environment affect human populations in a way that can be explained by epigenetics?
Obviously we can’t do experiments on human populations as we can on microscopic worms or bees, but sometimes human history or natural phenomena do it for us. One such example is what is known as the Dutch Hunger Winter. In the last year of the Second World War in Europe, a food embargo imposed by occupying German forces on the civilian population of the Netherlands resulted in a severe famine, coinciding with a particularly harsh winter.
About 20,000 people died from starvation as rations dropped to below 1000 kilocalories per day. Despite the chaos of war, medical care and records remained intact allowing scientists to subsequently study the effect of famine on human health. What they found was that children who were in the womb during the famine experienced a life-long increase in their chances of developing various health problems compared to children conceived after the famine. The most sensitive period for this effect was the first few months of pregnancy. Thus, something appears to happen early in development in the womb that can affect the individual for the rest of their lives.
Epigenetic effects can sometimes pass to grandchildren - Even more surprisingly, some data seems to suggest that grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the Hunger Winter experience some of these effects.
From what we have already discussed, this strongly suggests an epigenetic mechanism. In fact, research with the Dutch Hunger Winter families continues, and a recent study looking at a gene galled IGF2 found lower levels of the methyl tag in the DNA of this gene in individuals exposed to the famine before birth. Although IGF2 may not itself be involved in the increased risk of poor health in these people, it shows that epigenetic effects (i.e. reduction of the number of methyl tags on particular genes) that are produced before birth can last for many decades.
Studies in animals have also found that the diet of the mother can have effects on her offspring. For example, feeding sheep a diet lacking the types of food required to make methyl groups leads to offspring with altered patterns of DNA methylation and which have higher than expected rates of certain health problems.
Epigenetics and imprinting, why genes from Mum and Dad are not always equivalent - We all have 23 pairs of chromosomes in our cells. For each pair, one came from mother and one from father. Thus, we inherit one copy of each gene from each parent and we generally assume that the function of the gene does not to depend on which parent it came from. However, for imprinted genes things are different. For these genes, either the maternal or paternal copy of the gene is active, while the other one is kept silent.
There are at least 80 imprinted genes in humans and mice, many of which are involved in growth of the embryo or the placenta. How can one copy of a gene be switched off, while the other copy in the same cell is switched on? The answer is epigenetics. Probably the most studied imprinted gene is IGF2(see above). One part of IGF2 operates as a switch. If the DNA is methylated here the IGF2 gene can be expressed.
The switch is only methylated in Dad’s copy of the gene and so only this copy is expressed, while the maternal copy is silent. This switch is thought to be set up in the gametes (eggs and sperm) so right from the start, genes received from Mum and those from Dad are labelled differently with epigenetic tags and so are not equivalent.
Imprinting and mental disorders - Angelmann and Prader-Willi syndromes are two distinct genetic conditions with different symptoms, both caused by loss of a part of chromosome 15. Children who inherit one copy of this faulty chromosome develop either Angelmann or Prader-Willi syndrome, despite having a normal copy of the chromosome from their other parent.
So how does the same mutation (loss of part of chromosome 15) lead to these two different conditions? The answer lies in the discovery that this particular piece of chromosome 15 contains a number of genes that are imprinted, so only the paternal or maternal copy of these gene are expressed; which of the two syndromes appears depends on whether the deletion was in the maternal or paternally inherited chromosome.
When the faulty chromosome is inherited from Dad, there is no functional copy of the imprinted genes that are switched off on the maternal chromosome 15 and the result is Angelmann syndrome and vice versa for Prader-Willi syndrome. This is quite unlike most genetic conditions such as cystic fibrosis, where an effect on development or health is only seen when a mutated gene or genes is inherited from both parents.
Boys versus Girls, how to switch off a whole chromosome - A bit of genetics that most of us know about is what makes a boy a boy, and a girl a girl. It’s the X and Y chromosomes. At the very beginning of our existence each of us received one X chromosome from our Mums via the egg, and while the girls received another X chromosome from their dads, via the sperm, the boys got a Y chromosome.
The Y chromosome in the cells of a male embryo directs it to develop into a boy, while with two X and no Y chromosome the female embryo develops into a girl. Now, you might notice that there is an imbalance here. We all have two each of all the other chromosomes, but for the sex chromosomes (X and Y) the girls have two Xs while the boys only have one X (and a Y). While the Y chromosome contains few genes, mostly involved in “maleness”, the X chromosome contains quite a few genes involved in important processes such as colour vision, blood clotting and muscle function.
In order to even up the “dosage” of X chromosome genes between male and female cells, one entire X chromosome is switched off in female cells. This is called X-chromosome inactivation and happens very early in the womb. In this process cells randomly switch off either the paternal or maternal X chromosome, so that when a girl baby is born her body is a mixture or chimera of cells where either the maternal or paternal X-chromosome is switched off.
The way that this happens involves the type of epigenetic tags that we have discussed and it has been known for decades that female cells contain one very compact X chromosome called the Barr body that can be seen under the microscope, and this is the inactive X chromosome.
The case of the tortoiseshell cat - We are probably all familiar with tortoiseshell cats and their mottled coats with patches of orange and black fur. What you might not know is that almost all cats with this type of coat are female!
The reason for this is that a gene for coat colour is located on the cat’s X chromosome. There are two versions of this gene, called “O” and “o”; one gives ginger fur and the other black. Two copies of the same version in a female cat results in ginger or black fur respectively, but one copy of each gives a tortoiseshell effect. This is down to X-chromosome inactivation.
The skin of these cats is composed of patches of cells where either the maternal or paternal X chromosome is inactivated. This results in skin with the O gene switched on and o silenced in some patches (orange fur) and o gene on and O silenced in other patches (black fur), hence the tortoiseshell pattern. Since the male cats only have one X chromosome, and no X-chromosome inactivation, they are either orange or black all over.
Epigenetic inheritance, can epigenetic states be passed from one generation to the next? As we have seen from the roundworm example, epigenetic effects (in this case extended lifespan) can sometimes be passed from one generation to the next, although the effects only seem to last for a few generations. Are there examples where epigenetic effects carry over to subsequent generations in humans or other mammals?
There is some evidence that the effects of the Dutch Hunger Winter affected grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the famine. Similarly, in a study of a 19th century northern Swedish population who underwent cycles of famine and plenty, the amount of food available appears to have affected the health and longevity of the next generation.
Hair colour in mouse can be determined by an epigenetic effect - Perhaps the best known example of transgenerational epigenetic effects is provided by the mouse Agouti gene. This gene controls hair colour, and is switched on at just the right time in hair follicle cells to produce a yellow stripe in the otherwise dark hairs, resulting in what is called an agouti coat. But mice with a particular variant of the Agouti gene called Avy have coats that are anywhere between yellow and the normal dark (agouti) pattern of wild-type mice. The yellow mice also become obese and suffer other health problems.
So the Avy gene seems to have a variable effect (in fact the Avy stands for Avariable yellow). How this works has puzzled geneticists for years, but we can now recognise this as an epigenetic effect. The yellow fur occurs because Avy version of the Agouti gene has faulty controls and is switched on all the time. However, methyl tags are often added to the faulty control DNA sequence and this tends to switch the gene off, resulting in mottled or dark agouti fur in individual mice.
Pups born to dams with the Avy gene range in colour from yellow to dark, but the proportion depends on the coat colour of the mother; litters of dark (agouti) females are more likely to contain dark pups. Furthermore, a higher proportion of dark offspring is observed if both the mother and the grandmother have the dark colouration. So the agouti colouration, which is determined epigenetically (by the number of methyl tags on the Avy gene) can to some extent, carry through from one generation to the next.
Eggs and sperm do not usually ‘carry over’ epigenetic effects - Although we can find cases where epigenetic effects apparently last from parents to offspring, this is not usually the case and almost all of the epigenetic switches or marks are reset in germ cells (eggs and sperm) and in the very earliest stages of development of an embryo. In fact if this wasn’t the case, the amazing development of a fertilised egg into a fully formed creature would be impossible.
Getting from a fertilized egg to a fully formed human, it’s all in the (epi) genome - So far we have described some specific cases of epigenetic regulation, but we now know that epigenetics in its broad sense, (how genes are expressed and used, rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves) is central to how a fertilised egg can eventually give rise to a whole organism and how cells of, let’s say your skin, remain skin cells and are different from your brain cells, despite containing exactly the same genes.
Shortly after fertilisation, a developing human embryo consists of a ball of cells called embryonic stem cells. Each of these cells has the capacity to give rise to any of the types of cells in the body as the embryo grows (for example, brain cells, skin cells or blood cells). By contrast, 9 months later when a baby is born, most of the cells making up his or her body are committed to be a specific type of cell with specific functions.
So as the cells divide, the ball of embryonic stem cells gradually develops into all the cell types and structures of the baby at term. For this to happen, thousands of genes must be switched on or off at just the right times and in the right cells as an embryo grows. For example, genes that make the fibrous keratin protein that gives our skin its strength, are only switched on in skin cells and not in the developing brain and genes required for brain cells to develop and make their interconnections are on in the brain but not in the skin.
During development genes have to be switched ‘on’ and ‘off’. Epigenetic tags help with this - A very big area of research today concerns how all this gene switching on an off works, and a large part of this process uses the epigenetic chemical tags, especially acetyl and methyl histone tags. In order for those embryonic stem cells to be able to give rise to all of the other types of cells, their epigenetic switches are (almost) completely reset compared to adult cells. I have put “almost” in brackets as we know from imprinted genes and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance that there are exceptions.
Epigenetics, Dolly the sheep and friends - In February 1997, a sheep called Dolly became the most famous example of her species, briefly even becoming a TV celebrity. The reason for her fame is that she was the first mammal to be “created” by a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or in other words the first man-made clone (man-made to be distinct from identical twins, who are natural clones).
The process leading to her birth required a mature oocyte (a unfertilised egg) from one female sheep and an ordinary cell from the udder of a second sheep. First the nucleus (the part containing the DNA) was removed from the oocyte. This was done using a special microscope as although oocytes are quite big compared to other cells, they are still too small to see with the naked eye. Then the nucleus from the udder cell was inserted into enucleated oocyte. Thus, Dolly had three “mothers”: the donor of the oocyte, the donor of the udder cell and the sheep that carried the developing embryo to term.
No father was involved. Although this process was, and remains, very inefficient it was the first proof that the genes from an adult mammalian cell can be “epigenetically reprogrammed” back to the state of the embryonic stem cells that can develop into any other type of cell. Subsequently the same process has been applied to other species and may have medical uses in generating cells that could repair tissues damaged by injury or disease.
Summary: the epigenome and the ENCODE project – the “Large Hadron Collider” of Biology - Whereas the term “genome” refers to the entire DNA sequence of an organism (three billion letters of it for humans), the epigenome refers to the entire pattern of epigenetic modifications across all genes, including methyl DNA tags, methyl histone tags, acetyl histone tags and other chemical tags that we have not mentioned, in each cell type of an organism.
This represents an almost unimaginable amount of information, dwarfing even the human genome project. Nevertheless, knowledge of the epigenome is essential to fully answer some of the biggest questions in biology such as: how do we develop from a ball of identical cells into a whole organism? why do we age? and how can we better understand diseases such as cancer?
Not surprisingly then, epigenetics and the epigenome is a big area of research.
Some of the research in this field is encompassed by the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project, an ongoing venture to identify patterns of epigenetic tags in many different types of cells for the entire human genome (http://genome.ucsc.edu/ENCODE/). The ENCODE project is sometimes likened to the Large Hadron Collider or LHC in Switzerland.
The LHC is the largest piece of scientific equipment ever built and the experiments physicist conduct with it aim to probe the fundamental details of the matter that makes up our Universe. Although biologists don’t have (or need) such a spectacular piece of kit for their research, the effort to examine the intricacy of the human epigenome has been likened to the LHC project because of its scale, complexity and the amount of information being created.
Epigenetic errors - Epigenetics is an area where our scientific knowledge is rapidly increasing. One thing that scientists have discovered is that epigenetic errors are common in diseases such as cancer and in ageing cells. As a result, scientists are developing medicines that target faulty epigenomes and one of the first examples is the use of HDAC inhibitors, similar to the compound found in royal jelly.
From the study of strange patterns of inheritance such as genetic imprinting, the yellow/agouti Avy mouse, the all-female tortoiseshell cat population and other related phenomena biologists have uncovered a whole new layer of information that lies “on top” of the DNA sequence of our genes. These new discoveries explain these previous puzzling observations, but also have great potential for new understanding and treatments for human disease.
https://bscb.org/learning-resources/softcell-e-learning/epigenetics-its-not-just-genes-that-make-us/
---------------------
Epigenetics is one of the hottest fields in the life sciences. It’s a phenomenon with wide-ranging, powerful effects on many aspects of biology, and enormous potential in human medicine. As such, its ability to fill in some of the gaps in our scientific knowledge is mentioned everywhere from academic journals to the mainstream media to some of the less scientifically rigorous corners of the Internet.
Wondering why identical twins aren’t actually, well, identical? Epigenetics!
Want to blame your parents for something that doesn’t seem to be genetic? Epigenetics!
Got a weird result from an experiment that doesn’t seem to make sense? Epigenetics!
Want to think yourself healthy? That’s not epigenetics! (Sorry ‘bout that).
Epigenetics is essentially additional information layered on top of the sequence of letters (strings of molecules called A, C, G, and T) that makes up DNA.
If you consider a DNA sequence as the text of an instruction manual that explains how to make a human body, epigenetics is as if someone's taken a pack of highlighters and used different colours to mark up different parts of the text in different ways. For example, someone might use a pink highlighter to mark parts of the text that need to be read the most carefully, and a blue highlighter to mark parts that aren't as important.
There are different types of epigenetic marks, and each one tells the proteins in the cell to process those parts of the DNA in certain ways. For example, DNA can be tagged with tiny molecules called methyl groups that stick to some of its C letters. Other tags can be added to proteins called histones that are closely associated with DNA. There are proteins that specifically seek out and bind to these methylated areas, and shut it down so that the genes in that region are inactivated in that cell. So methylation is like a blue highlighter telling the cell "you don't need to know about this section right now."
Methyl groups and other small molecular tags can attach to different locations on the histone proteins, each one having a different effect. Some tags in some locations loosen the attachment between the DNA and the histone, making the DNA more accessible to the proteins that are responsible for activating the genes in that region; this is like a pink highlighter telling the cell "hey, this part's important".
Other tags in other locations do the opposite, or attract other proteins with other specific functions. There are epigenetic marks that cluster around the start points of genes; there are marks that cover long stretches of DNA, and others that affect much shorter regions; there are even epigenetic modifications of RNA, a whole new field that I’m simultaneously fascinated by and trying to ignore because it’s bound to create a lot of extra work for me in both the project manager and the grant writing parts of my role. There are no doubt many other marks we don’t even know about yet.
Even though every cell in your body starts off with the same DNA sequence, give or take a couple of letters here and there, the text has different patterns of highlighting in different types of cell – a liver cell doesn't need to follow the same parts of the instruction manual as a brain cell. But the really interesting thing about epigenetics is that the marks aren’t fixed in the same way the DNA sequence is: some of them can change throughout your lifetime, and in response to outside influences. Some can even be inherited, just like some highlighting still shows up when text is photocopied.
Any outside stimulus that can be detected by the body has the potential to cause epigenetic modifications. It’s not yet clear exactly which exposures affect which epigenetic marks, nor what the mechanisms and downstream effects are, but there are a number of quite well characterized examples, from chemicals to lifestyle factors to lived experiences:
Bisphenol A (BPA) is an additive in some plastics that has been linked to cancer and other diseases and has already been removed from consumer products in some countries. BPA seems to exert its effects through a number of mechanisms, including epigenetic modification.
The beneficial effects of exercise have been known for generations, but the mechanisms are still surprisingly hazy. However, there’s mounting evidence that changes to the pattern of epigenetic marks in muscle and fatty tissue are involved.
Childhood abuse and other forms of early trauma also seem to affect DNA methylation patterns, which may help to explain the poor health that many victims of such abuse face throughout adulthood.
Epigenetic inheritance - This is an area where the hype has advanced faster and further than the actual science. There have been some fascinating early studies on the inheritance of epigenetic marks, but most of the strongest evidence so far comes from research done on mice. There have been hints that some of these findings also apply to human inheritance, but we’ve only just started to untangle this phenomenon.
We’ve known for some time that certain environmental factors experienced by adult mice can be passed on to their offspring via epigenetic mechanisms. The best example is a gene called agouti, which is methylated in normal brown mice. However, mice with an unmethylated agouti gene are yellow and obese, despite being genetically essentially identical to their skinny brown relatives. Altering the pregnant mother’s diet can modify the ratio of brown to yellow offspring: folic acid results in more brown pups, while BPA results in more yellow pups.
Research on the epigenetic inheritance of addictive behavior is less advanced, but does look quite promising. Studies in rats recently demonstrated that exposure to THC (the active compound in cannabis) during adolescence can prime future offspring to display signs of predisposition to heroin addiction.
Studies of humans whose ancestors survived through periods of starvation in Sweden and the Netherlands suggest that the effects of famine on epigenetics and health can pass through at least three generations. Nutrient deprivation in a recent ancestor seems to prime the body for diabetes and cardiovascular problems, a response that may have evolved to mitigate the effects of any future famines in the same geographic area.
Epigenetics research continues apace in labs investigating a dazzling variety of topics. One interesting direction is the application of high-throughput sequencing technologies to the characterization of hundreds of ‘epigenomes’ (epigenetic marks across the entire genome). I manage a project that’s part of the International Human Epigenomics Consortium (IHEC), and am also a member of a couple of the consortium’s working groups, so I see for myself every day how fast this field is progressing.
The goal of IHEC is to generate at least 1,000 publicly available ‘reference’ epigenomes (patterns of DNA methylation, six histone modifications, and gene activation) from various normal and diseased cell types. These references will serve as a baseline in other studies, in the same way that the original human genome project sequenced a reference genome to which scientists can now compare their own results to identify changes associated with specific diseases.
This is a field that’s guaranteed to keep generating headlines and catching the public’s interest. The apparent ability of epigenetics to fill some pretty diverse gaps in our understanding of human health and disease, and to provide scientific mechanisms for so many of our lived experiences, makes it very compelling, but we do need to be careful not to over-interpret the evidence we’ve collected so far. And we certainly need to be highly sceptical of anyone claiming that we can consciously change our epigenomes in specific ways through the power of thought.
Now that I’ve piqued your interest in this fascinating field (and maybe that of your unborn children. Epigenetics!), in my next piece I’ll explore the role of epigenetic changes in the onset of cancer and other diseases, and what this means for the development of new treatment options.
There are links to videos and other resources about epigenetics on the IHEC website. There’s also a free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in epigenetics offered by the University of Melbourne on the Coursera site; I can’t vouch for the course yet, but it looks good and I’ve signed up for the session that starts on April 28th 2014 so I can vet it for work-related purposes.
Cath Ennis is a Vancouver-based project manager and grant writer in the field of cancer genomics and epigenomics. Help her investigate the epigenetic effects of Twitter: @enniscath. America faces an epic choice...
... in the coming year, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. This US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour. Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace. Truth is being chased away. But with your help we can continue to put it center stage. It will be a defining year and we’re asking for your help as we prepare for 2020.
Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media's tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform the American public in 2020. The need for a robust, independent press has never been greater, and with your help we can continue to provide fact-based reporting that offers public scrutiny and oversight. You’ve read more than 18 articles in the last four months. Our journalism is free and open for all, but it's made possible thanks to the support we receive from readers like you across America in all 50 states.
"America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness. Many vital aspects of American public life are in play – the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth inequality, Big Tech and much more. The stakes could hardly be higher. As that choice nears, the Guardian, as it has done for 200 years, and with your continued support, will continue to argue for the values we hold dear – facts, science, diversity, equality and fairness." – US editor, John Mulholland
On the occasion of its 100th birthday in 1921 the editor of the Guardian said, "Perhaps the chief virtue of a newspaper is its independence. It should have a soul of its own." That is more true than ever. Freed from the influence of an owner or shareholders, the Guardian's editorial independence is our unique driving force and guiding principle.
We also want to say a huge thank you to everyone who supported the Guardian in 2019. You provide us with the motivation and financial support to keep doing what we do. We’re asking our readers to help us raise $1.5m to support our rigorous journalism in the new year. Every contribution, big or small, will help us reach it. Make a gift from as little as $1. Thank you.
--------------------
My basic understanding if epigenetics, is an ability to adjust to environmental pressures that isn't mutation driven. I suppose we cant just blame our parents but our great grand parents for the fact we get an urge for cheesecake..Environmental elasticity makes sense for any animal but does any long term factors have an effect on our core DNA as a fixed trait? I always assumed Savana theory section fixes a trait as best served genes get to have a next generation. A new mix of DNA rinse and repeat. Ironically it seems we need a monks life until we have children, then have our crazy 18 to 24 lifestyle in our early 40s. Sex is ok just no rock and roll until your midlife crisis. Its an epigentic who done it. Grandpa Colonel Mustard with the desert trolly...
It certainly adds a layer of complexity to trying to understand gene and environment interactions (which are already complex and poorly understood).
The tv piece I saw was based on data from placental records in the middle east as they have to be buried as they are part of the body....
I hate to use the Gataca distopian example but as a long term health plan, epigenetic inherited adaptions could be avoided or reversed. A bit of a guilt trip before you're potty trained but would save you from a tutting doctor at your 50 year MOT..
If epigenetics was better understood, it would be a potent ally of feminism. In cultures where men are fed better, educated more and expose their wives and daughters to damagingly high stresses, they would suddenly realise that inequality hurts THEM too. Deprive women, and the consequences for the next generation of their sons and daughters persists.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2014/apr/25/epigenetics-beginners-guide-to-everything
------------------------
Epigenetic changes alter the physical structure of DNA. One example of an epigenetic change is DNA methylation — the addition of a methyl group, or a "chemical cap," to part of the DNA molecule, which prevents certain genes from being expressed. Another example is histone modification.
---------------------
Ah, let the Yank bashing begin. Seriously, is there an actual Quora desk somewhere in the Kremlin basement solely dedicated to trolling Britons and Americans on to each other's throats? It's get this as crystal clear as possible: if any ONE of the Allied forces of WWII had either sat out the war or (worse still) actively supported the Axis, the result would have been what it damn near was: triumph of the dictators. Germany fought the entire world alone in the two greatest and most terrible conflicts in human history and, but for the bungling of the high command, they would have won them both.
No USSR? Germany wins. No Britain? Germany wins. No US? Germany wins.In each case, the other axis dictators tag along for scraps like the jackals they were.
Without the Soviet eastern front, Western Europe would have been what it damn near was: fortress Europa, bristling with crack SS units and battle hardened Wehrmacht. All of the soldaten lost to the Reich in Stalingrad would have greeted the Anglo Americans with death. The specter of Paulus, Manstein, and Heitz waiting for D-Day with an intact Army Group B and Army Group Don? With 600,000 more troops? The most terrifying alternate history imaginable, utter annihilation for GI Joseph and Tommy Atkins. Period.
Without an unsinkable and unbowed Britain, American troops, planes, and material would have been forced to run a gauntlet of Kriegsmarine on the Atlantic before ever setting foot in North Africa, Italy, or France. The notion that an undefeated Britain at Herr Hitler's back would have made no difference to Operation Barbarossa is ludicrous on the face of it.
Yes, our Fraternal Socialist allies stopped Hitler at Stalingrad. Literally at the last square foot at which they could have stopped him. If not for Stalingrad, Moscow would have fallen. There simply was no other place on which to take a stand. Just a handful more of German units would have turned the tide Red and Black instead of Red and Gold. A crooked cross rather than the hammer and sickle. Period.
Without an aroused and vengeful United States, both Stalin and Churchill would have been brought to terms, their forces dwindled by starvation and lack, their fuel bunkers empty, the ammo dumps desolate.
North Africa would have not been kept by Monty without GI boots on the ground, Italy would have remained in Mussolini's fist without Americans, German factories and troop movements, free from the terror of the USAAF's b-25s, p-47s, and p-51s, would have crushed allied resistance. Period. I don't know how many an alternate history would have taken to beat Hitler, but I know how many real history DID take: ALL OF US. So spare us your disingenuous pot-stirring, you trolls.
------------------
Its an interesting question, are we assuming that the Japanese tried the northern strategy again, hitting the Soviets in the back whilst the Red Army was in a desperate fight in the west? Or that the Japanese continue as before but their plan worked the way they hope and the US is so crippled after Pearl harbour that it sues for a humiliating peace?
If its the former, the Russians have huge problems, They had just barely managed to turn the tide against the Germans at Stalingrad that same winter. The loss of Siberia’s resources would of been a blow. It still possible for the allies to have won, but the Soviet Union would of bled white. Germany and the Russians would likely collapse into revolutions or Chinese style warlordism or else reached an uneasy peace. Japan would control the entire east of Asia from Siberia to Manchuria. Europe’s Jews would likely be fully exterminated.
The British would probably liberate Italy, Greece and Southern France, but the sheer length of the war and likely favourable peace terms from the Germans might see them reach a peace, Churchill would likely need to be replaced for that to happen. Alternatively the British might continue the air war, and slowing grind Germany down and starve them with the blockade. It would likely be alot longer and more bloody.
If they knocked the US out of the war, or FDR can’t convince the Republican senate to declare war, then its the British who face the hardship. I think it would largely be the same until 1944. The British would still commit the same numbers to the theatres it did.
Though the majority of the Japanese army was bogged down in China, the British and its commonwealth particularly Australia and India are in for a long hard fight. The Japanese would likely eventually take all of what is now Indonesia pushing Allied forces back to Australia, they might make a landing in Australia but I doubt they could seize much territory fighting a long war through the Australian outback particularly against North African veterans wouldn’t have gone well for a Japanese army with little desert experience.
India provided the largest volunteer army in history to the allies, with the North Africa theatre largely secure by the end of the 1942 those forces rather than turning towards Italy might have large parts of them hived off to reinforce India. If the British were so concerned they did that, General Slim might have had the resources to retake Rangoon sooner, however it would be likely the Japanese would have control of the pacific and indian oceans, and the British didn’t have the resources to divert to hit the Japanese home islands.
D-Day wouldn’t happen, the British were never keen on attacking Northern France in a full frontal assault instead you’d of likely seen small fronts opened up in Southern France, Greece, the Balkans, and Norway. The war would of gone on longer in Europe with Germany and Russia slugging it out slowly in Eastern Europe. They would of likely just both collapsed from fatigue. Any extension of the war would likely see the holocaust completed and the Jewish people sadly wiped out from the continent of Europe.
In the East, the British might still have developed nuclear weapons on their own, the Japanese were working on them and biological weapons so might have deployed both. I think it would be more likely the British would cut a peace with them allowing the Japanese to keep all the territory they had captured from the US, French, Dutch and Chinese. Thus Japan would have achieved its imperial ambition and the British would leave the Chinese high and dry, Mao might have had to finally commit his forces against the Japanese rather than let the Nationalists do all the work. War in China rages hot and cold until the 50s when I think the Chinese would ultimately win.
The British might try to keep hold of their empire more firmly than they did. So there could be a bloody wars of independence in India, Nigeria etc. Israel would likely never be formed as there wouldn’t be the influx of jewish refugees to reinforce the jewish terrorist groups there. Europe is in ruins, no Marshall Plan sees it mostly rebuild slowly with some communists takeovers. Europe might unify though it could go the other way and the existing nations like France and Germany fragment back into their smaller progenitor states.
The american economy I think would still boom, to a lesser extent, from selling food, munitions and materials for reconstruction. Isolationism takes hold and the US though economically dominate doesn’t take an active role on the world stage. It might focus solely on the americas and ensuring that communism doesn’t take over latin america. The Cuban revolution would likely fail without the protection of the Soviets.
Japan having escaped any attacks on the home islands and gained at least for a while resources of larges parts of China, South East Asia, and the Indonesia. It would likely find itself fight communist and nationalist rebels as the returning European powers did. It might take Siberia from the shattered Soviets.
The South Africans would probably annex large parts of the region. Ultimately without the US, there is a much higher chance that at least part of the axis powers would have survived in some form till today. Japan as a major power, and the Nazis as a broken remnant. However the Soviet Union would of been unlikely to have become a superpower.
-----------------
Assuming you mean completely stayed out as in no helping the allies whatsoever there is no way the Allies would have won. All the people that say Britain or the USSR could have won the war without the help of the US are delusional.
“The US didn’t enter the war until 1941.” Yeah neither did Russia until 5 months before the US. In fact Russia was allied with Nazi Germany, and only started fighting them when Germany betrayed them and attacked them. Otherwise they might have sided with the Axis against the US.
“The Soviets fought more of the war than the U.K. or US.” The Soviet Union was invaded by Germany and had no choice but to fight or die. In fact every country near Germany spent years avoiding the war, and did not join the war until they were forced to. Russia sent 17% of their population to fight a one front war to defend their homeland. The United States sent 12% of our population across the world to fight a 2 front war to defend other people’s homelands. Russia fought defensively to defend their home. The United States has to be on the offensive to drive back people’s on foreign nations.
Also the UK sent less troops than the US, and they were fighting a one front war to defend their homeland. But here’s the kicker.
The United States supplied troops to fight in Europe and Asia, but more importantly the US supplied equipment and supplies to the US, UK, Russia, and all other allies. Without supplies from the US Russia would have been overrun by Germany. Without the US and UK bombing Germany’s infrastructure Russia would have been overrun by Germany. Without US supplies and troops Britain would have either been overrun by Germany or left in ruins depending on what Germany wanted to do with them, but no way they win the war.
Let’s not forget Russia didn’t enter WWII until Germany betrayed them, and attacked them, and let’s not forget they did not declare war on Japan until after the first atomic bomb was dropped, and the war was over. They saw the nuke and thought wow these things really are destructive let’s not piss of the US.
------------------
To answer the question, you'd have to explore why the US didn't enter WWII. Maybe Japan elects to attack Siberia instead of going into SE Asia for its natural resources? Also, Hitler manages to keep the US out of the war diplomatically? And what happens to Britain: does Hitler invade or does he basically leave it alone in terms of land invasion? (The latter is quite likely.)
The big question is whether Japan attacks the Soviets - which would seem possible if it isn't going to attack the US - and if it coordinates its attack with Germany's invasion. If Japan attacks Siberia and ends up cutting off a decent part of the Trans-Siberian Railroad while Barbarossa is in full swing, things could have gone much worse for the Soviet Union and it may have collapsed.
Another (more likely?) scenario is Japan ignores the US and the Soviet Union but attacks "everyone else" in the Pacific, basically mopping up everyone else's Pacific empires. If this happens, Australia may have fallen; the Battle of the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal are big reasons why Australia wasn't invaded by land. Assuming the US stays neutral, the Philippines are not invaded as this would trigger a US war declaration, but pretty much everything else in the Pacific is occupied by Japan.
With Japan's fleet not fighting the US and free to build out without a "real enemy" to stop it, there's no way for the UK to support India or for Indian units to be sent to the UK, so India is essentially cut off - does it simply revolt (as Japan tried to encourage)?
Assuming that the Soviets manage to beat Germany on their own (possibly with help from Lend-Lease, which I'd imagine continues), all of Europe ends up being part of the Warsaw Pact, possibly including Britain. Japan ends up with East Asia, the Pacific, and Australia. The US manages to make it through the war without direct conflict, but is likely very cold to Japan and not in love with the Soviets either, so a three-sided cold war may end up developing. In general, it is not a pleasant world, particularly since Japan would have been a victor in this war and its imperial fascism would now be backed with a vast empire with hundreds of millions of subjects.
Not sure if the US would favor the Japanese Empire or the Soviet Union in this situation, but my guess would be the Soviets for strategic reasons, although this would not be a "warm" alliance. It's hard to see how another big war doesn't happen with this very unstable geopolitical arrangement. Other items: the Manhattan Project itself likely still happens, although without the sense of urgency - or cash - it would have if the US actually fights in the war, but the US still ends up with nukes before 1950.
----------------
Before we can address what the world would look like without US involvement in WWII, we have to consider what would have had to have happened to have removed the conditions necessary for US involvement in the war. Otherwise, it becomes a particularly torturous exercise to argue why the US sits out when so many of its strategic interests were at stake.
First, we have to take President Franklin Roosevelt out of the picture. Whether we do it in 1932 or 1940, his commitment to providing assistance to America’s allies, and his guarantees to protect US holdings in the Pacific, guaranteed the country’s entanglement in WWII. It would be more convenient for this scenario to remove him in 1932 than 1940, because by the later date the criteria that guarantee US involvement in the war are almost set in stone, regardless of whether a non-interventionist is sitting in the White House.
As it happens, we might be able to do this easily. In February 1933, just weeks before he was to be inaugurated, FDR was the target of an assassination attempt. He was not wounded, but the mayor of Chicago was killed instead. If we assume for purposes of this question that the assassin was successful and killed FDR, then John Nance Garner would become president.
Vice President Garner’s interests were decidedly at home, and he was not nearly as enthusiastic a proponent of Federal intervention as Roosevelt was. As such, he would likely have taken a far more reactive approach to ending the Depression – which might well have happened more slowly, but likely with enough progress to secure his reelection in 1936. When war began to rear its ugly head, Garner would have likely taken steps to affirm US neutrality. His philosophy towards the war was as follows:
"These European wars never seem to settle anything. They unsettle. Every war there seems to create the necessity of another one. A war now would be the most wasteful and costly in history. We would probably have to do most of the fighting and pay most of the money costs. . . . If war comes and we stay out of it our interest will be in bringing about a just peace. Any President backed by the might of this country can be effective in that way."
-Timmons, Bascom. Garner of Texas: A Personal History
And unlike Roosevelt, he was also staunchly against seeking a third term in office:
"I am against a third term whether there is war in Europe and the Orient or not. There are many men of capacity in the Democratic party. . . . I have had everything from my party I have a right to ask or expect. I want to be of what service I can to it, but as a private citizen. I would oppose my own brother for a third term."
-Timmons, Bascom. Garner of Texas: A Personal History
Given a slower economic recovery and several years of "forceful neutrality," it's possible that the US could have been conditioned for a Robert Taft Republican presidency, or A. Victor Donahey if the Democrats managed a third term, with a policy of keeping the US out of the war at all costs. This could mean, among many factors, dramatic concessions given to Japan in negotiations during 1941 - as it could be assumed that the US had not embarked on rapid naval expansion in Garner's second term as it did under Roosevelt's, while Japan's went on course, thus putting the US in a position of weakness.
Likewise, with both Taft and Donahey opponents of providing aide to the European powers, there's no lend-lease program to Europe.
So having taken the US out of the war in all plausible scenarios - but we'll give it a policy of armed neutrality, to prevent a scenario whereby the US is attacked and brought into the war - let's look at the impact on the war in its major theaters.
North Africa - It's unlikely that Operation Torch could have proceeded in 1942 without the 50,000-odd US forces that participated. If it did go forward, it would likely have been much more limited in scope. More likely, it seems, the troops would have been committed to the defense of Egypt and the Second Battle of El Alamein, and this would have set up a very long battle of attrition across the rest of the theater.
The Axis position in North Africa wasn't exactly untenable, but it was their weakest front. Fighting might have dragged on until the Allies could threaten the Axis supply base in Tunis - say late-1943 - at which point the Axis would likely withdraw.
While the North African Campaign is often overlooked in the popular narrative of WWII, it was necessary to defeat the Axis powers there in order to open up the potential for landings in Italy and Southern France, thus further extending Germany's armed forces. However, without the US, it would be a while before the Allies could reorganize and rebuild their strength in North Africa to consider invasion of either country. In this timeline, perhaps the invasion of Sicily comes in early-1944, after the Royal Navy had sufficiently cleared the Mediterranean of Axis fleets.
Almost certainly the commitment of additional resources to securing North Africa would stall plans to invade France via the English Channel.
Europe - It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Soviet Union would not dominate the European theater of operations in the absence of US engagement - and certainly if the Allies found themselves stalled in primary operations in Africa.
Even lacking the benefit of Lend-Lease materials from the US (which weren't guaranteed until November 1941 and didn't begin arriving in the Soviet Union in large quantities until 1942), it's unlikely that the Soviets would have surrendered in the face of German aggression. The Soviets would have absolutely suffered higher casualties in the march to recover lost territory in the absence of that equipment; however, once their offensive got rolling, in earnest, it would be difficult for the Germans to stop.
The Soviet advance would undoubtedly be a motivating factor for Germany to begin withdrawing its forces from other parts of Europe, which might allow for the battered UK and Allied forces to attempt an invasion of France in 1945 (or 1946, depending on the extent of the damage). The withdrawal of German troops might alleviate Italian resistance (in the absence of a significant Allied presence in the country) and secure its liberation from German control before the Soviet onslaught. In the race to Germany, however, the Soviets would be the winner, perhaps taking the whole of the country before the Allied forces could get their act together.
Pacific - The operations in this part of the war would be most dramatically changed without US presence. As Churchill considered the Pacific a secondary theater - part of his lobbying the US heavily for a "Hitler first" strategy - it was woefully under-prepared to defend against Japan. With the US out of the picture, far more of Japan's considerable military might would be dedicated to its blitz through the South Pacific.
Singapore and Burma would fall more rapidly, and Australia, having been effectively sidelined by Churchill (almost all of Australia's trained soldiers had been sent to the Middle East) and without American reinforcements, would almost certainly be invaded.
The trend of the situation in Malaya and the attack on Rabaul are giving rise to a public feeling of grave uneasiness at Allied impotence to do anything to stem the Japanese advance. The Government, in realising its responsibility to prepare the public for the possibility of resisting an aggressor, also has a duty and obligation to explain why it may not have been possible to prevent the enemy reaching our shores.
We looked to America, among other things, for counsel and advice. . . . It is a matter of some regret to us that, even now, after 95 days of Japan's staggering advance south, ever south, we have not obtained first-hand contact with America. . . . We are, then, committed, heart and soul, to total warfare. . . . We will not yield easily a yard of our soil. We have great space here and tree by tree, village by village, and town by town we will fall back if we must. . . . For, remember, we are the Anzac breed.
-Australian Prime Minister John Curtin, in cables to Winston Churchill (January 1942) and address to America (March 1942)
In the meantime, and similar to the Soviet Union, without the benefit of Lend-Lease equipment from America (and later direct military assistance from US General Joseph Stilwell's expedition), and a greatly reduced capacity to be reinforced from the UK following the severing of routes from Burma and India, China would face a significantly harder war.
But even with early, dramatic successes, it's highly unlikely that Japan would be able to hold on to its expanded holdings. There's no reason to believe that the Chinese would ultimately surrender, nor the Australians. Further, it's likely that the Japanese, bolstered by their gains across the Pacific, would more enthusiastically attempt an invasion of India to force the UK and its dominions out of the war, and this would likely be its "bridge too far."
Facing resistance in Australia, China, and concerted offensives out of India - and quite possibly still the Soviet Union - with the end of the European war, Japan would be looking at a rollback of its gains. After losing ground in mainland Asia, and the threat of more losses to come, Japan might settle for peace negotiations that would allow it to retain its Pacific island holdings while giving back some ground taken from the Allies in exchange for resource guarantees.
Fighting / resistance might persist in China for a while longer until it becomes too costly a venture for Imperial Japan, at which point they might attempt to negotiate an armistice.
Europe would be in shambles and have poor prospects for recovery. The casualties it would have suffered, and the destruction to its industrial centers, would have been phenomenally higher the longer the war went on. Furthermore, here is the last kicker of the lack of the US Lend-Lease Program:
Nations who participated in Lend-Lease had to agree to promote a "liberalized" international economy at the end of the war as part of repaying the US (another way of saying the US demanded increased access to global markets after the war). Without this commitment, and the Marshall Plan to follow, and the Soviet Union holding sway over a much larger swath of the continent, the European economy would be painfully slow to recover from the devastation.
The US might now step in with offers of assistance to rebuild in the aftermath (at least for the non-communist belligerents) and Europe might begrudgingly accept, but it would unlikely engender the kind of friendly relations between the US and Europe that we would know in our timeline.
The Cold War, too, would settle in much faster and harshly, with the flashpoint being France instead of Germany.
Post-war in our timeline, France's communist party's popularity was nipped due to the Marshall Plan's restricting communist activity in aid-receiving countries. In this timeline, however, it's unlikely that the US - which would have retained suspicions and mistrust of the Soviets and communism through its neutrality - would be able to exert such influence over Europe's domestic affairs.
France, then, might become the proxy grounds for fights between the democratic and communist blocs - if not also Greece, per our timeline, and Italy.
In short, the foundations, if not the very idea of a robust, interconnected European Community like the kind we see today is going to be kicked back several decades.
The US might have sat out WWII, but its lingering suspicions of communism and the Soviets, and the utter ruin of Europe's democratic powers, would certainly be compelling forces for it to take a more assertive role in the new Cold War.
European powers would still lose their colonial holdings, and perhaps at an even more rapid pace than in our timeline. How dramatically and disorderly colonialism comes to an end would determine the level of volatility in Africa and the Middle East, but it doesn't seem very likely that it would be too different from our history.
In the Pacific, Japan would be able to secure its holdings and would hold power over an immense amount of resources and territory. It might seek rapprochement with the West after a time in order to further its economic fortunes.
Australia, having kept up the fight without significant UK backing for several years, might join India in seeking independence from a thoroughly bankrupted and broken British Empire. It wouldn't be beyond reason for Australia to then adopt a position of neutrality in order to avoid being entangled in another conflict and threatened with invasion.
Australia would also be economically devastated, as the Curtin government had drawn up scorched-earth plans in the face of a major Japanese invasion. If the invasion was quick and overwhelming, some elements of major industry might have been spared; but civilian and military casualties would result in a significantly depleted workforce on Japan's withdrawal.
Long-term, and even with investment by the US into global recovery - because a business opportunity is a business opportunity - economic growth would be difficult to come by for many years following the war; and the geopolitical situation would be tense. The flashpoints might shift from what we know them to be, but it's unlikely that the 20th Century, on the whole, would be any more peaceful.
-------------------------
Very unlikely. In practice it was the Soviet Union that bore the brunt of the fighting, and defeated most of the German forces, and while the lack of American lend-lease assistance and bombing raids on German industry would have slowed it down, it is unlikely that it would have changed the final outcome much.
The Eastern Front absolutely dwarfed all fronts on which American troops participated both in terms of military capacity the Axis had to devote to it, and in terms of casualties they suffered. The invasion of Soviet Union cost Germany at least 2 million dead, possibly much more (many MIAs) plus many millions more captured and wounded. All other fronts combined (including the earlier invasions of Poland, France, and the Balkans) only cost them about 300 thousand dead in total.
The Brits have clearly demonstrated being able to defend their home islands and Egypt on their own before any American forces arrived, so they would not have been defeated either.
What might have been possible (though still unlikely in my opinion, given the deep hatred they earned from the Soviets) if there was no American participation is that the Axis powers might have been able to wear down their opponents enough to negotiate a peace deal that would not see them completely annihilated and perhaps even hold on to some of the land they conquered between 1938 and 1940 (this applies especially to Japan), but that’s about it.
Victory in the East was basically out of the question as soon as the German invasion of Russia started losing steam in autumn 1941, and victory over Britain became virtually impossible as soon as RAF reorganized their defences in the Battle of Britain. More likely, the Soviet forces would have still smashed the Axis and then proceeded to take over most of Europe, and this is precisely what D-day was designed to prevent.
-----------------------
More or less the same thing; albeit another 15 years.
Turkey would have joined the Axis, and Fascist Spain would have most certainly won their civil-war.
Iran, Iraq, Syria, and millions of other Muslims of occupied countries ( Allied or Axis) would join the German War Machine.
Poor, poor Israel; I don't even want to know what the SS & Muslim ( maybe even an Islamic state by then?) Nations would do? At some point the U.S. would have to declare war, and would have by then!
Japan:
They would have taken full control of New Guinea, as well as other Oceanic countries. Austraillia would eventually be cut off from most or all import-exports. Japan still would have had fuel and supply issues from the embargo, and whatever they “ liquidated” from their new territories, would still not have been enough to build a solid shipping/transport & modernized navy.
Eventually China would be Squeezed out by Nazi Muslim Iran/Iraq ( yes, there were Muslim Nazis) & Japan, but there still would have been guerillia Chinese units in the mountains, and maybe even a region or two.
India would be forced to fully enter the war, and thus keep China and a few other countries from falling completely.
Africa would have also fallen to the Axis control, other than South Africa.
Hitler would often stay awake for long hours or even days, just studying war maps and pondering ideas of bizzare and progressive nature.
One such idea was to utilize the millions of African soldiers of unoccupied countries into an anti- British & Israel (USA?) African army. This would have raised hell on that continent as well.
Sweden would have eventually been sucked in, and they had an impressive military as well. Sweden had many Fascist sympathizers during the war and this would have come to a head.
Russia would have gained back all their lost territory/ give or take- and engaged in a stalemate win Germany until one of the other got the “Bomb”…”flip a coin”?
England:
Would have gave up on all advancmemts in Europe, and concentrated on home defense and navy; specially in helping British colonies.
South America:
Argentina was a Fascist-symthatic country, and this new “non-american” war would have opened up some doors in this continent as well, specially if the Axis was in control of the war.
Germany:
Hitler’s health would have ended him one way or another; or maybe another assassination attempt. Germany would have been split between the SS and the Warmaucht. This “civil war” would have been definite had Hitler died suddenly!
Germany and Russia would have pounded each other into submission, and eventually both parties would have dissolved. Hitler had the Leabense borne (sp?) and the Hitler youth to bring up another generation of Nazis, thus extending the war into the early 60’s perhaps, but nothing more.
Muslim’s would eventually fight the Nazis, and English tenacity would never give in, and the USA would have still helped in many many ways other than Declaring war. The black sheep squadron in China would have probably grown to epic proportions, Canada would have aided England relentlessly with everything it had as well.
With no resolution, and no super power, there would have been a good chance of a WW3?! This would have been devastating for Europe n Asia, maybe even in North America on a small scale?
Things today though would look about 75% the same as there is now. I don't think Israel would exists, and South America would be more of a power than it is today, China wouldn't be a Mega power , nor even a super power, let alone even a country?
There would more Islamic nations today, and that would be the biggest difference.
I have done exstesive research into scenarios like this, as well as computer Analysis, with an active online group that actually played out and caulculated this very scenario, and others like it. We did not “play” this just to have fun or were “curious”, but quite the opposite; we wanted to know what happens when people or nations do nothing.
---------------
An American government that wanted to not join World War II would not have supported the Anglo-French alliance confronting Nazi Germany in 1939. Assuming that Germany still defeated France in 1940, Britain would have had to make peace with Germany sometime in the next few months to a year. Her international finances were collapsing (per Winston Churchill).
Without Britain maintaining a naval blockade of the continent, Germany would have defeated the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1942. Their strategic goal was to drive the Russian government east of the Urals, thus providing land for colonization in European Russia.
The next German goal was to seize control of the North Atlantic by defeating the United States in a naval war, somewhere between 1946 and 1948. That was as far as Hitler’s ambitions went, as he knew his health would be fading by then and he wanted to rule Europe as a distinguished senior statesman, the pride of the German race, etc.
However, it is likely that, after defeating the American navy, Germany would see the obvious opportunity to eliminate the British navy as a threat. That would be reasonably easy with the new technologies available in the late 1940s. It might not even take a war.
An American government not wishing to get involved in the world conflict would not have been able or willing to put as much economic pressure on Japan in 1940 and 1941. Without that pressure, Japan had several options, but the securing of the Soviet Far East, Eastern China, and Indochina would have been the simplest. A German defeat of Britain would have allowed Japan to get access to British and Dutch resources in Southeast Asia without war.
The Japanese strategic planners intended to conquer the Philippines, regardless of other considerations, but only after the Americans left in 1944. It would have taken an extraordinary collapse of the American government to keep the United States from re-arming and building a modern navy and air force in the 1940s. That would leave it, around 1946, with no option but to face down the German and Japanese empires with no European support. Canada would be fully mobilized.
Thanks to Roosevelt’s far-sighed Good Neighbor policy, Mexico, Brazil, and the rest of Latin America would be available to be mobilized using American industrial production. Australia and New Zealand would be available, though wary of Japan’s naval power. Africa would be dominated by fascists, which would give Germany access to the uranium mines in the Congo.
India would most likely be independent and industrializing at a frantic pace. Exiles from Britain and the Russian-Soviet rump state would have been welcomed, under the circumstances, especially scientists and engineers. India would be seeking support from China and Persia, both well aware that they were unavoidably pawns in the confrontations between battlegrounds between major powers. The confrontation avoided in 1939 would surely occur well before 1949. With the “wild card” event still being the invention of atomic weapons.
----------------
Quite Apt map. A Picture worth a thousand words and all that. So let’s suppose for the sake of supposition that Isolationists in America Triumph. (Seriously Doubt it but let’s assume. PoD #1) America withdraws into own self and works through the depression. More people suffer and potentially a lot live under poverty line. Since they’re in isolation, military expenditure is severely curtailed and is above bare minimum. That equates to no Jobs at the Docks on West Coast or Aircraft assembly plants.
Another assumption (PoD #2) is that the isolationists do not comment/interfere/lift a finger to save the Chinese. Other countries in Europe tut tut over it with much hand wringing and that’s about it. Scrap metal and Gasoline keeps on flowing to Japan. No Pearl Harbor. The Attack North Camp gathers momentum and Japan decides to go North. American Holdings in Far east remain intact for now. Japan does still go after other areas such as Burma, Singapore, Malaya etc. But their main thrust is into India and beyond along with Far Eastern Siberia.
In the meanwhile Hitler happens to Europe as expected. Maybe he manages to draw a truce with Far Right in Britain and gets his peace with them. Royal Navy does not blockade him. They too are worried since UBoats could savage their underescorted Convoys from America. Since America is out, no lend lease. So Britain has to pay for every single thing or import from Asian Holdings. They end up making Peace with Hitler, who gobbles up France anyway.
Then he turns East and gets into a long Drawn out war. Stalin trades land for time and eventually routes Germany by causing Communist Resistance all over Eastern Europe and particularly in Romania (read Ploesti Oil). Hitler is defeated and Communists in western Europe Celebrate World Communism Day. Lenin and Marx’s Dream comes true. Soviet Socialists rule from Atlantic to Balkans to Pacific.
Meanwhile Japan realizes they have bit more than they can chew with Siberia, get bogged down into mushy snow after making good progress. But due to lack of good Armor and Artillery, they are eventually pushed out. They do still manage to reach Mid India and driving British to Truce Table. The Indian Azad Hind Force makes a stunning comeback and causes a 2nd Indian Sepoy Mutiny like the one in 1857. Aghast at this shock, the British find pushed on all sides with Stalin wanting his own peace in Middle East and Afghanistan. British leave Asia.
In China in the meantime,Chiang Kai-shek and his Kuomintang gains momentum and with secret British help, manage to subdue the Communists and sideline them. He bides his time and gathers resources. With Stalin Hounding the Japanese, he decides to strike, driving the Japanese out once and for all. Chiang Kai Shek is considered as the True Successor of Sun Yat-sen. He becomes a National hero and is worshiped as such. He doesn't stop there and goes on to push the Japanese from Cambodia and Vietnam asserting those as the long lost Territories of China.
2nd Butterflies - Germany actually grows a Diplomatic Bone and gets a gargantuan dose of rational thinking. They massively help the East Block provinces such as Baltic nations and Particularly Ukraine. With those being built as Buffer Zone and suitably antagonized and armed against Moscow, a coalition is formed that goes to war against Soviets. The forced Collectivization and Famine already had done the groundwork for such animosity. After the Purges, Red army had been severely weakened. They keep on trading land for time.
But with Siberian and Far East Armies busy Guarding against and Fighting the Japanese, there’s nothing more for them to draw upon and they reach stalemate. In the face of Coalition Armies at the door of Moscow, Stalin is assassinated and Kruschev/Beria take his place. A Truce and Ceasefire is reached with Berlin. Severe Curtailment on Army Size and reparations are agreed with Berlin.
-------------------------
I am going to make 2 assumptions. One, Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor and two, the US maintained strict neutrality.
The British Empire was nearly broke by the beginning of 1941 and the USSR lacked the industrial capacity to build the materials necessary to fight the Nazi’s. Both were very dependent on the US for the materials provided through the lend-lease program. The UK received over $31 billion worth of materials from the US and the USSR received about $11 billion.
From Wikipedia: The USSR was very dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically ended rail equipment production. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war, with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945. In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars which augmented the existing prewar stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars.
Furthermore, much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. By 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.
Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30% of Soviet wartime aircraft production (mid 1941-45). And while most tank units were Soviet-built models, some 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks were deployed by the Red Army, or 8% of war-time production.
According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
“On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.”
Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
“I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.”
Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference during 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."
In a confidential interview with the wartime correspondent Konstantin Simonov, the Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov is quoted as saying:
“Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us… But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.”
With the USSR and the UK unable to sustain the costs of the war, the Axis powers would have won and the world would look much different today.
Virtually all of Europe would have been Fascist, the USSR would have been pushed east of the Urals, the UK would have made a tenuous peace with Germany and the US would have remained a weak country.
In the Pacific, Japan would have taken and held the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, New Guinea and much of China.
The USA’s arsenal of Democracy was vital to defeating Fascism in Europe and Japanese Militarism in the Pacific. The attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war on the USA were the key turning point in the war.
--------------------
Sitting back and letting happen what happened to the rest of the world wasn’t something this nation would have been able to do. Yes it might have been out of it for a while, but there were problems which more than likely would have happened which would have brought us into the war no matter what. But there is also information which seems to keep being left out of history books, that turn out to be some of the most agonizing problems FDR had to deal with in the beginning stages of the developing second world war.
In China, and other countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, French Indo-China the Solomon Islands there were into the thousands of American Missionaries, nurses and doctors, as well as construction workers. As these locations were over run by the Japanese these people were treated as combatants and put into prison camps, this included men, women and their children as well. Some of these people were interned from 1937 and possibly earlier until the end of the war. Children grew up in these camps, and nothing that I’ve read goes into any details as to how many of these people died while being held.
As you read about the different embargos that America used against the Japanese be it oil, be it scrap iron, or whatever it is my speculation here that this real reason for these was to pressure the Japanese into letting these people go from where they were being held.
Returning to those nations or countries mentioned in the second paragraph Japan would have had to work around the Philippines, which had a rather large American presence there in Air Force, Naval, and of course Army personal. Having this country would allow the Japanese to be able to send troops to it so that they could train their men in jungle warfare. Also with Manila bay, they could have used this anchorage for protection during the times in the Pacific Typhoons, extremely large hurricanes were taking place.
Imagine, just giving you an idea of the size difference if Katrina which hit America and did the damage it did was a Typhoon from the Pacific, and the size of it being 3 and a half times larger than Katrina that did hit the southern part of America? Instead of the destruction as it was, imagine the scope of things because the area hit could be from Tampa Bay, Florida, to the Brownsville, TX, area and with the storm surge the same, we would be looking as such destruction it is unimaginable! But remember this is just giving you the idea of the difference in size and scope of a hurricane and a typhoon.
Japan as was also stated in other answers wasn’t allowed to use the Panama Canal, how and why they didn’t use disguised ships and go in and take this over we will never know. Unless it was explained to them that this would be destroyed by our troops stationed there, again something we will not know the answer to.
Not willing to allow the German’s to starve England out of existence nor allow them to sink their ships with impunity, we would have begun sending our own convoy’s and the fact the German’s were conducting full scale war on shipping in the Atlantic, it would have taken only one, maybe two incidents of German U-boats sinking American shipping to have brought about what took place on December 7th, 1941.
The next real problem which no doubt would have caused problems unknown is the fact the supply lines of our shipping to the underbelly of Russia through Tunisia, known today as Iran, without those supplies being sent, could Russia have withstood the German invasion? We haven’t any clue or number of how many American made tanks were destroyed on the Eastern Front by the German’s as they were driving towards Stalingrad?
The interesting point of this is that when our tanks came into Europe in 1944 after Normandy, their losses were staggering. But consider this please, this was with a depleted German Panzer corp, if these had been sent against Panzer corps missing only 10% instead of 40 or 50% of their tanks, Normandy wouldn’t have happened, and depending upon when the T-34 was being produced en mass, along with the KV-1, quite possibly Germany with it’s lightning war tactics would knock out Russia, thus setting the stage for something we never would have considered, another invasion of a foreign power trying to take over our country.
Bottom line regarding the question asked here there really wasn’t any way we were going to be kept out of this war. By the bombing of Pearl Harbor, this did a number of things which saved thousands upon thousands of American lives. It showed the Navy the vulnerability of our singled hulled battleships and what one or two torpedos could do to these ships. Also it showed that the days of the Battleship were numbered as well.
This is why at wars end America had 110 Air Craft Carries of various sizes operating in the PTO. When you add to these ships they support ships, it is no wonder the armada which was preparing to invade Japan was the biggest fleet every assembled in history with an estimated 25000 ships from the Fleet Carriers down to the PT Boats and mine sweepers and everything in between.
Had we simply let the world wreck itself in yet another world war and we didn’t assist, but worse, when those who had money could purchase war materials, and if we didn’t care who purchased, yes we could have become even wealthier than we were, but we also would have at that time in history become the most hated nation every upon the face of the earth.
Secondly the nuclear age would quite possibly not happened for another 10 to 15 years, but worse, without our supplying Russia with unlimited war materials, from 75mm, 90mm, 105mm, and 155 mm artillery, P-39 airacobra planes which the Russians mastered in usage against German tanks, and fortification, along with an unlimited supply of munitions, food, and other needs to keep an army able to fight, Russia quite possibly would have been knocked out of the war completely allowing Germany to begin moving it’s manufacturing further east and out of range of American bombers.
Conscripts would have been used in these factories and with the Tiger 1 and the Tiger 2 tanks being massed produced, without worry of bombing raids, if they would have produced 5,000 of each of these with twice the number of the Panther G models who were using both the 88 mm gun and the new high speed 75 mm which for the most part devastated any of our tanks, plus building of the Me-262 fighters in mass, we would have been hard pressed to overcome them.
If they also had been able to go into Georgia and put out the fires in the oil fields, frankly the war in Europe would have been over. What would take place afterwards, we can sit and speculate like the question here speculates on what would have happened if the US would have stayed out of the war.
Without the government funding required the Manhattan Project might never have come to be, which means that Germany with Russia now out of the war had accomplished everything it set out to do. With a focus now on getting the atomic bomb without interference, well you can imagine the results if Germany at this time in history had gotten there first.
----------------------
It entirely depends on how little the US would intervene, if the US decided to not enter the war at all while still sending lend lease; it is likely that the war would remain somewhat similar to the outcome in our second world war but with a twist. In this scenario the Red Army never stops advancing, they cleave into Denmark, Austria, and Northern Italy while British and Free French forces struggle desperately to save the Low Lands and as much of Italy as physically possible.
It is entirely likely that Stalin, seeing the US completely unwilling to get involved in any European war, would decide to stiff Churchill at the negotiation table and instead set up puppet governments in all of the countries the USSR had occupied. As a result, it is far more likely that Communism would prevail over Capitalism as the USSR without a deterrent may see fighting the Western allies for control of the entire continent of Europe as profitable.
The Second scenario is that the US simply flat up refuses to help the Allies at all, no lend lease, and no US intervention. Without US trucks, trains, planes, tanks, and high grade fuel, the Soviets are unable to quickly and efficiently mobilize their entire army, costing them dearly as time suddenly becomes Germany’s friend.
The British would suffer greater losses in Africa without the American designed Sherman and the British converted Grant, while they would still win eventually as Rommel was on his last limb, the conflict would be an extremely bloody affair as the tank forces would be equal on a technological level.
Japan would run wild in the Pacific, breaking Britain’s access to it’s oil rich colonies and soldiers from India; crippling her. Australia and New Zealand would be blockaded by the far superior Japanese Navy. The Germans would definitely take Moscow in this scenario, whether or not they would have won the war is entirely unpredictable.
-----------------
I guess we would have just unilaterally surrendered to Tojo and Hirohito, and said “We’re not willing to fight, so you just take over.”
We didn’t have a choice in the matter. The Imperial Government of Japan decided that the United States was going to actively participate in World War II, and then Adolf Hitler decided that was a good idea and declared war on us, too.
The only way to make your premise actually happen would have been for Japan to meet U.S. demands and withdraw from China and French Indochina, which they were not willing to do. Had they done so (fat chance), then there is a chance the United States might not have ever joined the war. Assuming it still provided Lend-Lease to the Soviets, they still would have defeated Nazi Germany, and the ultimate outcome of World War II would have been a Communist-dominated Europe all the way to the Atlantic. The border between East and West would have (at best) been the Pyrenees and the North Sea, rather than the Oder.
The Cold War still would have happened, only with China on our side and Germany, France and Italy on the Soviet side, and both sides courting a still militaristic Japan. I have a feeling that we and the Brits would have protected Falangist Spain, and it would have been a much more significant part of the postwar world order.
There’s a cliche in jurisprudence circles to the effect that “Hard cases make bad law”. In this context, a poor question has generated ahistorical responses.
As worded, the question implies America had a choice of participating or not in WWII. This premise is false - Japan declared war by aerial attack on December 7, 1941, and Germany declared war via a Hitler proclamation 4 days later. Despite the best efforts of the isolationists, the U.S. was perforce involved.
Now we come to the disappointing responses. Suresh says “[The Royal Navy} too are worried since UBoats could savage their underescorted Convoys from America.” The convoys had been setting out from Halifax, Nova Scotia almost since the war began in September, 1939. How do you think Britain stayed fed and armed during the early years?
Jack writes “In a situation where the USA does not fight and does not provide special treatment for the Allies, the course of the war changes quite a bit. Germany takes over all of continental Europe and launches the Battle of Britain, however, Hitler realizes that the USA is not helping, so scraps Sea Lion. “ What are you talking about? Germany already had done those things before the U.S. was a combatant.
Then Mathew says “Without American aid, predominantly food, industrial goods, and vehicles like trains and trucks, the Soviets may have lost more ground. Seeing a Soviet collapse, Japan might just declare war and help mop up the Soviets instead of attacking American possessions. “ Another what-are-you-talking-about moment…there was no American aid to speak of during the critical period between the start of Germany’s attack on the USSR of June 22, 1941, and Pearl Harbor Day. Lend-Lease to the USSR from the US was only extended in October. Here’s an interesting piece of research which suggests aid from Britain may have helped turn away the Nazis from the gates of Moscow just before Christmas, 1941. Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans. Do your homework before you respond, guys.
------------------
What if Germany had never declared war on the United States during World War II?
Scholars and analysts have long wondered whether this represented one of the great “what-ifs” of World War II; could the Germans have kept the United States out of the war, or at least undercut popular support for fighting in the European Theater, by declining to join the Japanese offensive?
Was the decision to declare war on the United States, effectively relieving the Roosevelt administration of the responsibility of mobilizing American sentiment for war in Europe, among Hitler’s greatest blunders?
Probably not. Washington and Berlin agreed that war was inevitable; the only question was who would fire the first shots.
At War:
The United States and Germany were at war in all but name well before December 1941. Since early 1941 (at least) the United States had shipped war material and economic goods to the United Kingdom, enabling the British government to carry on with the war. American soldiers, sailors, and airmen served in the British armed forces, albeit not in great numbers. And in the late summer of 1941, the United States effectively found itself at war in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Greer Incident, in which a U.S. destroyer tangled with a German U-boat, served to bring the conflict into sharp focus.
The Fireside Chat delivered by President Roosevelt on September 11, 1941 made clear that the United States was already virtually at war with Germany:
“Upon our naval and air patrol -- now operating in large number over a vast expanse of the Atlantic Ocean -- falls the duty of maintaining the American policy of freedom of the seas -- now. That means, very simply, very clearly, that our patrolling vessels and planes will protect all merchant ships -- not only American ships but ships of any flag -- engaged in commerce in our defensive waters. They will protect them from submarines; they will protect them from surface raiders.
It is no act of war on our part when we decide to protect the seas that are vital to American defense. The aggression is not ours. Ours is solely defense.
But let this warning be clear. From now on, if German or Italian vessels of war enter the waters, the protection of which is necessary for American defense, they do so at their own peril.”
This declaration did not simply apply to U.S. territorial waters. The United States would escort convoys filled with military equipment to Europe with surface ships and anti-submarine craft, firing at will against any German submarines, ships or planes that they encountered.
Moreover, even U.S. ground forces had begun to participate in the war. In early July 1941, the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps, with Navy support, began deploying to Iceland. The Americans relieved British and Canadian troops who had invaded the island a year earlier.
Why?
In the long run, Hitler (and the rest of the German government) believed that confrontation with the United States was virtually inevitable. The U.S. had intervened in 1917 on behalf of Russia, France, and the United Kingdom; it was almost certain to do so again. U.S. behavior in 1941 reaffirmed this belief. Starting the war on German terms, before the U.S. was prepared to effectively defend itself, was the consensus position within the German political and military elite.
And so Germany declared war on the United States not out of a fit of pique, but rather because it believed that the United States was already effectively a belligerent, and that wider operations against the U.S. would help win the war. In particular, the Axis declaration of war enabled an operation that the Germans believed was key to driving Britain out of the conflict; a concerted submarine attack against U.S. commercial shipping. Although the Kriegsmarine had targeted U.S. vessels in the months and years before Pearl Harbor, it radically stepped up operations in the first months of 1942, launching a major effort just off the U.S. Atlantic seaboard.
The German tactics were devastatingly effective against a U.S. military that lacked good tactics, equipment, and procedures for fighting the U-boats. For their part, British military and political authorities worried that the German offensive might work, destroying enough shipping to cut Britain’s lifeline to North America. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force quickly dispatched advisors to the United States in an effort to staunch the bleeding, but 1942 nevertheless proved the most devastating year of the war for shipping losses. Overall, Operation Drumbeat proved far more successful for the Axis than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
But What If…
If, despite all this, Germany and Italy had somehow managed to avoid an open declaration of war against the United States, conflict would have continued in the North Atlantic. The U.S. would have continued to supply Britain and the Soviet Union with war material, potentially with somewhat more secure lines of supply, especially if the Germans continued to avoid attacks along the Atlantic seaboard.
In the real war, U.S. air, naval, and ground forces made their first decisive contribution in the Mediterranean. Plenty of analysts, now and then, have questioned the strategic logic of the Mediterranean campaign, but in the long run it helped beat U.S. ground and air forces into shape. If the U.S. had maintained formal neutrality, Operation Torch (the invasion of North Africa) might never have happened, and progress in the Med would have come much more slowly.
U.S. participation in the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO), designed to destroy German industry and morale and drive the Third Reich from the war, might also have developed more slowly. Given the limited impact and immense cost of the CBO in its early stages, however, it’s unclear how much of a net impact on the tides of war that this would have made.
A reduced U.S. combat commitment in the Atlantic could have led to a greater effort in the Pacific, although it’s difficult to see what impact that would have made in the first year of the war. Over time, the U.S. built up an enormous advantage over the Japanese; this would have happened even more quickly with a smaller commitment to Europe. Still, the overwhelming superiority that the U.S. exhibited in 1944 depended on technology, training, and the availability of ships that remained on the slipways in 1942. Schemes to step up the fight in China or in Southeast Asia suffered from immeasurable logistical problems, which the U.S. could not solve until 1944 in any case.
The Final Salvo
Both Hitler and Roosevelt believed that war was inevitable, and they were both probably right. Restraining the war machine in December of 1941 might have bought some additional time for Germany in the Med and (possibly) in the skies, but would have forced the Kriegsmarine to forego an offensive that it believed could win the war. And in the end, the Americans likely would have joined the conflict anyway, perhaps with less experience, but with greater overall preparation to make a decisive commitment.
------------------
Maybe no Pearl Harbor because Japan decided not to invade Indochina (Vietnam) and thus no oil or scrap iron embargo?
No excuse for Germany to declare war on the United States except Cash and Carry and Lend Lease is still helping Great Britain, who is the enemy of Germany.
Even with a neutral USA, Germany is still going to have s tough time defeating the Soviet Union. Stalin is willing to risk losing one of three million soldiers to defend Mother Russia. In addition, the brutal winter of 1941 might make it too much for the invading German army.
One likely scenario has the USA as a perpetual war supplier making money sending war supplies to whomever can purchase or take out from the USA on their own. Another scenario has both sides in Europe begging some country to help negotiate a peace treaty as the war dead continues to rival and likely surpass World War One.
Another scenario has the USA finding another way to join the Allies in World War Two like Germany or Japan sinking of US merchant or passenger ships. Maybe Japan simply invades or in their view “liberates” the Phillipines causing war between the USA and Japan.
Some wonderings…
If no war, would FDR win a fourth term?
Would he have picked Harry Truman as his Vice President?
Knowing FDR’s deteriorating health by 1945, even without going to war, would FDR continue as President?
Would Great Britain and USSR been able to defeat Germany and Italy without the US military? Great Britain was in no shape by themselves to defeat Germany in North Africa and still invade Italy.
Without FDR, would Churchill, who didn't trust Stalin, be able to plan a victory with Stalin?
Would the Holocaust have expanded and moved faster without US involvement?
Would the development of the atomic bomb been delayed or not developed without the capture of German scientists?
Would Germany have developed the atomic bomb before the USA?
Considering a weak League of Nations, would a United Nations ever exist?
Too many doubtful questions about how the Allies would have won without the total involvement of the USA. There are some serious and quite different outcomes had the USA decided not to join the Allies in World War Two.
------------------
::What would have happened if the USA had stayed completely out of WW II?:: For that to happen, the attack on Pearl Harbor must be butterflied away. For this to happen, Admiral Yamamoto must prevail and convince the rest of the Japanese leadership to stop pushing against the Chinese, despite the oil & scrap iron embargo, and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shiping enacted in 1940.
It could have happened, if the Imperial Japanese Army had accepted the US conditions and had retired its forces from China (not including Manchukuo) & Indochina after making peace with Chiang Kai-Shek. Let’s say that it what happened.
So, in 1941, Japan withdraws its forces to Manchukuo, after exacting from Nanking harsh terms, including the recognition of its Manchurian puppet. After leaving Vichy Indochina, the US lifts its trade embargos. Chiang remains in power over a shaky alliance of warlords: China licks its wounds for a generation or two, and waits.
The same year, Operation Barbarossa starts. It could go either way: either Germany wins, or as I think would happen, the Eastern Front destroys Germany: it is occupied, looted and partitioned, together with the rest of Eastern Europe, by an exhausted, revengeful Soviet Union: millions of German and eastern European refugees attest to the Soviets’ genocidal lust for vengeance.
In panic, the Franco-British Union comes to be, and together with the US and Japan, devotes itself to contain the Soviets. The Cold War becomes even more perilous than in our timeline.
--------------------
Pearl Harbor would have remained unavenged... but let's imagine Pearl Harbor never happened. We would have entered the war when Japan invaded our colony in the Philippines. But let's say Japan avoided the Philippines on the way to conquering the rest of the Pacific.
Once the Japanese had conquered British Malaysia and the Dutch East Indies, they would have had enough rubber and oil to avoid the US and Allied embargo (the Allies had refused to appease the Japanese like they did the Germans). At that point, without presenting a second front, the US would have had little to no leverage in preventing Japan from finishing its brutal conquest of China. Perhaps the Soviets would even try to snag a piece of Western China.
The US still would have sold materiel to the Soviets, who would have eventually beaten the Germans. Probably. But in the West... without the US to help invade North Africa and Italy, or conduct "precision" daylight bombing raids, the Soviets would have a much more difficult time. Also, the Soviets would have advanced well West of where they ended up.
If they had liberated all of continental Europe, the Cold War would have shaped up much differently, as a tripolar system: The US in the Americas, the Soviets in Europe, and Japan in the Far East. All three would have wound up with nuclear weapons by 1960. Eventually, that might blow up, or it might end up like it did in real life, with the powers busting each others' chops with proxy wars.
The US would not have fought in Korea or Vietnam, as these were solidly part of the Japanese Empire by then. Oddly enough: Without the massive trading partners that Western Europe and Japan turned into, the US (and Canadian) economies would probably not have made the gains they did in real life. Also, there'd probably be no United Nations, and thus none of all the good it did. There might not have even been the human rights revolutions that came at the same time.
At that point, it starts to get difficult to predict. But you can see, even at a moment's thought, things would have been rather different. Then again, the US might have cooked up some pretext to attack Japan at a later date. At which point, history re-enters its actual course, and we are where we are today.
--------------
The US wouldn’t be a superpower, the Soviets would’ve been the first to have the bomb, and we all would probably be communist by this point, I wouldn’t be surprised. Why?
The US only became a superpower because of our military might in World War 2. After earning the prestige of winning the war, and expanding our military to be the most fearsome on the planet, we were a superpower. Then the Soviet Union came around and was annoyingly another superpower but they fell. Now it is just the USA who is a superpower but other countries are coming up.
The US only got the bomb (which really cemented our position as a superpower) after years of painstaking research done with huge amounts of money invested. Without it, it would’ve taken much longer but I suspect the Soviets would’ve gotten the nuclear bomb instead. It is possible that the Nazis would’ve gotten it before then, but there was an active resistance movement working to destroy the raw materials that the Nazis needed. The Soviets could have (if they really tried) gotten the bomb, making them the sole superpower, and the only nuclear superpower.
Why would we be communists? Simple. There would be the unrivaled USSR to spread their influence across the world. And even more than that there would be no one to challenge the theories. It would be a powerful message is the USSR was the top dog and other capitalist countries were so weak in comparison. I can’t speak for others, but honestly that might work to convince me personally.
Keep in mind, I am an amateur, and by changing such a large portion of history the way things would turn out would could easily be completely differently from the way they are now. If anyone thinks something else would happen I would love to hear what you have to say.
-------------------
Involved how? If they hadn’t been involved at all, as in no arms or materials sales or lend lease, it’s probable Germany would have triumphed. I’m not certain if Hitler would have bothered to invade Great Britain, as that may have been enough to provoke the US, especially combined with unrestricted submarine warfare. Both Zhukov and Khrushchev admitted as much in two different instances.
If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, and had instead continued in China and Manchuria, the Soviets would still have needed a large number of divisions in their east to prevent a Japanese incursion there. The Japanese and Russians had a long history of conflict.
This might have been enough to allow the Germans to succeed on the Eastern Front, especially if you combine that with the first scenario, no lend lease. (And it should be remembered that £500M Of lent equipment and materiel to the Soviets came from the UK. That’s about £5B today). And without resources wasted on the Western Front, men and materials tied up on the Atlantic wall to prevent an Anglo-American invasion, and no hope of a second front for Stalin.
--------------------
That presupposes that Japan does not attack American interests. The US was already supplying lots of war material to Britain, but they were being paid, not lend lease. They were repairing the damaged ships , huge amounts of food that is transhipped to Canada and sent in Commonwealth ships, huge amounts of weapons, oil fuel, in Norwegian ships as well all coming out of Canada.
2 ship building harbours were already being built 1 on the west coast and 1 on the east paid for by Britain with ships to be built to a British design. Hong Kong, Singapore and the Dutch east Indies lost, maybe India, depends if India can be properly mobilized. Northern Australian neutralized, raids on the south and New Zealand. No need to invade, they had China to beat.
Food and resources from New Zealand and Australia would have to be rerouted around Africa taking extra months. Britain supplying the USSR with tanks and planes and what it can because the supply is coming in from the US, both USSR and Britain continue to pay for the armaments but nothing on the scale of lend lease,
Iran might go to the Nazi’s, the allies being the Commonwealth and USSR do not have the troops to suppress or invade. Britain still out produces Germany in tanks and aircraft and the US supply better aircraft all the time. Germany has not the ability to invade Britain.
The USSR out produces Germany in tanks, cannon and aircraft and will bleed Germany dry, The Soviets go find heaps more gold to pay for supplies from the US. Japan allows the trade from the US because it is in USSR ships brought from the US. They do not want to fight the Soviets, 1938 was enough.
The soviets have almost no way to drive the Germans all the way to Berlin but over some years could drive them back and forth in a see saw slugging match. Britain will control North Africa, her own bit and the Italian bits and a toss up on whether they drive in and take the rest of the French bit after the Aussies took Syria and Lebanon from the Vichy.
Axis controlled Europe with continuous drain on manpower. Mass hunger, mass unrest, mass murder. Atlantic controlled by Canada and the Commonwealth navies with lots of ships built by the US. Britain an unsinkable aircraft carrier, no raw materials getting into Europe with the blockade.
Huge steel and manufacturing complexes being built in Canada and Australia with Australia getting a huge influx of Indian workers to build ships and weapons. Iffy if Britain gives the US access to code breaking and visa versa, same with the nuke start up info and equipment that the US did not have, not an ally give them the secrets to the bomb ???????? Does Britain invade in 48′ or 49′ when the whole of Europe is a basket case of Death and the soviets somewhere in the east bled dry???????
---------------
The USA was never going to stay out of WWII, an impossibility. Way too much money to be made selling weapons. As long as the UK was going to blockade Germany the only buyer for those weapons was the UK, and if you give them a big enough line of credit, (lend-lease) they will bankrupt themselves to your advantage.
So the USA was fighting two wars, one against the Brits the other against the Germans. If there had been not been movement on the neutrality issue the Brits would of allied themselves more closely with the USSR - and the Tizard mission would of gone to Russia.
The Russians get the basic design for the bomb, antibiotics, radar, computer aided code breaking, jet engines etc. It would of been a Russian bomb dropped on Berlin by a Lancaster bomber that ended the war. The UK maintains control of seaborne trade, the USSR has the military dominance. And the USA gets exactly what it wanted. It’s completely ISOLATED.
-----------------------
The Axis made some real mistakes, besides goading the US into the war. Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. They could have skipped that. And we know how Japan’s bold stroke turned out.
Germany didn’t have the amphibious assets, nor the strategic bombing capability, to take out Britain. As was demonstrated in 1940–41. They never developed those capacities. If the Nazis had stayed focused on knocking out British airfields and radar stations, they might have brought the UK to its knees; but they didn’t. Even then, Germany never had the naval resources of Britain, and wouldn’t have been able to develop them in time to knock the UK out.
Japan did what it did until mid-1942, but it didn’t have the industrial capacity to rule the empire it accumulated over the long haul. They never completely subjugated China, though they had more than a million troops there for a decade. So it’s tough to say how it would have played out, without the US. It would have been a slug-fest. The really decisive player wasn’t the US — beyond supplies of armaments. It was the USSR. They did the killing, and bled the Nazis thoroughly. If the USSR was out of the war…. a whole new game.
-------------
The difficulty of answering your question is whether or not the United States continues and Great Britain and still stay on the sidelines. I also answer this assuming Japan doesn’t attack Pearl Harbor.
The outcome of such of war would depend on both Germany and Japan’s research into an atom bomb. We know this. Both countries had sufficient knowledge to build a bomb. When Albert Einstein warned the United States we were able to build a bomb first and bring a quicker end to the war.
If we were not active participants in the war there is every likelihood that perhaps Germany or Japan could have finished the bomb sooner. If we extrapolate this future history we could see a war lasting two or three more years with Germany dropping a bomb on Moscow, Great Britain surrendering under the threat of a bomb on London, and Japan dropping one on China or even the U.S.
Once Asia and Europe was conquered, it only depends on whether the Axis powers wish to finish off the United States. Perhaps 200 million, 300 million dead? Along with this would be the elimination of the children of Israel, the Slavic peoples, and perhaps all of the western Russian populations.
I have said this many times. World War II was a race between the barbarism that kills millions and the ultimate weapon in which to do it. Underscoring all the battles during the War was whether humanity would survive the worst possible scenario . I believe the war turned out for the very best. I say that looking directly in the face of 65 million dead.
We survived because the one country that would be willing to give up using such a weapon for world domination was the one that won the race. As we look back 70 years to that generation that had no idea the future of humanity we have to thank our stars that the ultimate weapon was not used in an even more perverse fashion. We survived, barely.
-----------------------
Being a hypothetical question, the answer also will be hypothetical. Had the US not entered the war, the British would have thought long and hard before attempting another landing disaster like Dunkirk.
Because of this, much needed German forces could have been deployed to the eastern front to push back the soviets and capture the also much needed Oilfields to guarantee supply of fuel to the fighting machine. With the USSR having to deploy huge numbers of their armed forces to fight Japan, their position in the west would have been severely weakened, although they had massive reserves to start with.
In this scenario one could also assume the the US would not have supplied the USSR with war material and by doing so would have weakened the same in military terms. Because of the long logistics and supply route the Germans needed to ge their gear to the eastern front, I presume that at one stage they would have run out of sufficient supplies to conquer the entire USSR and would have had to negotiate a cease fire or some sort of peace with the Communist regime.
-----------------------
In Europe, Germany would still have lost. The Soviets would have beaten them but they would not have stopped with Eastern Europe. I expect that the entire mainland of Western Europe would have been “liberated” by the USSR and Great Britain would be the only hold out.
In the Pacific, Japan would be content to hold onto it’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere but would not have been able to add India to it’s holdings. India was never in real danger from the Japanese and would not have been subject to a greater threat without US involvement. China would have eventually fallen and the Chinese Communists would have never come to power. They avoided fighting the Japanese by staying out of the way. Without American assistance, the Republicans would have been destroyed and the areas occupied by the Chinese Communist Party would be next on the list.
The USSR and Japan would maintain an uneasy peace for about a decade while they both consolidate their holdings. Eventually, the Russo - Sino war would break out - probably to the detriment of the Japanese Empire. The technological advantages of USSR and Europe would be able to offset the numerical superiority of the GEAPS.
-----------------------
Nothing more than educated speculation but: Britain would not fall to fascism and would be the only large Western European country not to do so. Hitler would mount several invasion attempts but would fail, due to the strength of the British Navy and Air Force. He would eventually give up Britain would eventually lose its ambition to defeat the Nazis, considering themselves lucky just to have defended their homeland.
For decades, Europe would have been a juxtaposition between two major powers: Soviet power and Nazi power. Both sides would have frequent skirmishes over East European countries. There would be a constant worry about whether these skirmishes would boil over into a full scale war but it would never happen because neither side would dare start one.
Britain would not side with either power, considering them both to be as bad as each other. The situation would remain unresolved today. Neither the Soviets nor the Nazis would allow themselves to be weakened for the certain knowledge that they would be immediately overwhelmed by the other. The Soviet collapse would not have happened.
-----------------------
The USSR would have had a tougher time beating the Nazis, but it would have prevailed. The USSR also would have taken over Western Europe and maybe the U.K. The USSR would have had Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Eventually, the conquered populations would have staged uprisings and the spirit of rebellion would have spread to the original SSRs.
The main reason for the uprisings would have been the very slow pace of recovery from the war's devastation. With the USSR no longer facing a European enemy, Japan might have pulled out of territories near Russia's border with China, Mongolia, Korea, and Manchuria.
Japan probably would have become mired in decades-long war of attrition in southern China. Japan probably would have stayed out of the Philippines so as not to provoke the U.S., but it probably would have expanded its hegemony into Southeast Asia and Indonesia where there were oil reserves. It also may have influenced India to throw the Brits out, unless the USSR moved in first.
-----------------------
The war would have been longer, and bloodier. The allies would have lost more casualties, and been far worse supplied. Likely Hitler would have lost anyway, but it’s much harder to tell what would have happened in Asia. I hope Japan would have collapsed… but without the USA, that’s not guaranteed.
In the immediate post-war, Russia would either be so broken that the USSR would have collapsed or all of Europe would have become communist. Hard to say. Either way, there likely would have been a genocide of ethnic Germans. In our timeline they faced mass killings and ethnic cleansing in the immediate post-war period. In our timeline, it was the war colonists and the many also German enclaves that had existed for centuries in Eastern Europe, as well as much of East Prussia, that faced killings and ethnic cleansings. East Germany was ravaged, but not as badly.
In a timeline without the USA? Likely no major landing in Normandy, likely no western allies in Germany, and a far more broken allied force. And an angrier, poorer, worse-supplied Russia. They would likely have destroyed all of Germany, like a swarm of locusts. The land for desperately needed resources and industry, the people to revenge the atrocities committed on Russian soil.
-----------------------
Hitler would eventually have failed against the Russian army, but both sides would have paid a price too heavy in terms of manpower to keep on fighting. A fragile cease-fire would have been agreed on, which might or might not have been respected. Europe would have been shared between a German lebensraum, a new Italian empire, and an eastern part under Russian influence. Poland would have become a major point of dispute between Berlin and Moscow.
In Asia, Japan would have become a superpower, annexing Korea, possessing the majority of the current Chinese territory and a large chunk of the Pacific islands. The United States would have chosen economic and diplomatic isolation, unable to agree with the other powers in presence. This would have had major implications on its economy and growth, and it is not certain the country would become as powerful as it is nowadays.
In South America, various civil wars would have happened, with leaders trying to establish either a communist regime on the Russian model, or a fascist regime on the German/Italian one. The United Nations would never have been founded. The nuclear and space races, however, would have been frantic, with at least 4 superpowers competing.
-----------------------
I’m going to assume you mean the USA. If the USA stayed out of WW1 there would’ve been a chance that a peace deal would be signed between the Central and Allied Powers. Thus, No pissed off Germans because there isn’t a unfair treaty signed.
The monarchy would still be in power. No League of Nations as the fourteen points isn’t a thing. But…The second Sino-Japanese war would definitely happen. The USA might trade embargo Japan which might or might not lead to an invasion in South East Asia by the Japanese as the the resource rich regions in South East Asia can supply them for the war with China. Plus, the British and French would be extremely weak due to WWI.
The Great Depression will happen, the stock market crashing does not have anything to do with war. might’ve strayed far off from the subject so here’s my answer: Adolf Hitler and the Nazis would not be as popular like in our timeline. Germany or well, the German Empire would remain a thing for awhile longer. So, no Hitler! That’s great but Japan and China at war with each other might bring in the British, French and the USA. A war would definitely spring up during such tumultuous times.
-----------------------
Earlier - better for Allied war effort overall in that US mobilization of its industry starts sooner. Assuming Japan did not attack the US, and US simply declared war on Germany in 1939 or 1940, then US forces are available sooner and could participate in the defense of France and Britain.
Also, Hitler wouldn't attack Stalin unless France were defeated, but Stalin has many options and could decrease or turn off supplies to Germany, or invade Roumania while Hitler is distracted in France, or even join the Allies and invade Poland if it appears the German people are revolting against Hitler. Lastly, if France is not conquered, then Italy likely remains neutral and Japan likely doesn't invade French Indochina and trigger the US oil embargo. Lots of opportunities for the Allies with early US involvement.
Later - better overall for Axis war effort since no US forces are available to support Allied war effort until US joins the Allies. Although there is material support to Allied nations, it is very small since US war industry is not fully mobilized. This means that Japan has likely not invaded French Indochina and triggered the US oil embargo, but may have joined Germany in attacking Stalin, which can only be worse for the Soviets than in reality, and the chances of a Soviet defeat increase in such a scenario the longer the US stays neutral.
Regardless, eventually the US enters the war and will invent atomic weapons and use them, but there were only a few bombs at first, so it's hard to say if it will be enough to make Germany surrender, but might refocus Hitler’s efforts on getting his own weapons and the ICBMs to deliver them. Of course, all these events hinge on the actual cause and timing of a delayed US entry, so it might not get this bad if it still happens in 1942.
Not at all - it's curtains for the world and a totalitarian future awaits it. This might include the US becoming more totalitarian as propaganda from victorious Axis affects people’s sense of vulnerability and laws are enacted to tighten government control over daily life. As the Axis threat looms, the US military is likely mobilized and society begins to transform from an open, free commercial one to a militarized, secure one.
This means many restrictions placed on civil liberties. Obviously, this could backfire and cause demonstrations and outright revolts, but not likely since the alternative is to accept the Axis new world order. Eventually, the US government is either subverted to support this world order, or the US is invaded once the Axis gains solid footholds in the Americas. How long this new world order lasts, regardless of US joining it or not, is another question.
-----------------------
In Europe the Soviets probably would have won…. eventually. Definitely not as early as 1945 though. If the Nazis and the Soviets didn’t decide to make terms the Soviets would have likely beat the Nazis after many, many years of slogging out, eventually taking over all of Europe. As a result all of Europe would be as economically underdeveloped as the ex-communist bloc countries, or maybe this increased burden would have caused the USSR to collapse faster, hard to say. In Asia the Chinese and the Japanese likely would have reached some sort of peace, as there was no way the Japanese could have taken all of China and likewise there was no way the Chinese could kick the Japanese off the continent.
Once peace was reached the Nationalists and the Communists would have resumed their civil war. Imperial Japan, being as anti-communist as it was, likely would have intervened and gone to war with China again. This state of affairs would likely extend far into the foreseeable future. Since Britain would have assisted the Soviet Union in defeating the Nazis they would have a place at the victor’s table, but it would be limited due to not really occupying in territory in Europe, having mainly provided air support for the Soviets.
They would have lost their empire in Asia to the Japanese/Japanese support for independence movements. After the war the British would have to fight to hold on to their other colonies as well due to Soviet support of anti-colonial movements. The United States still would have pulled itself out of the Great Depression once FDR finally croaked and the US could return to sensible economic policies. Truman, being the anti-communist that he was, would have still opposed the Soviet Union, in addition to opposing Japan due to his liberalism. At this point whoever invents the atomic bomb first would take the initiative in breaking this complex gridlock.
-----------------------
It depends a lot on “not drawn into” as: The US sells anything and everything to the Allies and Neutrals with apparently cargo vessels unimpeded by the Axis or losses tolerated by the US when near England or Russia. Possible although the food and fuel for Britain and the manufactured goods as well for the Soviets certainly prolonged those wars.
The US only ships to neutral nations, no belligerents, which means Spain becomes even more of a conduit for the Axis supply chains to get their raw materials and fuels from the US while Japan is mostly frozen out but perhaps able to get it’s conquests of Dutch East Indies, French Indochina, and the Kra Peninsula North of Singapore into full production to make up the gaps. Much of the US Navy buildup like the new Essex aircraft carriers would get based along with more aircraft in the Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii.
The US sells to anyone with gold, hard currency, or valuable products/commodities it doesn’t produce by the 1940’s (rubber, bananas, wines, chromite, coconuts, pineapples, German mining equipment and pharmaceuticals, English chemicals, Chinese teas, etc.) so the US economy booms and a lot more manufacturing develops but not nearly to the extent of our timeline’s war production impacts (16,000+ factories involved, over 1,000 completely new factories built.)
The Axis benefits the most with American gasoline, tungsten, steel, and coal while England eats better and gets the fuels it needs while Japan progresses more in China with more metal and fuel intensive equipment like artillery and tanks. Shipping to everyone should make the US ships immune to the belligerents’ navies and air forces.
The war in western Europe likely is negotiated to end in 1942 with England remaining free, Sweden, Persia, Turkey, and Switzerland becoming Nazi allies with no other options, Spain formally becoming an Axis member, and the Suez Canal likely in German control along with all of North Africa and Syria/Iraq.
The Axis war with the Soviets, with much greater fuel supplies, American-made locomotives and railroad rolling stock, Brazilian tire rubber, American aluminum for aircraft, American wool and leather for uniforms, steel for tanks and artillery manages to take Moscow, Stalingrad, and Baku, resulting in an uneasy armstice in 1943 (although the Third Reich’s chaos and incompetences certainly could have thrown away the advantages of much greater supplies and a single battlefront war. )
The Japanese remain mired in China but with larger territory controlled and probably more of Siberia taken from the Soviets (keeping the Siberian Soviet troops there rather than being available to reinforce and save Moscow as in our timeline.) French Indochina, Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, and Malaysia are fully integrated into the Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere for important ports, vast natural resources, manufacturing, trade, and vast populations to conscript additional infantry from for the endless war in China (perhaps a 20 year conflict.) Indochina and China aren’t able to sustain as much of a resistance without US or Soviet military aid so maybe that does end in the mid-1940’s.
China loses the threat of Mao Tse Tung’s forces without Soviet aid and gets informal or secret aid from the US organized by Henry Luce of TIME-Life media, FDR, and others.
The US is probably economically stronger at least than in 1939–41 with lots of manufacturing-based demand, FDR not running in 1940 and the New Deal fading away quickly, and huge debt load of the war with tax rates as high as 90% avoided. Without FDR demanding unconditional surrender, extending the war, and from a position as the major supplier to the Allies, negotiated peaces are managed so the death toll from the wars are much less while the captive populations in the surrendered countries and colonies suffer about the same as those that ended up under Soviet control and suffer much more than those who truly were freed in our timeline.
----------
Well, the soviets would have defeated Hitler all by themselves. There would be no Berlin wall. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that Germany would have been communist. Without a cold war, the soviets would probably leave Europe sooner and keep a few troops behind to secure the peace.
Europe would have been very similar to what it is now, a kind of socialist continent. Perhaps, Europe would be a bit more peaceful in areas like Ukraine and former Yugoslavia. The bigger difference, IMO, would have been in east Asia.
China would continue to be a weak nation intervened by Japan and other European countries for a few more decades. Perhaps even the Soviet Union would be owning a part of China. The entire Korea would probably be annexed to Japan. New Zealand and Australia would no longer be English speaking nations. In other words, Asia would be divided between Japan and Soviet Union in a more or less friendly agreement.
-------------
Then we need assume Pearl Harbor had never happened, and U.S. turned an deaf ear to British. Then, Germany could have occupied British. Germany would have occupied the whole Europe, and would have concentrated on Russia on the second wave of invasion.
Japan would send troops to attack Russia from north of China. It would have to fight Chinese Communist Party. The war between them would be a hard one. But since Japanese navy were strong, it could occupy all the harbors of both China and Russia and cut off any supports. By 1945, Russia and China would have been defeated. Now, Axis would focus its efforts on Canada and U.S…By 1950, There would be only Japan and Germany. A lot of races would disappear completely from Earth planet…
-----------------------
The US had in a sense entered war long before it entered explicitely, through landlease and through the supplies it sent to the UK. The war would have probably been longer and mire destructive, but the US took their time entering the war in Europe. Still, the northafrican campaign stayed mostly in the hands of the British and Free French troops and it could have likely ended later but still with an allied victory.
The Italian campaign would have probably ended differently, or maybe it would have not started at all, yet Mussolini had been reluctant to enter the war, and he may have just opted out when things turned sour for Hitler. What prevented him is the fact that after he was freed form the Gran Sasso imprisonment by Otto Skorzeny and reinstated as the dictator of the “Reppubblichina” he had become essentially a puppet of Hitler. By late 1943 the war was already turning. The Soviet Union had successfully stalled two invasion attempts and the nazis and their allied were goingto be evicted from Stalingrad. The USSR was on a roll industrially and Germany wasn't able to keep production of weapons up. Even the troops they were using weren't as good as the Soviets’.
Basically blitzkrieg had failed, Stalin was forcing on the Germans a war of attrition that he could hardly lose with his superior levels of production and reserves of men. When the French front was opened, in June 1944, the fate of Nazi Germany was already sealed. Sure, the face of Europe would have been much different, but let's face facts, Roosevelt made a smart move (from the US point of view) when he delayed the opening of the secon front so late: he reaped the maximum benefits from the European part of WWII with the minimum effort.
-----------------------
The biggest strategic mistake Hitler ever made was to declare war to US. It would have been almost impossible for FDR to change the opinion of the large majority of Americans in order to intervene in an unpopular war in Europe. Landing in Normandy, France would have never happen, therefore German army would not be forced to fight on two fronts. Germany would have definitively won the war.
Soviet Union would have been pushed East of the Urals mountains. Europe would have kept most of its borders, and would have been under the doctrine and political dominance of Germany. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Ukraine, Baltic countries would disappear and become part of Germany. US would have won the war in the Pacific. Japan would become democratic.
China would not become communist since Soviet Union would not have any influence in helping Mao in the civil war that ravaged the country. Korean war, Vietnam war, Cambodia atrocities would never happen since Soviet Union and Chine would not have any political, and military influence in the area. Both Germany and US would have acquired the nuclear bomb, and nobody would have used it, for the same principle of MAD, (Mutual Assured Destruction) that kept the world safe for over 42 years. It would have been a cold war, somewhat similar with that we had with Soviet Union.
-----------------------
The best counterfactual scenarios are the ones that flow from the change of a single key event, in a way that could have actually happened. In this case, the key event that could have changed everything would have been if Britain and Japan had renewed the Anglo-Japanese alliance. In his WWII memoirs, Churchill revealed that this was seriously considered by a desperate Britain in 1940, and talks were actually attempted with the Japanese.
The British could have actually made the Japanese an attractive offer, but only if it was painfully costly. I am thinking that the British would have had to offer the Japanese the British colonies in Borneo at a minimum, and maybe some Pacific islands as well. They would also have had to consent to Japanese occupation of French Indochina and maybe even of the Dutch East Indies, leaning on the governments in exile to cooperate.
They would probably have had to enter into extensive contracts with Japan to supply them with planes (imagine British Zeroes going against Messerschmitts!), ships, and other arms. They would probably have had to broker some sort of agreement with Japan and the US that would leave the Philippines secure but not a factor in the Western Pacific region. Finally, since the Soviet Union was still allied (loosely) with Germany at that time, Britain would have had to consent to give Japan a free hand to move against E. Siberia (which would have become the target of choice for Japan with their southern supply lines secured).
With an Anglo-Japanese alliance in place, there would have been no Pearl Harbor, and the US could have been left alone and happily neutral. The Japanese might not have been able to quite match what the US was able to supply Britain, but it might nevertheless have been enough to enable Britain to hang on. If Japan did attack Eastern Siberia, though, then what would have happened when Hitler inevitably attacked from the West? Things would have gotten quite complicated for Britain.
I doubt, though, that Churchill would have ditched Japan for Russia. More likely, he would have seen it as being extremely important that the Japanese make it all the way to the Urals as soon as possible, both in order to stop the Germans and to get into position to enter the fray against Germany from the East. At the same time, Churchill might have had to come around to recognizing that the only achievable war aim was to secure the independence of France and the low countries from German occupation, and this might need to be negotiated.
----------
The United States moved, briefly, into a command economy. This enabled full mobilization and also had the effect of bringing the Depression era to a full stop.
The United States was one of a small handful of belligerent nations that did not see combat on its own soil. We had an advantage of actually growing our industrial capacity. We achieved a level of employment that was as close to universal as it has ever been. For a period of about 3 years, we functioned as a national-security state with a socio-economic model that was damned near close to Socialism.
When we came out of the war, we were strong enough to rebuild the economies of Europe and Japan. But we also expanded the national-security state apparatus at the same time. The CIA is a product of WWII. So is the policy of covert operations to remake the world in a particular image. It starts with Truman.
The Cold War, to a great extent, allowed this state of affairs to continue for about 35 years: huge expenditures in defense, accompanied by prioritization of science and technology, and by extension, education. The great anti-poverty programs and civil rights gained traction as much as a response to Soviet propaganda as to any domestic agenda.
If you look at the Cold War era, without considering ethics, body counts, dirty wars in 3rd World countries, anti-communist hysteria, it was actually very good for the average American. Huge expenditures in social support, education, tools such as the GI Bill, gave the average person access to unprecedented affluence. This is the period that everyone supposes was “Great”.
If we had not entered WWII, Europe would still be a wreck. The Soviet Union would have probably inserted itself into a few revolutions: Greece, maybe Italy. It would be the overarching power throughout Eurasia. OTOH there would be a lot more people alive today in Vietnam, Indonesia, Central America, Chile, etc.
We’d be where we are now, with the country’s resources and wealth pooling at the top, and the vast majority struggling from paycheck to paycheck. Only we would have been there about 2 generations earlier.
-------------
A number of different scenario's would of taken place if the US had of stayed out of the war if it stayed completely out including not selling hardware and equipment to Great Britain there’s no doubt in my mind that England was done for there is no way Britain could sustain itself without any outside help the same was the case with Japan being an island nation it was totally dependent on sourcing outside materials from other countries and the primary reason it was in an expansion mode as all the surrounding countries had all the resources it so desperately needed.
If the USA had supplied Britain as it did but still not actually gotten involved in the war itself this would have prolonged the war, Russia on the other had was totally self sufficient even though the other allies sent materials to Russia this was more about helping build up their Armour before they could actually get their factories up and running again once they did Russia could easily build tanks and other aircraft for warfare in its own factories. The Russian army was a much larger force then that of Germany’s, the only thing the Russians really lacked was a powerful Air force and Navy.
So in the end because Germany could not secure the oil fields in the Caucuses or the middle east this would of still led to its eventual down fall, it just would of taken a lot longer to achieve by the allies. Now if Russia and Germany had of settled on peace terms this would of really thrown a spanner in the works as now Germany was holding and occupying vast parts of Europe it would of been invincible .
-----------------------
Had the United States stayed out of World War II the Axis Powers would have won. For example without American aid Britain could hardly have sent many ships to the Soviet Union (many allied sailors died on those Arctic Convoys) to send vital supplies to the Red Army (especially as those supplies were mostly American anyway). The Soviet Union would have been crushed by the German National Socialists (Nazis).
And what of Britain in 1940? Without American aid Britain would have had to “make peace” - i.e. give in to the German National Socialists. Much of the world would have fallen to the tyranny of the Axis Powers (mainly National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan) - and sooner or later the Axis Powers would have turned their attention to the United States, with the vast resources of the world to back Axis aggression against the United States.
-----------------------
Probably Nazi domination of western Europe and Russia. BUT, it depends of what you mean by intervening. Lean/Lease had started long before Pearl Harbor. If Hitler had an ounce of sense and NOT declared war on the USA he might have dominated Europe and western Russia. But always remember the Nazi regime was always a very ramshackle affair.
Without the Allies he might have taken over much of Russia but I doubt that he could have kept it down with out a lot of military expenditure. Unless Hitler died (very likely, he was a sick man by 1944) and the Reich was taken over by someone competent (NOT Der Dicke (Goering)), but someone like Albert Speer for example. Then National Socialism would have been greatly redirected and may have had a chance at long term survivability.
-----------------------
Without American aid, predominantly food, industrial goods, and vehicles like trains and trucks, the Soviets may have lost more ground. Seeing a Soviet collapse, Japan might just declare war and help mop up the Soviets instead of attacking American possessions. With all of Europe and much of Asia under fascist control, Britain may be brought to the table as it loses more ground to Japanese expansion in the South Pacific and Bengal and German forces redirected to cutting off the Suez and North Africa. With any luck, Franco may decide to hop on and cut Gibraltar. Paired with Vichy controlled Morocco and pressure on Suez, a peace deal may come about.
--------
Most likely Japan would have continued seizing the Pacific region and South East Asian territories. It would seem increasingly unlikely for German domination of Europe to be challenged. Soviet Union may survive but may have to fight for a stalemate. U.K situation would be more critical in comparison to our own timeline. Especially if Germans went into total manufacturing war industry. Luckily for the world the Americans did get dragged in.
---------------
Assuming you mean that the US didn’t fight Japan as well? I believe the Axis would have won. Without the US taking on Japan, Stalin would have not been able to move his Far East divisions to european Russia to augment the decimated Soviet divisions already fighting there. In all probability, Japan would have attacked the Soviet Far East and Stalin would fighting two major powers at the same time.
The daily thousand plane bombing runs from the Allies wouldn’t have occurred and German infrastructure and industry would have been untouched. The Soviets were not a mechanized army by American standards until the US supplied thousands of trucks, jeeps, half tracks, etc. The Soviet people would have starved and the Axis would be the victors.
-----------------------
It would have taken Russia an extra year to defeat Germany. Most of the German people are city folk and not country folk living in cold weather. They live in comfortable warm houses. The Russians have been more conditioned for winter weather…they are the true Vikings for sure! I wish the Republicans like John McCain would stop trying to call everyone who Talks to RT as s spy doing Putin’s bidding then we could start having better relations…
I warn you American soldiers, the Russians have far more commitment in defending their land then you could ever be trained for and I am going to hate you for trying to start crap with the Russians just to keep your jobs. Your not patriots defending our country you are mercenaries trying to do the bidding of the spoiled rich kids. The Russians will destroy you. I know am researching how long I will not be able to see the beautiful things the Rus built because of the Hitler(John McCain) of the United States!!!
-----------------------
Had America opted out of declaring war, in spite of Japan`s attack on Hawaii, and if Germany had been very, very careful about not provoking us, I honestly believe that Germany & Japan (along with their far lesser allies) would absolutely have won WWII. Without America`s support in weapons, supplies, lend lease, etc., Great Britain would not have been able to afford fighting wars in both Europe, and Asia, and would have had to make the best deal they could with Japan.
It`s quite possible that an “on their own” Great Britain would have had try to make peace with Germany too, assuming that Germany wasn`t able to quickly conquer them first. Russia ultimately would have run out of everything! Without America & Great Britain, Japan soon would have been at, and past Russia`s Eastern border. I see no way that any other outcome would been possible. None of this minimizes Russia`s heroic defense, but the bravery of their troop, and civilians could only go so far.
---------------
They could manage not to lose. Japan could win the oil riches of Dutch East indies but would be bled dry in China before it could subdue the whole country. A sort of peace would follow, which China remaining a dangerous rival to the Japanese maritime empire.
In Europe Germany could functionally defeat the USSR, rendering them incapable of undertaking offensive actions due to depletion of manpower and overall exhaustion of the state but would be unable to hold and profit such vast lands after losing millions of people in the war against the Soviets.
If they dealt with rebels by exterminating the local populace (as was planned) they would quickly find rich soil and resources in the ground are worthless without people to farm and mine them. A sort of peace might follow with Germany holding lots of empty lands for future colonization.
Britain, unable to prosecute an offensive war herself, would accept a return to status quo eventually. Germany wouldn’t be able to produce enough children to properly benefit from the new lands in fifty years, no matter how hard they tried. It turns out it’s easier to kill people than to produce them, imagine that.
Neither Japanese nor German empires would last longer than a generation or so, both would collapse under the weight of the lands they now had to garrison and a horde of revanchist enemies they had created but failed to destroy during their time of strength. Is that a victory? One could argue either.
--------
I assume by “we” you mean the United States? If that is the case, then absolutely we still would have had WWII. Direct US involvement in WWI was mostly a shot in the arm and mopping up for the Allies - the Central Powers had really already lost by 1918 when US troops finally showed up in significant numbers. So, with the Allies winning, we still get Versailles. Which means we still get a lot of the seeds for WWII - disarmament and reparations, in particular. That means we probably still get a severe economic depression in Germany, leading to a rise in radical politics as desperate people turn to radical solutions to problems their current system seems unable to fix. Which means demagogues like Hitler and the NSDAP get elected, which leads to a war.
------------
North and South America would have remained un touched and the US would have prospered enormously by selling arms to both sides. The big question is how long could the UK have held out for with no American help ? If the UK can make a real fight of it then Europe would look very different today. The USSR would have walked through the whole of Western Europe unopposed. They may even have been welcomed by some of the local population. Post war, the whole of Europe and Russia would have been the USSR. As for the Far East, assuming Pearl Harbor never happened Japan would probably still be Japan and not under the USSR.
-----------------------
It depends on where. If the USA had not been in world war 2, there would not have been much of a war in Japan. This would mean that the Japanese would fight with Russia and Stalin would not have his second front which was led by the USA at Normandy. There would not have been much bombing of Germany since the American eight Airforce would not have been involved. In addition, the USA sent 8 million soldiers over all to Europe. It is likely that England could not have been able to hold on by itself. So, Hitler would have won…. clearly…
-----------------------
Then Japan would never have attacked it and entered WWII. Which means the thing would have remained British Empire+USSR vs Germany+Italy+Satellites. With the Americans continuing to profiteer by the economic straits of Britain to bolster their own coffers and territorial ambitions with further concessions. As such, the British Empire+the USSR would eventually win, and the USA would profit greatly by the exhaustion of both those victorious powers, almost as greatly as it did do by entering the war.
-----------------------
The same way we had a WWII because of unfinished business and issues on WWI, if the USA does not took part on WWII it would lead to a third world war by the 6o’s or 70’s. Yes, probably Japan would be greater, but still would had several problems as an industrial nation at that point to provide the required arms and supplies for their army as well to keep the supply chain intact with distant needs as many predict (India).
I just don’t think they could run a war in India and another one in China. They would probably focus on China as the reason for their attack to the Southeast Asia was the lack of supplies.
In Europe i just can’t see Germany and the Soviet Union not engaging in a conflict. Hitler does not trust Stalin and would attack them in 1941 with or without the United States. It would be a longer conflict, and both sides would be directing resources for a good period of time, without a final winner after Germany sign the peace with the UK
By 1948 the conflict would be ended and the US could not be the main force but would take full advantage of being a provider for many nations of supplies and why not, arms, despite protests from the top 4 current military forces: Germany, Soviet Union, Japan and UK. By 1949, Hitler would begin to take advantage of the superior technology (jets, missiles) and enter again into a spread of requests looking to secure their power projection.
During the 1950’s, the world experience a lot of development, trade grows and countries such as USA begin to become more of an economic leader, specially as millions of qualified immigrants run away from places such as France, Netherlands, UK and others. This move starts to draw Hitler’s attention as other nations such as Spain, begin to slowly move towards UK. Concerning over the real focus of the USA & UK, Hitler decides to annex Spain in s move objected by the USA and UK.
It could be Spain or any other Nation but the fact is Hitler is a territorial dictator with aspirations to build a greater German Empire. If it does not reach that during WW2, he would provoke a new one sooner than later, and a third one would lead to a confrontation with the United States. And Germany would lose that even with new technologies.
--------------------
Churchill has Stated that Britain would not be able to finance the war (pay for American War Materials) after the Spring of 1941. This is why Lend Lease was Started, but America Stayed out of the war so there was no Lend Lease in this Scenario. Quote: “ Money is the Sinews of War” Marcus Tullius Cicero …No money no war. Britain would not be able to Prosecute the war in an Offensive Manor anywhere near the Level they did without U.S. Aid.
The Soviets have long insisted that Lend-Lease aid made little difference. Newly discovered files tell another story Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans. In the above Article, it States how Critical British Aid was to the Soviets in Late 1941 and 1942. Do you really think the British would have sent this Aid if they were not Receiving any Help from the U.S.? Also, Read Nikita Khrushchev's Memoirs. In it, he states of the Several Conversations he had with Stalin on American Aid during the War and how Stalin Repeatedly Told him that The Soviet Union Could not have Defeated the Germans without it.
Statistics: Half of the world's total war production came from America. Military production during World War II - Wikipedia. Without America in the War, Germany would have Defeated the Russians If not in 1941 then by 42 and Probably would have made Peace with the British.
--------------------
Short answer, (since there are veritable treatises here…) Britain would have been slowly choked to submission. The U-boat siege and the lack of materials and millions of tons of provisions from the USA would have finished the British. The Soviet Union, without the gigantic contribution from the USA in trucks, planes, tanks, steel, food, ammo, etc. etc. would have probably lost the war as well. especially considering that Germany wouldn’t have had to worry about a huge contingent of reserves in the west. Of course, the US couldn’t have stayed out of the Pacific war, where they were attacked. but in Europe, That is what I’m fairly certain would have happened.
-------------------
Hard to know for sure, but I think that the Soviets would have won the whole thing anyways. As it was, 80% of the European fighting was between the Soviets and the Germans. Not having to worry about a Second Front in France would have allowed the Germans to position maybe 10% more forces in the East, but not all of them. Many hundreds of thousands of troops were required just to maintain the occupation of Western Europe and the Nordic countries. So, on balance, I think that the Soviets win, but not as quickly and with a higher butcher’s bill. One thing for sure, they would have occupied all of Western Europe in the process and they would not have left.
--------------------
I suspect the Soviet Union would have, for a time at least, occupied all of Europe. It would have been interesting to see how the Soviet Union would have ruled Europe without hostile NATO along the borders. I'm assuming the American/British strategic bombing was as ineffectual as most studies show and the UK leadership hated Hitler more than they feared Soviet Communism. If America didn't join the war and the Soviet Union threatened to take over Europe and Hitler had been a typical European adversary the British might have joined Germany to maintain the balance of power. Though, if the USSR was on the verge of taking over Europe the U.S. Would have joined the war to make sure that didn't happen.
-----------
That would mean the USA would not have retaliated for Pearl Harbor. Don’t see that as a possibility. Now, you could ask what would have happened if Hitler had not declared war on the USA in 1941 (in his failed attempt to have the Japanese open up a second front in Eastern Russia)? The answer to that is the Nazis still would have lost
.--------
It is an unlikely scenario since the Japanese did attack us first. However, if you are speaking of the European theater, then, it’s hard to say. It basically would have been the Nazi’s V. Russia and although Germany was very pressed for fuel at the time, opening up Southern Europe and North Africa would have provided them with what they needed. Germany also had the scientists and Rommel. Gotta go with Germany.
--------------------
If the United States hadn't joined us in the war against nazi germany then the world war 2 would have taken a different course . As long as the way the war went after the Battle of Britain in keeping the german invasion from happening - and the Russians still took the same path that they did then war in Europe would have continued - either the red army would have cleared their way through Europe or stopped after defeating Germany. BUT AND THIS IS A HUGE BUT - germany were on the brink of introducing jet fighter planes and new long range rockets - if the allies had not invaded when we did the the war would have taken a totally different range of events . …. who can ever say what that end would have taken .
-------------
If the U.S did not enter the war at Europe then:
-the Afrika Corps still do not takes north africa and the Suez Canal, not hurting the supplies lines of the U.K. (remember the second battle of Alamein, U.S provided only air support)
-U.K struggles more on the Atlantic. Soviets equal on their defense.
-the European Axis still struggle with resources. oil from Rumania, Hungary and what Spain can get is simply not enough.
-perhaps with support from the armies stationed at France (left there for prevent an invasion, an unlikely one now) the Germans reach the Caucasus but do not secure the oil fields, or at least do no take them still in use.
-German war machine is already starving.
-Soviets pull the Siberian reserves and the resources from their factories at the Ural mountains… along with the lend lease of the allies (that only at 1943 was significative) and attack at all the front.
-we see the same dinamic at these point i think
the Soviet Union would have advance until the river Rhine, leaving the Allies with meagre bargaining chips at the repartition of the spoils, that if U.K decides to invade France. we would not had seen a splited Germany but a complete communist Germany. from that position they could have gained influence in France, Norway, Denmark and the low countries.
*ironacly Italy might have managed to defense itself. the Alpes are not the best place to attack even with superior numbers. altought still surrenders because of British naval blocade.
It goes without saying that the Soviet Union would have gained much more credibility and support internationaly, painting the cold war very differently.
Italy just like Spain would have been allies againts communism.
-------------------
"we" the USA? yes. while every help is always welcome, the participation of the USA was relatively late and definitely not a game changer… at best, the end of the WWI was somewhat accelerated , but the issue was inevitable and the sanctions over Germany that led to WWII were decided and applied without the USA playing any major role.
--------------------
It depends on what you mean by “stay out”. If you mean they never sent troops to Europe (we would of course send our army to the pacific) then the world would be quite a bit more communist. The British wouldn’t have been able to do d-day on their own, although they might’ve been able to take back North Africa and mayyyybe Sicily. The soviets would have installed communist puppet governments from Poland to France and basically ruled the world. If we never did lend lease then the soviets have a pretty good chance of falling and operation sea lion would have happened eventually.
-------------------
America wouldn’t be as big of a super power as it is today. The war was what brought the US out of the Great Depression, so the economy would’ve taken longer to recover without the war. Germany would’ve have control over a lot of Europe. Great Britain most likely would’ve been invaded. Japan would have control over Manchuria and several islands in the pacific and would have expanded their conquests across Asia and create an imperialistic empire.
--------------------
The Japanese Empire would now extend to the borders of the Middle East, where it would meet the German Empire. South America would have a more fascist leaning than it has even now. The US and Canada would be effectively dependent on both totalitarian countries for the trade, or be totally isolated from the rest of the world even more than we wanted to be between the wars. If the US and Canada did not cooperate into becoming a military fortress, the Germans would have found a way to mount an invasion. With the world under their bootstep time was on their side
--------------------
Also, Hitler declared war on the US a day or two after Pearl Harbor, but by then Americans already gave full support to FDR’s intention to assist Great Britain and the USSR. Considering that the US supplied both those nations with much-needed war-making materials, that both nations were on the brink of economic collapse, that Germany was getting petrol from Romania, and that the invasion of GB would have locked the Eurasian continent up, the US would probably have had to reach an accommodation with Hitler; or make a lot more A-bombs.
-------------------
The USA had no choice. It was attacked. Not attacking. When the Japanese fleet attacked USN base at Pearl Harbor, the USA was at war. Since the Japanese already had declared itself an ally of Germany. It meant that Germany was part of the war enemy’s list.
--------------------
The Allies would have still won and Germany would have been defeated, it would have just taken longer for that to happen. Once the Soviets turned around the German-Soviet war at Stalingrad, it was just a matter of time. Germany had no hope of winning when it attacked the USSR.
-------------
Then the axis power will obviously take over Europe and other Countries. The USA was the reason the Allies won, USA saved Europe, Africa and Asia from The axis power. Without USA stopping Japan, Japan will probably take over the whole Asia and Oceania.
It’s hard to say. USA not entering the war means that Japan wouldn’t have attacked USA. Instead they would focus on stabilizing the territories they annexed in Asia, and possibly attack USSR. In this case, a large number of Soviet troops that arrived to Stalingrad and decided the outcome of the battle, would have stayed in the other side of USSR, fighting the Japanese. So my guess is that the Nazis would have got the much desired oil fields of Caucasus.
--------------------
I think it would have been almost impossible to have not gone to war with Japan, but if Germany and Italy had not declared war on the U.S., and the U.S. had not taken part in the European Theatre, I expect that Great Britain would never had been able to muster the forces needed to invade Nazi-occupied France and the Soviet Forces would have eventually taken control of the entire European mainland.
--------------------
I don’t want to go into detail but a simple reason. During the Bliz which was the bombing of UK,America had a deal in which they supplied UK with food, ammo and weapons. Without those supplies UK would have surrendered leaving all of the German air force being transferred to the fight with Russia and the few Panzer divisions which would also make Soviets surrender and a German victory ( barley tho) then would win Africa companion since no USA or British troops and easily take over Asia with the help of Japan and North and South America !
https://www.quora.com/What-wouldve-happened-had-America-stayed-out-of-WWII
Vị trí của Giảng Võ Trường trong bản đồ Hà Nội xưa. Ảnh vẽ lại trên nền bản đồ Hồng Đức
Đó là Giảng Võ Trường (nơi huấn luyện, giảng binh pháp cho quân sĩ) có từ thời Lê, khu vực này nay còn vương lại cái tên phố Giảng Võ. Đó là nơi sử sách nói đến, bản đồ còn vẽ, nhưng ở đâu trong lòng Hà Nội ngày nay, thì ít người biết được.
Cho đến một ngày, lòng đất Hà Nội bật lên một kho vũ khí thời Lê, giữa lòng hồ Ngọc Khánh, các nhà khảo cổ mới khẳng định được vị trí của Giảng Võ Trường xưa. Đó là vào ngày 2-4-1983, công trình thi công hồ Ngọc Khánh được khởi công nằm giữa ba con phố: Kim Mã, Cầu Giấy và Nguyễn Chí Thanh. Vùng này vốn thuộc địa phận thôn Ngọc Khánh, xã Giảng Võ của quận Ba Đình, Hà Nội. Một kho vũ khí được lấy lên từ lòng đất với số lượng hàng vạn loại, bao gồm: Súng lệnh bằng đồng, đạn đá, giáo sắt, giáo đồng...
Súng lệnh bằng đồng có chiều dài 39cm, có nòng, bầu nòng để nạp thuốc súng, rãnh khoan lỗ cắm dây cháy chậm. Khi bắn, người lính sẽ đốt dây cháy chậm làm nổ thuốc súng, đẩy pháo hiệu lên cao phát sáng làm hiệu lệnh cho quân sĩ. Đây có lẽ là một loại súng cầm tay cổ xưa nhất tìm được trong thời Lê sơ. Qua những chữ khắc trên súng được biết niên đại của súng vào khoảng năm 1466 dưới thời Lê Thánh Tông.
Lòng đất Ngọc Khánh còn cung cấp hơn 1.000 viên đạn đá ở gần khu ruộng vốn có tên là Bãi Đạn. Đó là những viên đá hình cầu, đường kính lên tới khoảng 12cm. Việc đào được khá nhiều đạn đá ở nơi có tên gọi như vậy lại càng chứng tỏ vùng Ngọc Khánh vốn là một phần của thao trường xưa còn lưu lại các tên dân gian như “Bãi Đạn”, “Trường Bắn”. Một số viên đạn còn ám khói chứng tỏ chúng được bắn đi từ nòng của một khẩu “thần cơ” nào đó, dùng sức ép của thuốc nổ bắn đạn đá.
Bên cạnh súng, đạn còn có những vũ khí “lạnh” như giáo sắt, giáo đồng hình lá lúa, giáo có một ngạnh, loại giáo lớn có tên là “mũi trường”, loại câu liêm, đinh ba, kiếm, qua, lao 3 ngạnh...
Một số vũ khí đánh xa lợi hại như móc câu chùm quăng xa cho dính vào đối phương để bắt sống hoặc quăng móc vào thuyền để giữ thuyền cho lính nhảy sang đánh thuyền địch. Một số mũi tên sắt đi kèm với những chiếc nỏ gỗ. Vũ khí phòng ngự có mũi chông 3 ngạnh...
Sưu tập vũ khí dưới lòng hồ Ngọc Khánh đã cho ta thấy trình độ quân sự của thời Lê sơ, ít ra cũng vào thời thịnh trị dưới triều Lê Thánh Tông. Đó là những vũ khí lợi hại, có thể đã có một số loại được dùng trong các trận chiến với giặc Minh từ thời Lê Lợi. Những vũ khí này đã làm cho Vương Thông, Liễu Thăng nhiều phen phải sợ “mất mật” khi nghĩa quân đã “đánh một trận sạch sanh kình ngạc, đánh hai trận tan tác chim muông” như lời Bình Ngô Đại Cáo nói đến.
Kho vũ khí thời Lê sơ được phát hiện năm 1983 giữa lòng hồ Ngọc Khánh đã được các nhà sử học khẳng định là thuộc vào một khu vực huấn luyện quân sự nổi tiếng có tên Giảng Võ Trường. Từ bản đồ thời Lê Hồng Đức có ghi dấu, thư tịch chép lại địa danh này đã hiển hiện bằng chứng di vật quan trọng trong lòng đất. Nhưng tại sao những vũ khí đó lại nằm... dưới lòng hô? Đó là do “vật đổi sao dời”, nơi xưa kia là Giảng Võ Trường đã bị san lấp, đào hồ mới.
Sử sách còn ghi lại: Vào năm 1467, vua Lê đã sai đào hồ ở đình Giảng Võ. Đến năm 1481, khu vực này lại được đào một cái hồ lớn có tên là Hải Trì, quanh co đến 100 dặm. Giữa hồ có điện Thúy Ngọc, bên hồ xây điện Giảng Võ. Đến thời hiện đại, việc đào hồ mới vẫn tiếp tục đã làm cho cảnh vật khu Giảng Võ đầy biến động mà ngẫu nhiên tìm được kho vũ khí này.
Thư tịch cổ còn chép, Giảng Võ Trường trước còn có tên là Giảng Võ Đường được lập ra vào tháng 8 năm Nguyên Phong thứ ba (1283), ngay sau khi nhà Trần đại thắng quân Nguyên Mông dưới sự lãnh đạo của vua đầu triều là Trần Thái Tông. Khi đó, Nhà nước Đại Việt đã củng cố xã tắc. Bên ngành văn, vua cho lập Quốc học viện (nay vẫn còn di tích là Quốc Tử Giám). Bên ngành võ, vua sai lập Giảng Võ Đường.
Đến thời Lê Thánh Tông, vào năm 1478, nhà Lê đã lấy sân điện Giảng Võ làm nơi quân tướng tập trận. Từ đó, Giảng Võ mới trở thành nơi huấn luyện quân sĩ lớn nhất Kinh thành Thăng Long. Vào thời vua Lê Hiến Tông, Giảng Võ lại là nơi nuôi voi trận. Chuồng voi ở đây được lợp ngói, có cả những người lính kiêm quản tượng ở vùng Bắc Giang chuyên huấn luyện voi. Đến thời điểm này, trong biên chế của quân đội Đại Việt có thêm một binh chủng đặc biệt: Tượng binh.
Giảng Võ còn là nơi để duyệt binh. Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư ghi lại: “Chúa ngự ở lầu Giảng Võ... duyệt quân thủy và bộ, bày thuyền ghe, voi ngựa để phô bày sự cường thịnh”. Đó là vào năm 1630, thời vua Lê Thần Tông và chúa Trịnh Tráng. Qua thư tịch, ngày nay ta còn biết được vị trí của Giảng Võ xưa khá gần với sông Tô Lịch và dòng sông này trước đây khá lớn, có thể đứng ở Giảng Võ mà xem duyệt binh trên sông Tô Lịch được.
Đội tượng binh của nhà Lê đã chọn khá nhiều voi ở các nơi về để tập luyện ở Giảng Võ. Có khi, voi trận còn tham gia cuộc đấu khốc liệt với... hổ để cho vua Lê Thánh Tông và quân sĩ xem, giải trí. Nhiều lần voi còn được mang ra đấu với... dê rừng. Dê bị cùng đường, dương sừng ra húc làm voi hết sức sợ hãi.
Trong số vũ khí tìm thấy ở Giảng Võ Trường, có thể có những vũ khí luyện voi lợi hại như các loại giáo dài và câu liêm.
Trong lịch sử quân sự nước ta, cái tên Giảng Võ Trường rất nổi tiếng, ngay sát chân thành Thăng Long. Đây vừa là doanh trại huấn luyện quân đội tinh nhuệ của nhà Lê, đặc biệt là đội quân voi trận, lại vừa là một căn cứ quân sự lớn để bảo vệ Hoàng thành Thăng Long nơi có vua thiết triều cùng văn võ bá quan.
https://baomoi.com/noi-luyen-quan-xua-giua-ha-noi/c/26636750.epi
Chu Văn An
Lịch sử hình thành Thăng Long là những giai đoạn xây dựng, phát triển nền kinh tế, văn hóa, giáo dục để Thăng Long trở thành “kinh đô của các bậc đế vương muôn đời” và đấu tranh chống xâm lược phương Bắc. Chính vì vậy mà các triều đại phong kiến Việt Nam xưa không chỉ chú trọng đến ôn văn mà còn quan tâm đến luyện võ.
Cùng với các di tích, danh sĩ tài hoa của vùng đất Thăng Long gắn liền với nền văn chương đỉnh cao thì những di tích, danh tướng gắn liền với nền võ học cũng đem lại một cái nhìn toàn diện về một vùng đất địa linh nhân kiệt, văn võ toàn tài.
Thời đầu nhà Lý, khi đất nước bước vào thời kỳ tương đối ổn định thì những công trình văn hóa, chùa chiền được xây dựng thể hiện một triều đại chuộng văn, chuộng đạo lý Phật. Tuy nhiên, nhà Lý cũng quan tâm đến việc tập luyện võ nghệ. Ngay từ khi vua Lý dời đô về Thăng Long đã cho xây dựng một khu vực điện Giảng Võ - nơi duy trì dạy và luyện quân sự nằm ở hai làng Giảng Võ và Hào Nam là hai trại thuộc tổng Nội, huyện Vĩnh Thuận cũ. Đến đời vua Lý Anh Tông đổi tên thành Giảng Võ trường.
Đến đời Trần, Giảng Võ trường chuyển đi nơi khác, đây chỉ còn là Võ Trại có dân cư sống xen lẫn. Tuy nhiên có thể nói Thăng Long thời Trần là Thăng Long chuộng võ. Năm 1253 vua Trần cho lập Giảng Võ đường, vương hầu tôn thất, quý tộc, các tướng sĩ, quân đội đến Giảng Võ đường tập luyện cưỡi ngựa, bắn cung, đấu võ, trau dồi binh pháp, và khuyến khích tất cả trai tráng trong nước đều phải tập võ. Vào những ngày lễ hội mùa xuân, không chỉ mang tính chất vui chơi giải trí mà tinh thần thượng võ cũng được đề cao trong những hội thi... Nhờ thế mà khi quân Mông Cổ tràn sang nước ta, nhà Trần đã có ngay hơn 20 vạn quân để chống giặc.
Còn có một giai thoại kể rằng: lúc bấy giờ các phương hầu phần nhiều lấy sự đánh nhau bằng tay không và một mình đi ăn cướp là dũng cảm. Vũ Uy Vương (con vua Trần Thái Tông) cũng làm thế. Một hôm, Vũ Uy Vương đánh nhau tay không ở Đông Bộ Đầu, vua đi vi hành trông thấy hỏi rằng: “người béo mà trắng là ai, bắt lại đây để sai bảo”. Vũ Uy Vương nghe thấy bèn trốn mất.
Ngoài Giảng Võ Đường, nhiều nơi khác trong kinh thành Thăng Long cũng được sử dụng làm nơi luyện tập võ nghệ như bến Đông ở Hồ Tây. Sử cũ còn chép lại ngự sử đại phu Trương Đỗ cuối thế kỷ 14 là người thanh liêm, phóng khoáng, có chí lớn, khi còn nhỏ ngụ ở phường Cơ Xá – Nghi Tàm có lần đi chơi Hồ Tây xem tướng quân tập bắn, nói đùa rằng: “Nghề ấy thì có khó gì”. Tướng quân ngạc nhiên hỏi: “Mày bắn trúng được không?”. Trả lời: “Xin thử xem”. Bắn ba phát trúng cả ba…
Dưới thời Lê, mặc dù Nho giáo được đưa lên tới đỉnh cao, Nho sĩ được coi trọng với nhiều đặc ân của vua ban nhưng nhà Lê vẫn chú trọng đến việc luyện tập võ nghệ cho quân lính. Vườn Bách Thảo ngày nay từng nằm trong khu vực Giảng Võ của triều Lê trước kia. Thời vua Lê Thánh Tông, vua cho dựng một quả núi đất (mà hiện nay vẫn còn) làm một duyệt võ đài để đứng đó nhìn xem quân sĩ thao luyện. Vì thế người người xưa mới đặt tên núi ấy là Khán Sơn.
Trải qua các triều đại Lê Trung Hưng, Trịnh - Nguyễn với những cuộc phân tranh quyền lực, đất nước chìm trong những cuộc nội chiến liên miên thì việc tập trung xây dựng một đội quân võ nghệ trong cả nước đã không còn được chú trọng như trước. Dưới thời Nguyễn, trước âm mưu xâm lược của quân Pháp với những trang thiết bị vũ khí hiện đại, quân đội của triều đình nhà Nguyễn không đủ sức mạnh để đánh bại kẻ thù nhưng tinh thần võ sư của người dân Hà Nội vẫn khiến cho thực dân Pháp nể trọng.
Sau khi thành Hà Nội bị thất thủ, Tổng đốc Hoàng Diệu tuẫn tiết. Một tùy tướng của Hoàng Diệu là cụ Cử Tốn - cử nhân võ triều Nguyễn - lui về ở ẩn, mở lò dạy võ ở khu vực phố Trần Quý Cáp bây giờ. Trong lòng viên tuỳ tướng của vị Tổng đốc bất khuất vẫn đau đáu một tâm nguyện khi Tổ quốc cần sẽ lại cùng môn sinh phò vua giúp nước. Giặc Pháp coi cụ như cái gai trước mắt. Chúng hãm hại làm cụ mù hai mắt. Song, những bí kíp võ công của cụ đã được lớp truyền nhân tinh hoa như Mùi Đen, Tư Côi, Lý Đen... lĩnh hội.
Để triệt hạ lò võ giàu tinh thần yêu nước này, giặc Pháp sắp sẵn mưu gian lập lôi đài treo thưởng cho võ sư ba xứ Bắc - Trung - Nam và toàn cõi Đông Dương đánh thắng thầy trò Cử Tốn sẽ được thưởng Bắc Đẩu bội tinh. Biết được âm mưu thâm độc muốn gây cảnh nồi da nấu thịt trong làng võ và để cho một số võ sư và dân chúng quên đi kẻ thù chính là giặc Pháp nhưng thầy trò cụ Cử Tốn cũng rất khó xử: không tham chiến thì quần hùng chê cười, không bảo vệ được danh dự môn phái mà thượng đài thì không tránh khỏi cảnh đầu rơi máu chảy, ân oán giang hồ.
Cụ Cử cùng các môn sinh suy nghĩ nhiều lắm, càng đến gần ngày hạn định, lòng họ càng như lửa đốt. Cuối cùng, họ cũng tìm ra cách hạn chế cảnh máu chảy mà vẫn bảo vệ được tiếng tăm cho môn võ của mình... Hồi đó Bách thú Hà Nội có con hổ cụt đuôi khét tiếng hung dữ. Hôm thi đấu, trước sự chứng kiến của các quan chức thực dân và Nam triều một đệ tử chân truyền của cụ Cử Tốn đã vào chuồng cọp đực diễn lại tích “Võ Tòng đả hổ”.
Mùi Đen tay không vào chuồng cọp đực, sau một hồi ác chiến đã đánh gục cọp đực, tóm gáy, bẻ chân đưa sang chuồng cọp cái và ngược lại. Những kẻ tưởng mình có mưu sâu kế hiểm đành bất lực, quần hùng ba xứ và Đông Dương thêm kính trọng cái nhân, cái trí, cái dũng của thầy trò cụ Cử Tốn.
Mặc dù Thăng Long – Hà Nội còn lưu giữ được một số di tích, danh thắng tiêu biểu gắn liền với nền văn chương đỉnh cao của vùng đất kinh kỳ nhưng những di tích minh chứng cho một Thăng Long – Hà Nội chuộng võ hầu như không còn tìm thấy. Thế nhưng, tinh thần thượng võ của các danh tướng, võ sư vùng đất kinh kỳ vẫn còn là dấu ấn khó phai trong lịch sử vùng đất ngàn năm văn hiến.
http://hanoi.vietnamplus.vn/Home/Lo-luyen-vo-cua-thanh-Thang-Long-xua/201212/8257.vnplus
La Thành, hay thành Đại La, là một phần trong quần thể kiến trúc Thăng Long xưa. Đó là vòng thành ngoài cùng bảo vệ Hoàng thành Thăng Long trải qua nhiều triều đại phong kiến Việt Nam. Tuy đức vua Lý Thái Tổ là người có công tìm ra Thăng Long làm “nơi thượng đô của Kinh sư muôn đời”, nhưng tên La Thành không phải đến triều Lý mới xuất hiện.
La Thành hay thành Đại La đều là những tên gọi xuất hiện từ thời nước ta bị nhà Đường xâm chiếm. Khi ấy, nhà Đường cho dựng thành Đại La làm nơi đóng An Nam đô hộ phủ. Tuy vậy, những vết tích còn lại của La Thành còn lại đến bây giờ không phải là La Thành do Cao Biền đắp, mà phần nhiều là do các triều đại từ nhà Lý tu sửa nhiều lần.
One is the 1490 map of Hồng Đức. From that old map of Thăng Long city, Hanoi locals can deduce that the Imperial Palace (the rectangle in the middle) stretches from Trần Phú town to Bắc Sơn road and Hoàng Văn Thụ road. The north-south axis is approximately 1300 meter. The east-west axis is approximately 1700 meter. The total area is approximately 2,210,000 meter square or 221 hectares.
Theo các tư liệu lịch sử, khi Lý Thái Tổ dời đô ra Thăng Long có chi tiết: Đoàn thuyền của nhà vua vừa cập bến Nhĩ Hà, bên thành Đại La, thời có rồng vàng bay lên. Bởi thế, nhà vua mới đặt tên Kinh đô là Thăng Long với ý nghĩa đây là mảnh đất rồng bay lên. Từ căn cứ này có thể khẳng định phía Đông thành Đại La giáp với sông Nhĩ.
Dựa vào tư liệu cổ, nhiều nhà khoa học cho rằng, vào thời Lý, sông Nhĩ ăn gần đoạn dốc Hàng Than (phường Hàng Mã, quận Hoàn Kiếm), chạy xuôi tới đền Bạch Mã (phường Hàng Buồm, quận Hoàn Kiếm) và đền Hai Bà Trưng (phường Đồng Nhân, quận Hai Bà Trưng). Như vậy, đoạn tường thành phía Đông của thành Đại La chạy dọc từ khu vực dốc Hàng Than, xuôi xuống khu vực đền Bạch Mã và đền Hai Bà Trưng.
Lò luyện võ của thành Thăng Long xưa
Dựa vào cách gọi dân gian vùng Bưởi và Quần Ngựa, gọi phố Hoàng Hoa Thám là Lý thành, tức thành nhà Lý, các nhà khoa học đưa ra nhận định: Đoạn tường thành phía Bắc thành Đại La chính là đường Hoàng Hoa Thám, thẳng tới khu vực đường Phan Đình Phùng (nơi vẫn còn lưu giữ Bắc Môn, cửa thành phía Bắc thành).
Điều này cũng phù hợp với ghi chép tại Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư, rằng đền Đồng Cổ được vua Lý Thái Tông xây dựng theo sự báo mộng của thần, vị trí nằm “ở bên hữu, trong thành Đại La”. Mà đền Đồng Cổ hiện cũng đang nằm về bên phải của phố Hoàng Hoa Thám. Chính vì thế, nhiều nhà khoa học đã dự đoán, dưới đường Phan Đình Phùng là con hào bảo vệ mặt Bắc thành Đại La xưa kia.
The Thang Long Imperial Citadel was built in the 11th century by the Ly Viet Dynasty, marking the independence of the Dai Viet. It was constructed on the remains of a Chinese fortress dating from the 7th century, on drained land reclaimed from the Red River Delta in Hanoi. It was the centre of regional political power for almost 13 centuries without interruption. The Imperial Citadel buildings and the remains in the 18 Hoang Dieu Archaeological Site reflect a unique South-East Asian culture specific to the lower Red River Valley, at the crossroads between influences coming from China in the north and the ancient Kingdom of Champa in the south. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1328
Các thư tịch cổ chép rằng cửa Tây Dương của thành Đại La mở thông với cầu Tây Dương. Cầu Tây Dương xưa kia nằm ở khu vực Cầu Giấy, bắc qua con sông Tô Lịch hiện nay. Nói cách khác, cửa Tây Dương nằm ở khu vực cửa ô Cầu Giấy. Như vậy, đoạn tường thành phía Tây thành Đại La chính là đường Bưởi chạy ven sông Tô Lịch hiện nay, bắt đầu từ Yên Thái đến Cầu Giấy.
Sử chép rằng khu vực luyện võ của các quan võ thời Lý là Xạ Đình, thời Trần đổi thành Giảng Võ đường, nằm ở phía Nam thành Đại La. Khu vực Xạ Đình, hay Giảng Võ đường, xưa kia nay chính là khu vực Giảng Võ.
Đàn Xã Tắc được lập ở ngoài cửa Trường Quảng mà thư tịch cổ có ghi cũng mới được phát lộ năm 2006 tại khu vực cửa ô Chợ Dừa. Như vậy, cửa Trường Quảng chính là cửa ô Chợ Dừa hiện nay. Di tích Đàn Xã Tắc được phát lộ nằm về phía ngoài đường đê La Thành là hoàn toàn phù hợp với cứ liệu lịch sử.
Năm 2007, các nhà khảo cổ học cũng đào thám sát tại khu vực ô Cầu Dền. Căn cứ vào những di vật thu được từ đợt đào thám sát này, các nhà khoa học đã đưa ra nhận định: Cửa Nam thành Đại La chính là cửa ô Cầu Dền và Đàn Nam Giao nằm ở khu vực Nhà máy cơ khí Trần Hưng Đạo nằm giữa khu vực phố Bà Triệu, Thái Phiên, Mai Hắc Đế, Đoàn Trần Nghiệp.
Từ những phân tích trên, các nhà khoa học khẳng định rằng đoạn tường thành phía Nam của thành Đại La bắt đầu từ khu vực ô Cầu Giấy, chạy qua ô Chợ Dừa, theo đường Kim Liên chạy thẳng tới ô Cầu Dền và ô Đống Mác, khép kín một vòng La Thành.
Như vậy, công trình thành Đại La thời Lý chạy từ khu vực dốc Hàng Than, bám dọc theo sông Nhĩ, xuôi xuống khu vực đền Bạch Mã và đền Hai Bà Trưng, ô Đống Mác, chạy qua ô Cầu Dền, ô Cầu Dừa, cắt qua Giảng Võ, về ô Cầu Giấy, chạy theo đường Bưởi tới Yên Thái rồi dọc theo đường Hoàng Hoa Thám khép kín tại khu vực dốc Hàng Than. Bốn mặt tường thành La Thành được bao bọc bởi con hào tự nhiên phía Đông là sông Nhĩ (nay là sông Hồng); phía Nam là sông Kim Ngưu; phía Tây Nam, phía Tây và phía Bắc là sông Tô Lịch.
http://www.hoangthanhthanglong.vn/blog/di-tim-dau-tich-la-thanh/682
Ancient Imperial Citadel - Thăng Long from one is the 1490 map of Hồng Đức.
Upon visiting Hanoi today, one can marvel at its many beautiful lakes and the grand French architectures. But little do people know that on this land a few centuries ago stood a huge palace complex - some of the largest in the region.
But it was there - the Imperial Palace of Thăng Long (Hoàng Thành Thăng Long 皇城昇龍). It served as the command center, the cultural center, the soul of the nation for thousand years, and was built in 1010 when King Lý Thái Tổ (李太祖) moved the capital from Hoa Lư to Đại La (present-day Hanoi).
Legend has it that the king saw a cloud in the shape of a dragon rising from the horizon of Đại La, thus he named the new capital Thăng Long (昇龍), which means "Rising Dragon." The city would serve as the country's capital for the next 800 years until it was replaced by Huế.
Thang Long Imperial Citadel Vietnam World Heritage Site
From the old map of Thăng Long city, locals can deduce that the Imperial Palace (the rectangle in the middle) stretches from Trần Phú town to Bắc Sơn road and Hoàng Văn Thụ road. The north-south axis is approximately 1300 meter. The east-west axis is approximately 1700 meter. The total area is approximately 2,210,000 meter square or 221 hectares
The red square is the boundary of the Forbidden Palace. The blue square is the archaeological site on Hoang Dieu street where ruins of palaces have been unearthed.
The area of the archaeological site (the blue square) is 18 hectares. Maybe we can fit about 18 blue squares into that big red square. So 18 x 18 = 324 hectares.
From another source, the perimeter of Hanoi citadel during the Nguyen dynasty was over 1285 "trượng". One trượng is about 3.7 - 4 meter. --> 1285 x 3.7 = 4754.5 meter
Assuming the dimension of the citadel was about 4:5 in width:length proportion. The area would be about 140000 meter square ~ 140 hectares, after you do all the math.
However, the so-called Hanoi Citadel during the Nguyen dynasty had been tremendously reduced in size compared to the previous Thăng Long Imperial Palace.
So with all the clues above, the size of Thăng Long Imperial Palace should be at least 140 hectares (the size of Hanoi citadel) but could be as large as over 300 hectares.
To help you appreciate the meaning of these numbers, let's put into comparison -
- The Grand Palace complex in Thailand is 218,400 square meters or 21.84 hectares
- The Forbidden City in Beijing is 723,633 square meters or 72.4 hectares
- The Kyoto Imperial Palace in Japan is 910,000 square meters or 91 hectares
- The Tokyo Imperial Palace with its three huge gardens cover 341 hectares
So Thăng Long Imperial Palace was approximately the size of Tokyo Imperial Palace with a portion of its garden. Now most Hanoians living crowded spaces wouldn't be able to grasp its vastness.
No palace, no citadel could be larger than the capital, Hue. Because Thăng Long Palace was too large for its new status, in 1805, king Gia Long ordered to tear its walls down and built new walls (in Western style) to make it smaller than Hue, to make it look just like an ordinary citadel, like citadels of ordinary provinces.
This tremendously reduced the size of Thăng Long. The area which the new walls surrounded then became known as Hanoi Citadel, within the province of Hanoi.
Palaces in Thăng Long were dismantled and materials were transported to Hue to build the new Hue Imperial Palace. Only a few structures stayed.
Later, because Hanoi citadel was taller than Hue, King Minh Mạng ordered to cut it down more than 1 meter. In 1848, most remaining palaces in Hanoi were dismantled by King Tự Đức to construct palaces in Hue.
Thăng Long city had 3 layers of walls.
The outermost wall, called "Thành Thăng Long" (Thăng Long Citadel) surrounded an area of approximately 10 kilometer square (1000 hectares). The east-west axis is 2000 meter long and the north-south axis is 5000 meter long. This is the wall layer that protected the entire capital in case of disasters and invasion.
The second wall layer surrounded an area of around 200-300 hectares. This layer is called "Hoàng Thành" (Imperial Palace/Citadel). It's the political center of the country with Royal courts where kings listened to reports from mandarins, and palaces for noble families.
The third wall layer is not far from the second layer. This layer is called Cấm Thành (Forbidden Palace/Citadel), where kings and their families resided.
Architectures inside the Imperial Palaces vary from dynasty to dynasty.
During the Lý dynasty, Buddhism was at its heydays. Temples and pagodas were numerous. In 1031, King Lý Thái Tông built 950 pagodas and temples! In 1056, a 30-floor pagoda tower was built (50 - 60 meter tall) called chùa Báo Thiên. Later another 70-meter-tall pagoda was built.
Majority of structures during the Lý dynasty were big and tall and served religious purposes (with prominent Cham influence).
One structure found at the archaeological site was 70 meter in length and 18 meter in width, with 9 compartments inside. Walking spaces were found to be generally 5.8 to 6 meter in width.
https://historum.com/threads/ancient-imperial-citadel-th-259-ng-long.41370/
Returning from last weekend in Lake Tahoe and Reno, we had taken some photos on our first visit to the lake that revealed, in two of the photos, a strange and very clear hexagon energy and orb that was over my lower torso. It seemed to slightly move by the second photo and in the next, was no longer there. I also noted that after this experience I realized that my several months coccyx pains had subsided enormously and miraculously, shifting energetically as well.
Other energies continued to show up in photos, but this was the most prominent in how it clearly showed up in geometric display.
Then, one week to the day of these photos being taken at the lake, a surprise thank you gift arrived at my door from a good friend and client. I was overjoyed to open the fun and thoughtful gifts, but one stood out, catching my attention immensely.
It was a beautiful Amethyst sphere – (Amethyst Metaphysical Properties include being a powerful and protective stone, guards against psychic attack, transmutes the energy into love and protecting the wearer from all types of harm including electromagnetic stress and ill wishes from others, is a natural tranquilizer, relieves stress and strain, soothes irritability, balances mood swings, dispels anger, rage, fear and anxiety, alleviates sadness and grief, dissolves negativity, activates spiritual awareness, opens intuition, enhances psychic abilities, has strong healing and cleansing powers, has a sobering effect over any kind of addictions, calms and stimulates the mind, helps you become focused, enhances memory, improves motivation, relieves insomnia, assists remembering and understanding dreams, encourages selflessness and spiritual wisdom…) – however, this was no ordinary sphere, Amethyst or otherwise.
The only other time I have seen such defined geometric shapes, was in a Quartz sphere I once found and had then passed on to a new keeper. However, the shapes were circles. This Amethyst sphere has a clearly defined hexagon that in person, when looked directly at, has dimensional depth that draws and sucks inward to it’s center creating a portal energy.
As it sits on my desk in its lovely silver turtle stand, it also feels like this dimensional eye doorway peering at me and drawing me in. Super cool! It goes further, as the hexagon expands down the sphere, creating like four layers that get bigger and create a honeycomb, but also spider web effect, and at the bottom the edges of the hexagon sides of the hexagon start to curve from their original straightness and create four hearts all along the bottom of the sphere. Not to mention there are little cool rainbows throughout.
But what were the odds that I would get this miracle Amethyst with another hexagon energy, clearly defined, an exact week later? One in a billion maybe? Who knows…but it definitely has my attention, as everything to me has meaning and is not random.
I decided to do a little delving into hexagon symbolism, beyond the basics that I knew, to see what other interesting information I could find and what it might reveal. I haven’t fully integrated or processed the information, but know that it is all working its magic, regardless of me consciously formulating it or not.
That is the way I operate in my life is knowing on a deep level in words I can’t articulate, but can feel the immensity of energetically. And then later reiterations unravel what already has taken place whether my conscious mind mentally pieced it together or not.
Anyway, I did find some cool stuff (I love how right now my draft is being autosaved at 9:04:44 -444 again! that keep showing up tons lately) that I thought I’d share in case anyone else is having hexagon synchronicities. And perhaps you can piece the story together in your own way, as I am doing.
First I’ll start off sharing the more simple stuff. I always love Avia Venefica’s symbolism and meanings she writes on just about everything. Here is a brief meaning she shares for the number 6 in her post Spiritual Meaning of Numbers:
Six: The symbolism behind number Six is legend. With Venus as its ruler, Six represents harmony, balance, sincerity, love, and truth. Six naturally reveals solutions for us in a calm, unfolding manner. We invoke the Six when we need delicate diplomacy when dealing with sensitive matters. The spiritual meaning of number Six also deals with enlightenment; specifically “lighting” our path in areas we require spiritual and mental balance. Sixes beckon us to administer compassion and consciously choose forgiveness in a situation.
She then elaborates on this here in her post: Meaning of Six
I love the key words shared in that post:
Truth
Union
Lovers
Harmony
Balance
Equality
Perfection
Integration
Interfacing
Conjoining
Reliability
Dependability
Communication
All of which were very meaningful for me and I especially found resonation with this that jumped at me:
The number six is aligned with the: Cube, Hexagon, and Hexagram.
Each of these shapes is created from perfectly equal parts. This mirrors the underlying meaning of six as a symbol of perfect union, and the energetic emblem of soulful integration.
I rather like the simplicity nature provides in our understanding of number six through the symbolic language of bees. Their labyrinth-like homes are neatly formed hexagons.
(In particular this resonated, as yesterday was the day I received the Amethyst hexagon sphere and my coccyx pains have remained transformed with only minor bruising feelings at random times that had moved, but basically removal of the constant and painful stuff I had been experiencing for months had taken place.
Then yesterday afternoon after having the Amethyst on my desk with its hexagonal eye portal facing me, and having just finished even deeper integration of energies connected and writing my sacrum blog, I suddenly was hit with an internal major energetic pain that I haven’t had in a while which lasted for about a half an hour.
I laid on the floor, doing Reiki and reviewing the information and found a trigger point to the left side of the coccyx/sacrum that when pushed would release not only the energetic pain, but shifted my equilibrium, creating an altered state effect and dimensional kind of shifting.
Shortly after, the energetic pains completely dissipated and an even greater renewal of lightness and balance came over me that persists. Definitely some “soulful integration” has taken place.) – side note, I actually just added this part, as I didn’t remember it until after I posted this blog, and as I just finished and saved, the clock said 11:11 🙂
She then shares in her post, Meaning of Hexagon:
…symbols are personal and unique to each individual.
In your case, the hexagon is going to have an entirely different meaning to you than it would to someone else.
If you have a tendancy towards prophetic dreams, this symbol may indicate a spiritual or metaphysical trigger for you.
In further determining the meaning of your symbol, I would encourage you to begin breaking down the elments of the image…
It may also be noteworthy that the shape of the hexagon is used in beehives…what does this mean to you? Efficiency? Community?
I would encourage meditation upon this symbol – note that every side of the symbol is equadistant with another ( its opposite) side. Same too with each angle. What does this mean to you? Facing reality? Facing up to others? Holding up a mirror?
The more you meditate upon your special symbol, the more meanings will be revealed to you. I promise, it is worth the investment you make.
I felt a need to delve further and further I did go. So I then was led to this cool photo about the beautiful mystery of Saturn from Symbolic Living:
The hexagon circles Saturn at 77 degrees north and is wider than two Earths. Nearly everything about the weather pattern is baffling. First, it’s unclear what causes the hexagon. Second, it’s bizarre that the jet stream would make such sharp turns. Earth’s atmospheric movements rarely display such geometric rigor.
And another photo of the Saturn hexagonal jet stream from PseudOccultMedia.com that offers another cool look at this image.
If you want to explore that website you can. They offer a lot of interesting insights of how this symbol has been used in varying ways, but it is up to us to derive our own personal meaning, as both Avia and the post on pseudoccultmedia share.
The hexagon is one of the world’s most ancient, magical symbols…I believe the universe speaks to us through symbols…no symbol is inherently bad; they just get hijacked and abused by people with an agenda. ~ pseudoccultmedia.com
You can find the hexagon in beehives and snowflakes as seen in these photos above.
And then of course, alongside the extensive list and references that pseudoccultmedia.com shared, there is the hexagonal geometry of the Tree of Life.
For anyone really interested in unraveling geometric understanding of this, this is a cool link: Hexagonal Geometry of the Tree of Life
And here is a more simplistic link to give you an idea: Hexagram Star Shapes on the Tree of Life
I’ve included the image from that last post here for visual reference of the hexagonal geometry within it and then a more detailed version as well below.
The hexagon can be found in a multitude of things including the soccer ball. Here is another list of some of the things/places that you can find the hexagon:
Hexagons: natural and human-made
A beehive honeycomb.
The scutes of a turtle’s carapace.
North polar hexagonal cloud feature on Saturn, discovered by Voyager 1 and confirmed in 2006 by Cassini.
Micrograph of a snowflake.
Crystal structure of a molecular hexagon composed of hexagonal aromatic rings reported by Müllen and coworkers in Chem. Eur. J., 2000, 1834-1839.
Naturally formed basalt columns from Giant’s Causeway in Ireland.
An aerial view of Fort Jefferson in Dry Tortugas National Park.
The James Webb Space Telescope mirror is composed of 18 hexagonal segments.
Metropolitan France has a vaguely hexagonal shape
Flower of life
Metatron cube
Platonic solid.
And last, I thought I’d share this interesting video: Triumph of the Hexagon
Every day keeps providing magical new revealings and experiences and it truly is up to each of us to find our own meaning, way, and make those personal choices that reflect the authenticity of what we discover in our hearts.
Lots of love to each of you along this rapidly shifting journey.
She then shares in her post, Meaning of Hexagon:
…symbols are personal and unique to each individual.
In your case, the hexagon is going to have an entirely different meaning to you than it would to someone else.
If you have a tendancy towards prophetic dreams, this symbol may indicate a spiritual or metaphysical trigger for you.
In further determining the meaning of your symbol, I would encourage you to begin breaking down the elments of the image…
It may also be noteworthy that the shape of the hexagon is used in beehives…what does this mean to you? Efficiency? Community?
I would encourage meditation upon this symbol – note that every side of the symbol is equadistant with another ( its opposite) side. Same too with each angle. What does this mean to you? Facing reality? Facing up to others? Holding up a mirror?
The more you meditate upon your special symbol, the more meanings will be revealed to you. I promise, it is worth the investment you make.
I felt a need to delve further and further I did go. So I then was led to this cool photo about the beautiful mystery of Saturn from Symbolic Living:
The hexagon circles Saturn at 77 degrees north and is wider than two Earths. Nearly everything about the weather pattern is baffling. First, it’s unclear what causes the hexagon. Second, it’s bizarre that the jet stream would make such sharp turns. Earth’s atmospheric movements rarely display such geometric rigor.
And another photo of the Saturn hexagonal jet stream from PseudOccultMedia.com that offers another cool look at this image.
If you want to explore that website you can. They offer a lot of interesting insights of how this symbol has been used in varying ways, but it is up to us to derive our own personal meaning, as both Avia and the post on pseudoccultmedia share.
The hexagon is one of the world’s most ancient, magical symbols…I believe the universe speaks to us through symbols…no symbol is inherently bad; they just get hijacked and abused by people with an agenda. ~ pseudoccultmedia.com
You can find the hexagon in beehives and snowflakes as seen in these photos above.
And then of course, alongside the extensive list and references that pseudoccultmedia.com shared, there is the hexagonal geometry of the Tree of Life.
For anyone really interested in unraveling geometric understanding of this, this is a cool link: Hexagonal Geometry of the Tree of Life
And here is a more simplistic link to give you an idea: Hexagram Star Shapes on the Tree of Life
I’ve included the image from that last post here for visual reference of the hexagonal geometry within it and then a more detailed version as well below.
The hexagon can be found in a multitude of things including the soccer ball. Here is another list of some of the things/places that you can find the hexagon:
Hexagons: natural and human-made
A beehive honeycomb.
The scutes of a turtle’s carapace.
North polar hexagonal cloud feature on Saturn, discovered by Voyager 1 and confirmed in 2006 by Cassini.
Micrograph of a snowflake.
Crystal structure of a molecular hexagon composed of hexagonal aromatic rings reported by Müllen and coworkers in Chem. Eur. J., 2000, 1834-1839.
Naturally formed basalt columns from Giant’s Causeway in Ireland.
An aerial view of Fort Jefferson in Dry Tortugas National Park.
The James Webb Space Telescope mirror is composed of 18 hexagonal segments.
Metropolitan France has a vaguely hexagonal shape
Flower of life
Metatron cube
Platonic solid.
And last, I thought I’d share this interesting video: Triumph of the Hexagon
Every day keeps providing magical new revealings and experiences and it truly is up to each of us to find our own meaning, way, and make those personal choices that reflect the authenticity of what we discover in our hearts.
Lots of love to each of you along this rapidly shifting journey.
https://taniamarieartist.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/hexagons-and-healings-universal-symbolism-to-ponder/
The painting, ink and colour powder on silk supported by paper and measuring 88x65.6cm, was made in 1929.
The Snail Seller was showcased at the Paris-Bois de Vincennes International Exhibition from May 6 to November 15, 1931, where Chanh displayed six of his works.
Experts guessed that Chanh had displayed his artworks at the exhibition because in 1929, while studying at the Indochina Fine Arts College, he won the first prize at the Indochina Post Stamp Design contest.
In 1931, Chanh made two silk paintings, which were considered master pieces --- Choi O An Quan (Playing O An Quan Game) and Child with Bird.
He tried his hand at silk painting with the encouragement of his college rector, Victor Tardieu (1870-1937).
The Snail Seller was collected in 1931 and was occasionally displayed at exhibitions here and there. Its most recent appearance was in 2002 at the Mariemont Royal Museum in Belgium.
The exhibition, titled Peach and Blue Birds: Arts and Civilisation of Vietnam, was held from April 20 to August 18.
During his life, Chanh made some 170 paintings, most of which measure 65x50cm.
Although he painted about various topics, he was known for his paintings of ordinary people and popular images in the northern region of Vietnam.
Chanh (1892-1984), considered one of Vietnam's foremost silk artists, worked prolifically during the war era.
Although he lived in turbulent times, Chanh never depicted battle scenes.
His art celebrated peace, beauty and the daily lives of local people.
He once said he didn't bring war into his paintings because 'guns could shoot through silk'.
Film producer Tsutomu Nakamura was instantly captivated by the art form, which he saw depicted on a calendar in HCM City and began researching the life and work of the painter.
Chanh, who was among the first students of the Indochina College of Fine Arts (now Hanoi University of Fine Arts), was one of the greatest Vietnamese painters in the 20th century, pioneering his own style and technique of painting on silk.
Before painting, the silk canvas was washed in warm water.
When the first layer of colours was finished and dried, he washed the painting again before adding new colours until he was satisfied with the work.
Nakamura read an article in the Japanese edition of the New York Times in 2008 about silk paintings that had been damaged by time, including works by Chanh.
'I wondered how to preserve these paintings for future generations because they didn't just belong to the painter's family and Vietnam but humanity as a whole,' he said.
Using his own money, he launched a project to preserve silk works with the help of painters, researchers and filmmakers, who visited Tu's house in 2009.
Tu allowed them to take three damaged paintings – Hun Thuyen (Fumigating the Boats), Co Gai Cuoi Bo Qua Song (Young Girl Crosses River on Cow's Back) and Don Cui (Cutting Wood) – to Japan for restoration.
The group of Japanese specialists included Kikuko Iwai, who has restored works by Picasso and Monet, came to the painter's homeland to find out more about his life and work.
'To restore Chanh's paintings, I needed to learn more about him and his technique,' Iwai said.
She said she had no idea how to restore the colours of the sunset and the girl's appearance in the painting Young Girl Crossing a River on Cow's Back, which were badly damaged.
Knowing that the painter often brought a bottle of water and bread and rode his bicycle along the Hong (Red) River's dyke for inspiration, Iwai said she stood for hours by the river watching the sunset.
She met a couple of farmers, who were aged about 80, on the dyke and asked them what it was like working in the alluvial plain of the river with buffaloes and cows.
Their descriptions helped Iwai understand the context of the painting.
When it came to the actual restoration work, she said one of the hardest tasks was to remove the layers of paper pasted on the back of the painting to strengthen it.
She also said the silk was extremely fragile.
'The silk layer had broken into pieces over time and the paper backing had decayed badly.'
She added: 'Chanh had to work in extremely poor conditions during the war, so he had to strengthen the painting with bad paper. I feel great admiration for him.'
Last year, the restoration work was finished and three paintings were displayed at the 21st Century Museum of Contemporary Art in Japan .
Together with the restored works, a film on the restoration process was made in an attempt to capture the project's essence.
Interviews with Chanh's daughter and family and his student, painter Nguyen Thu, as well as the work of the Japanese researchers were included in the 57-minute film made by Nihon Denpa News.
Tu was invited to visit the exhibition, which she said was very moving.
'Iwai and I couldn't hold back our tears when seeing the paintings.
In a place very far from Vietnam, I felt my father's presence in each painting,' Tu said.
'The paintings were seriously damaged but thanks to the Japanese specialists' skill and enthusiasm, they were restored to their former glory.'
Chanh's paintings captivated Japanese audiences and art specialists returned to Vietnam last month and took away some more badly damaged paintings.
They plan to open an exhibition of Chanh's work, including the restored painting and artworks borrowed from museums and private collections around the world, in Japan in October.
https://en.nhandan.org.vn/culture/heritage/item/1250902-.html
https://www.vir.com.vn/painting-by-vietnamese-artist-sold-for-record-price-59617.html
The Black Rain Frog is a burrowing amphibian that is native to the southern coast of Africa. One nifty characteristic possessed by this frog is that they burrow to create tunnels up to 150 mm deep.
In actuality, this frog isn't really crotchety. In fact, they're very considerate!
The lady-frogs will secrete a special sticky substance from their backs, so that the male frogs don't fall off during the act of intercourse.
During mating season, the male frogs will actually stay in the burrow to guard their eggs and will send out little chirps as part of their calls.
This frog has a special defense mechanism in case of attack. When someone scares him or tries to grab him, he puffs himself up with air to make his body more rotund.
Occasionally, he will do this while he is burrowing so that whatever is grabbing for him is unable to pull him out of his hole. So, he ends up looking like a cranky little balloon.
https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/meet-worlds-grumpiest-frog/
Yayoi culture. Yayoi culture, (c. 300 bce–c. 250 ce), prehistoric culture of Japan, subsequent to the Jōmon culture. Named after the district in Tokyo where its artifacts were first found in 1884, the culture arose on the southern Japanese island of Kyushu and spread northeastward toward the Kantō Plain.
--------------
Qin dynasty | China [221–207 bc] | Britannica.com
--------------
Các sách cổ nói đến nhiều nhóm Bách Việt khác nhau, trong đó có Câu Ngô (句吳), Ư Việt (於越), Dương Việt (揚越), Cán Việt (干越), Sơn Việt (山越), Dạ Lang (夜郎), Điền Việt (滇越 / 盔越), Mân Việt, Sơn Việt, Lạc Việt (雒越), Âu Việt (甌越 - hay còn gọi là Tây Âu - 西甌)... Các bộ tộc Bách Việt không phải là một khối thống nhất, giữa các bộ tộc này có nhiều sự khác nhau về địa bàn cư trú, văn hóa và ngôn ngữ, nhưng ngày nay khó xác định vì các nhóm bộ tộc này đều không có chữ viết nên không để lại các văn bản ghi chép.
Phần lớn các tộc Bách Việt đã bị đánh bại sau cuộc chinh phạt xuống phía Nam của nhà Tần trong giai đoạn 220-210 trước công nguyên. Trong thời nhà Hán họ dần dần đồng hóa với người Trung Nguyên để trở thành tổ tiên của người Hán phía nam sông Trường Giang hiện nay. Chỉ còn sót lại Lạc Việt và Âu Việt, là 2 nhóm cư ngụ ở miền Bắc Việt Nam ngày nay, không bị đồng hóa. Âu Việt là tổ tiên của người Tày -Nùng, Lạc Việt là tổ tiên trực tiếp của người Kinh ở Việt Nam ngày nay.
Irrigation, agriculture (primarily rice farming), weaving and iron and bronze casting techniques were introduced to Japan from Korea and China between 300 and 100 B.C. Iron was used in weapons and farming tools. Bronze was made into swords, spears, dotaku (cylindrical bell-shaped objects) and mirrors used in religious rituals. The Yayoi people also used wooden ladles, hammers, ploughs and pestles. Yayoi pottery resembles pottery produced in Korea at the same time. The technique of weaving clothes arrived from China around 300 B.C. Early fabrics were made from hemp (for commoners) and silk (for nobility). Some were dyed red with an herb called madder.
“Although the pottery of the Yayoi was more technologically advanced--produced on a potter's wheel--it was more simply decorated than Jomon ware. The Yayoi made bronze ceremonial nonfunctional bells, mirrors, and weapons and, by the first century A.D., iron agricultural tools and weapons. The Yayoi people lived in homes with proper entrances and windows, elevated floors supported by pillars, and roof ridges surmounted by ornamental wooden blocks. There were also high-floored warehouses and granaries. A 2000-year-old rice ball was discovered in the town of Rokuseimachi in Ishikawa Prefecture in December 1987.
Đầu thời kỳ chiến quốc, thế nước Việt vẫn còn rất mạnh. Qua các đời vua tiếp theo sau Câu Tiễn, nước Việt tiếp tục tiến hành tiêu diệt và thâu tóm các nước chư hầu nhỏ khác khiến lãnh thổ tiếp tục mở rộng lên phía bắc. Bấy giờ, lãnh thổ của nước Việt đã rất rộng, giáp ranh hai nước Sơn Đông khác là Lỗ và Tề. Trước khi có sự trỗi dậy của nước Tần, Việt cùng với Sở và Ngụy là một trong ba nước mạnh nhất thời điểm lúc đó. Cũng trong thời gian này mối quan hệ giữa hai nước Tề và Việt không mấy gì là tốt đẹp.
Tuy nhiên, những tranh chấp trong nội bộ dòng tộc đã khiến nước Việt suy yếu, kèm theo đó là những lần bại trận trước nước Sở trong những lần tranh chấp lãnh thổ biên giới đã khiến nước Việt mất dần địa vị bá chủ.
Năm 306 TCN, Sở đánh bại Việt, Việt vương Vô Cương bị sát hại. Vào năm 334 TCN, nước Sở mở một cuộc tấn công bất ngờ vào lãnh thổ nước Việt và đoạt lấy vùng Giang Tô, kinh đô cũ của nước Ngô. Cuộc tấn công của nước Sở đã cắt đôi lãnh thổ nước Việt, bấy giờ phần phía bắc của nước Việt đang giáp với nước Tề.
Sau nhiều năm kháng cự, cuối cùng nước Việt cũng bị nước Sở tiêu diệt, Việt vương Vô Cương thất trận và bị giết. Lãnh thổ nước Việt bị nước Sở và nước Tề sát nhập. Con thứ hai của Vô Cương là Minh Di được vua Sở cho cai quản vùng đất Ngô Thành (nay ở huyện Ngô Hưng tỉnh Chiết Giang), nằm ở phía nam Âu Dương Đình, được đặt tên như vậy bởi vì nó được xây dựng ở phía nam và là phía dương (mặt trời) của núi Âu Dương, vì thế ông được đặt danh hiệu là Âu Dương Đình Hầu.
The thoughts and actions we have today will ultimately determine the way we live later.
Angel number 144 is telling you to be focused on your own goals and not to give up easily. Now when you know the meanings of all these numbers that are hidden in angel number 1144, we hope that you can understand the meaning of this unique and magical angel number.
When it comes to the meaning of angel number 1144, we can say that it is strongly connected with your intuition and positive energy. Your angels will tell you what you should do to have success and they will inform you about the next steps that you should take.
It is important to have faith in your angels, because they will help you reach your goals.
The secret meaning of angel number 1144 is always associated with changes that are going to happen in someone’s life. You should know that now is the right time for changes and you should not be afraid of them.
Your angels will help you if you are not feeling well and they will show you the right way where you should go in your life.
The secret message that your angels are sending to you through number 1144 is associated with self-confidence as well. It means that you should trust more in yourself. If you love yourself, everything in your life will be much easier for you.
Also, other people will love you and respect you more. Angel number 1144 should be your encouragament to go forward and not to give up from your dreams.
Very often angel number 1144 resonates with our emotions. It may happen that you are overwhelmed with your own emotions and you are not brave enough to express them clearly. Your angels will help you in that, so you need to follow their message and their advice.
We have already said that angel number 1144 is related to new beginnings and it can be associated with love as well. If you don’t have your emotional partner, you should not be depressed, because something will change very soon.
A new romance is waiting for you, so you need to have faith and to believe in your angels.
On the other side, if you are already in a relationship, angel number 1144 means that you will get married soon. This number is telling you that you will reach the next level in your relationship. But, if you were not happy in a relationship, you will probably break up with your partner.
In any case, we can say that many things in your love life will change soon, but those changes will be good for you.
When it comes to the love symbolism of angel number 1144, we have to say that it is related to honesty as well. It means that this number may help you to express your emotions and to tell your loved ones how much you love them.
https://angelnumber.org/1144-angel-number-meaning-and-symbolism/
We think of chicken as the healthy option for our Sunday roast, but even organic or free-range birds lack the protein and nutrients of a generation ago, reports Andrew Purvis - and the veg ain't what it used to be either
Sun 15 May 2005 11.34 EDT.
It is, on the face of it, the opposite of junk food - a low-fat chicken (long promoted as a healthy alternative to red meat) brushed with olive oil and roasted, with no chemical additives, no batter, no breadcrumbs, no smiling Colonel Sanders and no Happy Meal toy. Last month, however, Britain's favourite bird was shown to contain as much fat, gram for gram, as a Big Mac.
Professor Michael Crawford and Yoqun Wang of London Metropolitan University found that a chicken in 2004 contained more than twice as much fat as in 1940, a third more calories and a third less protein - when protein is what the consumer is paying for. As Professor Crawford says, 'We now need a new definition of what we mean by a healthy food.'
For the first time since records began inthe 1870s, the fat in a Sunday roast outweighs its protein by a factor of 1.4. Today, a 1.3kg supermarket bird leaves behind 275g of fat in the roasting tin and, of the remaining lean, four-fifths is water (though this is determined by cell biology and has not changed since 1940). 'When people see this, they begin to realise that food is not as cheap as they think it is,' Professor Crawford says.
'Six times as many calories are coming from fat as from protein, you are being sold a pup down the line.' Even organic chickens, assumed to be a healthier option, contain only slightly less fat (17.1g per portion) than protein. It may have had more space to roam than a conventionally reared bird but is still given high-energy feed, takes little exercise and is bred for rapid weight gain, when the development of meat takes time. 'A free-range bird is the best,' says Crawford, 'but even that depends on its diet.'
In 50 years, poultry has gone from being a health food to a junk food - and some scientists claim other natural produce is going the same way. Last month, delegates at the conference Overfed and Undernourished (organised by BANT, the British Association of Nutritional Therapy) heard that, between 1940 and 1991, many fresh fruits and vegetables had lost large amounts of minerals and trace elements.
David Thomas - a geologist turned chiropractor (who also happens to sell mineral supplements) - analysed data from McCance and Widdowson's epic work, The Composition of Foods (a reference manual republished and updated by Government biochemists every few years). During that 51-year period, potatoes appeared to have lost 47 per cent of their copper, 45 per cent of their iron and 35 per cent of their calcium while carrots showed even bigger declines. Broccoli - a 'superfood' rich in micronutrients and cancer-busting antioxidants - suffered an 80 per cent drop in copper while calcium content was a quarter of what it had been in 1940, a pattern repeated in tomatoes. As Thomas pointed out: 'You would need to have eaten 10 tomatoes in 1991 to have obtained the same copper intake as from one tomato in 1940.'
His theory, largely unproven, is that modern horticulture methods such as hydroponics (growing fruits and vegetables in irrigated matting rather than soil) and chemical fertilisers, together with new varieties of crop, longer storage times and long-distance transport, may havecaused changes in the nutritional value of the foods we eat.
In a recent talk, he presented charts (based on US government figures) suggesting a correspondence between increases in deficiency disease (cardiovascular problems, asthma, bronchitic and orthopaedic deformities) and declining levels of magnesium in the US diet - specifically tomato, lettuce, cabbage and spinach. 'I'm convinced mineral depletion is part of our current health crisis and increase in lifestyle diseases. I'm not saying it's the whole problem - but if we want to be happier and healthier, we have to understand we are part of the environment and not separate from it. A significant part of that environment is our food, and that is declining in quality over time,' says Thomas.
Professor Richard Mithen, head of phytochemicals and health at the Institute of Food Research (IFR), disagrees. 'I don't want to be unduly negative about David Thomas's work,' he says, 'but it is merely anecdotal; it doesn't stand up to analysis. In 50 years, mineral levels will have changed due to di. erent agronomic practices. We use different fertilisers now, we have different pollution which may have an effect. Some of these minerals may have gone down, others will have gone up. However, the health implications of this are not at all apparent.
OK, potassium levels have declined in leafy vegetables - but so what? People eat bananas now, which are rich in potassium - and how many of those would they have eaten in the 1940s? Carrots may have lost 46 per cent of their iron but they are not a good source of iron in the diet anyway. It's better to eat liver.' Minerals in vegetables may be an irrelevance, but what about vitamins? In 2002, the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that fruit and vegetables bought in Canadian supermarkets had shown marked declines over a 50-year period. Analysing food tables prepared by government scientists between 1951 and 1999 (roughly as David Thomas had done), researchers found that potatoes had lost 100 per cent of their vitamin A (important for good eyesight) and 57 per cent of their vitamin C, while today's consumers would have to eat eight oranges to get the same amount of vitamin A as their grandparents obtained from one fruit.
Professor Mithen of the IFR says the same false logic is evident in these Canadian claims as in David Thomas's. 'It may be true that you need to eat six,' he says, 'but my children eat far more oranges now than my grandparents ever did. It all has to be looked at in the overall context of how our diet has changed.' Last year, a study of 43 vegetables and fruits published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition found significant declines for six nutrients (protein, calcium, phosphorous, iron, riboflavin and ascorbic acid) between 1950 and 2000.
Comparing old and new figures from the US Department of Agriculture, Donald Davis, author of the University of Texas study, concluded that changes in cultivated varieties, rather than horticulture practices, accounted for the depletion. 'In those 50 years,' he said, 'there have been intensive efforts to breed new varieties that have greater yield, or resistance to pests, or adaptability to different climates - but the dominant effort is for higher yields. New evidence suggests that, if you select for yield, crops grow bigger and faster but they don't have the ability to make or uptake nutrients at the same rate.'
So far, so academic - does any of this matter? Even if Davis's analysis is correct, there is no evidence that nutrient deficiencies in crops are making human beings ill. Indeed, such are the known health benefits of eating plenty of fruit and vegetables (as outlined in the Government's Five-a-Day campaign and the World Health Organisation's directive for beating cancer), any reduction in mineral content is massively outweighed by the health-giving vitamins, minerals, fibre, phytochemicals and micronutrients that were abundant in the plant-based diets of our ancestors.
'It is more an issue of consumer rights,' says Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, London. 'We think of something like an orange as a constant, but it isn't.' Professor Phil Warman of Nova Scotia Agricultural College in Canada expressed a similar view when the Toronto Globe and Mail published its story. 'I want to eat a product that is as high in nutritional value as possible,' he said, 'otherwise I'd just eat sawdust with nitrogen fertiliser.'
However, Lang and Warman's ethical argument is invalid if the methodology of such historical comparisons is flawed. Critics say analytical techniques have changed since the 1950s, the original US government figures may have been wrong and all kinds of variables could have changed.
The same criticisms were levelled at David Thomas's work, but Professor Michael Crawford (co-author of the chicken study) says this is a red herring. 'The traditional methods used by physical chemists are still the most accurate on the planet for measuring weights and components,' he says.
'What has changed is not the accuracy of the methodology but the peripheral stuff - like linking it to a computer and being able to do 300 measurements in an hour. It's wrong to say people measuringcopper in the 1940s were measuring something different.'
Studying The Composition of Foods, I can see why this kind of analysis leaves plenty of room for error. Its dense rows of tabulated figures are littered with footnotes as the compilers struggle to incorporate new food knowledge into old. Some results are listed as ranges rather than single figures because there are so many variables - how long a broccoli sample was boiled (15 minutes in 1991, a staggering 45 minutes in 1940) and the length of time a crop was stored.
One addendum says, 'Fresh dug potatoes contain 21mg of vitamin C per 100g. This falls to 9mg per 100g after three months' storage and to 7mg after nine months' storage' - appearing to support David Thomas's claim that some modern agricultural practices may be compromising nutritional value.
In fact, the most worrying deficiency in the British diet has nothing to do with storage times, transport methods or the farmer's alleged obsession with higher yield. It is caused by the natural idiosyncrasies of our soil - something David Thomas, as a geologist, overlooked. 'Since the 1970s,' says Professor Richard Mithen of the IFR, 'the selenium in our blood plasma has gone down and is currently half the recommended intake.
This is very well documented, and we know that selenium levels are very important for maintaining health.' Deficiency in selenium may be linked to infertility, depression, heart disease and increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, colon, lung and breast cancers.
From the 1940s to the 1960s, Professor Mithen adds, we imported all our bread wheat from Canada and the US; British varieties were good for making biscuits but not much good for making bread. 'At that time,' he says, 'we had a very good plant breeding industry, a lot of it government-controlled.
They bred new wheat varieties for the UK and were very successful, so in the 1970s we stopped importing wheat because we could grow it ourselves.' One consequence was that the wheat grown in Britain had only about a quarter of the selenium content of imported wheats, due to lower levels in the soil. 'It's a very real concern,' says Mithen, 'but we are now addressing that.'
The Food Standards Agency is funding a project at the IFR, looking at the role of selenium in immune function in human volunteers. 'The effects of eating selenium, either in supplement form or in selenium-rich food such as onions, will be studied,' says Dr Rachel Hurst of the IFR. 'It is vitally important to understand how much and which type of selenium would offer most health benefits and to find ways of increasing selenium in the foods we eat.' In the meantime, Waitrose is selling a selenium enriched bread grown by a farmer in East Anglia who fertilises his soil with selenium.
In Finland, the government introduced a policy in the 1990s of fertilising all agricultural land after experiencing the same problems as Britain. 'Nobody could have anticipated what would happen with selenium,' Professor Mithen says. 'It makes you wonder what else we are doing in our food production system now that we can't predict.'
Gundula Azeez, policy manager for the Soil Association, thinks she knows. She cites a (disputed) 2001 review study, published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, showing that nutrient levels, including vitamin C, are lower in crops grown with chemical fertilisers. Organic spinach, lettuce, cabbage and potatoes showed relatively high levels. 'Unlike minerals, vitamins and antioxidants are not supplied by the soil,' she says, 'so you cannot add them using fertilisers.
They are produced by the plants themselves and are natural pest-defence compounds, part of a range of chemicals we are just beginning to understand. Studies have shown that levels are up to 40 per cent higher in organic produce. If you're using artificial pesticides, plants don't have to produce these protective chemicals. Levels in non-organic foods are likely to be lower.'
However, the Food Standards Agency maintains there are no clear nutritional or health benefits of organic food over conventional and that further research is needed. Azeez claims this research is 'now coming out', suggesting one further impact of chemical fertilisers on the composition of plants. 'Studies show that organic food has 15 per cent more dry matter than non-organic food,' she says, 'so for each kilo of organic fruit or veg you are getting 15 per cent more nutrition. Some of the high yield in conventional farmed crops is just water. By using a lot of NPK [nitrogen phosphorous potassium] fertilisers, the plant is forced to grow faster - and our measure of growth is just the weight at the end. There is no focus on what growth really means in plants and animals. With livestock, too, you are giving them unnaturally high-energy diets to force them to grow a lot faster.'
In the past, according to the 1996 book Food Ethics, it took a steer more than six years to reach a body weight of 500kg; now, it takes an unnatural 20 months. A dairy cow produces 9,000kg of milk per year compared with 2,000kg in 1956. In a pattern pertinent to Professor Michael Crawford's work, a 2kg broiler chicken is now produced in six or seven weeks instead of 14. Can such rapid growth really be sustained without a loss of meat quality? Professor Crawford believes it can't.
'This whole focus on rapid growth, achieved through a high-energy, cereal-based diet has changed the lipid composition of the chicken meat itself,' he says, 'and you cannot escape that - even by removing the skin and scraping away the subcutaneous fat stuck to the meat.' As evidence, he shows me slides of meat taken from a wild African buffalo (eating a natural grass-based diet) compared to that of a domestic beef animal.
When stained with red dye and examined under a microscope, the first looks uniform and fibrous while the second is striated with ridges and ripples of white lard. 'That pattern is the fat infiltrating between the muscle fibres that have died, or atrophied, as a result of lack of exercise when the animal is immobilised in stocks in the final finishing stage. It's known as "pathological fat infiltration" - which most of us refer to as marbling.'
I ask whether marbling is what gives meat its flavour, a story I have heard from chefs. 'I would contest that,' says Professor Crawford, who turns out to be a wild meat connoisseur. 'The roast pig sold in the market in Perugia comes from the woods and is out of this world in flavour and texture,' he says. 'It was the next best thing to the warthog we ate in East Africa. The texture of that was so firm that you could slice it thin with a razor. The flavour was exceptional.'
With diffculty, I lure him out of his reverie and ask whether marbling ever occurs naturally. 'You would never get anything like that in a wild animal,' he says, 'or even domestic cattle that are allowed to run out in the wild by the Masai in Africa. They eat a natural grass-based diet.'
By comparison, domestic livestock overdose on cereal-based feed and have historically been fed everything from animal droppings to other animals. Beef tallow, the fat trimmed from cattle carcasses, is still used in the United States to boost the calorific value of chicken feed. 'The whole idea is that, if you have a pound of beef fat in the chicken feed, you get a pound of weight gain in the animal,' Professor Crawford says.
By feeding beef tallow back to beef cattle, the industry is underlining the dangers of placing rapid weight gain and profit over responsible animal husbandry. That, after all, is how BSE began. In Britain, there is no evidence that beef tallow still goes into animal feed but artificial, high-energy diets are a concern.
'As we demonstrated with fatty chicken,' Professor Crawford says, 'feed is one factor in this enormous disproportion in the calorific value coming from protein and the calorific value coming from fat. That fat has to go somewhere.' In his view, the current obesity epidemic in the West, with its knock-on effect on coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and other lifestyle illnesses, is the result. We are becoming obese, he maintains, because we are eating obese farm animals.
In the case of chicken, this undermines previous health advice. In 1976, the Royal College of Physicians and the British Cardiac Society recommended that we eat less red meat (high in saturated fats) and substitute it with lean poultry in an effort to halt heart disease. As a result, chicken consumption in Britain has doubled, with each of us consuming almost 30kg per year.
Recent fears about cheap foreign imports, battery farming, campylobacter food poisoning and chicken carcasses adulterated with beef protein to make them absorb water (cheating the consumer) have slightly dented sales - but chicken is still seen as a healthy option.
Brigid McKevith, a scientist at the British Nutrition Foundation, believes we should still eat it if prepared in the right way. 'A roast chicken is fine once in a while,' she says, 'but it's a good idea to pour off extra fat and remove the skin.' With his intimate knowledge of chicken anatomy, Professor Crawford disagrees, believing the high level of saturated fat in chicken is a recipe for heart disease.
In his view, however, there is a far more important human health risk inherent in the diet fed to livestock. 'Our physiology is adapted to eating wild food,' he says, 'but that is not what we are getting with today's animals.' A 100g portion of chicken in 2004 contained just 25mg of DHA - a long-chain omega-3 fatty acid, now known to be good for the heart by suppressing 'thrombotic' tendencies - compared to 170mg in 1980.
(In our year of comparison, 1940, DHA content was not analysed.) At the same time, levels of linoleic acid - an omega-6 fatty acid, essential for brain development and other important functions but having a 'pro-inflammatory' effect opposite to that of the omega-3s - had risen to 6,290mg per 100g portion compared to 2,400mg in 1980, some 2.6 times the amount.
Why do these proportions matter? 'During human evolution, the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids in the diet was probably something like 1:1,' says Dr Alex Richardson, senior research fellow at the University Laboratory of Physiology, Oxford. 'These days it is more like 15:1 in favour of the omega-6s.' By eating animals with even higher ratios - 20:1 in the meat of a farmed pig, compared to 3:1 in a wild warthog - plus an unnatural amount of cereal-based foods (which are high in omega-6), we are altering or natural diet and risking chronic illness.
In 1978, the WHO recommended a ratio of 5:1 or less in the general diet; the optimum target for brain development, it said, should be 2:1 at the most, achieved by eating more oily fish, fewer cereals and less milk and meat. Current ratios are nothing like that. Correcting this, Crawford says, would require 'a revolution in the animal industry' because all livestock is fed cereals. 'Animal husbandry started with grass and green foods,' he says, 'which are rich in omega-3.
That is the beauty of fish and seafood because it's still largely wild, it's still living in an omega-3-rich environment. The same used to be true of livestock animals - even chickens used to roam free and live off seeds and herbs - but that is no longer the case. It really is a question of redesigning our food and agriculture systems so they are more keyed in to the pivotal priority of human physiology - namely, our original genome being shaped by wild foods.'
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2005/may/15/foodanddrink.shopping3?amp_js_v=0.1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&prerenderSize=1&visibilityState=prerender&paddingTop=32&p2r=0&horizontalScrolling=0&csi=1&aoh=15693830978509&viewerUrl=https%3A%2F%2F
Pycnoscelus surinamensis 'black' or the surinam roach is a beautiful soft bodied roach native to Florida. Surinam roaches are probably one of the easiest species to keep. Just a box, substrate and some grease around the top of the enclosure for the adults and job done.
P. surinamensis reproduces through parthenogenesis meaning it’s an all female colony that reproduces with no males present. No need to cull males or worry about ratios here, just leave the colony alone and let them do their thing. We recommend using Climb Stopper silicone grease to keep this species inside their enclosure. https://capecodroaches.com/products/surinam-roach
The Surinam Roach (Pycnoscelus surinamensis) is a unique feeder roach in many ways. Originating in Asia and Indonesia, this burrowing roach has been shipped all over the world in tropical plant soils and is legal to culture in Florida where Dubia Roaches are not allowed. One of the few roaches requiring no males, every adult is a female nymph producer.
The ootheca is carried internally and live nymphs are born about every 1-3 months, making this one of the fastest breeding roaches. The nymphs are a shiny black/dark brown with light brown stripes, are soft bodied, and plumper than Dubia. The adult females have light brown shiny wings. Adult Females are ¾ to 1-inch long. Florida Legal.
https://www.fullthrottlefeeders.com/product-page/surinam-roach
Dual wielding is using two weapons, one in each hand, during combat. It is not a common ... a Japanese swordsman and ronin, was said to have conceived of the idea of a particular style of swordsmanship involving the use of two swords.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2xmfyZSn80
Surge Nubret
Shinmen Musashi no Kami Fujiwara no Genshin, better known as Miyamoto Musashi is probably the most famous historical samurai today as a result of his highly acclaimed martial arts text, The Book of Five Rings.
His story has been told and retold down the ages and many of his ideas on fighting technique and strategy have become commonplace amongst warriors as a result of his teachings.
He claimed to have fought in over sixty duels between c.1604 – 1613, despatching all who stood in his way and building a reputation for himself as the finest swordsman in the country.
Born in 1584 in Miyamoto village, much of the detail about Musashi’s childhood is obscure however it is known that he was born into a samurai family and probably grew up with his mother or step mother. His father, Shinmen Munisai, was an accomplished warrior who would regularly visited his son and give him instruction on swordsmanship and other aspects of samurai culture.
However by the time he was around 10 years old, Musashi’s mother was dead and his father had either died also or completely abandoned him, so he found himself living in a monastery where he learned Zen Buddhism from the monks there.
At the age of 13 he was already confident enough to challenge an older samurai named Arima Kibie of the Shinto Ryu (school). Arima made the mistake of disrespecting Musashi by treating him like a child, which resulted in Musashi throwing him on the floor and beating him with a six foot wooden staff until his opponent died vomiting blood.
At 16 Musashi left the monastery and it would not be long before he found himself fighting his second duel, which he won easily. Soon after he would face a tougher challenge when he fought in the Battle of Sekigakarai (1600) on the side of the Ashikaga Clan against the victorious army of Ieyasu Tokugawa.
Despite being on the losing side, he fought bravely and somehow managed to survive both the battle and the ensuing massacre of Ashikaga troops that followed it. The aftermath of the Battle of Sekigakarai left Miyamoto Musashi in the position of being a master-less samurai (known as a ronin) so he began to wander Japan on a type of warrior pilgrimage known as a musha shugyo. During these years, he would hone his fighting skills and philosophy in a series of duels, many of which were to the death.
The young samurai began his pilgrimage by making his way to Kyoto in around 1604, where he would have a series of challenges against the heads of one of the most notorious schools in the city, the Yoshioka Clan. There were three contest in all which would set the swordsman on his path to becoming a great warrior, building his reputation while ruining that of his opponents, they were;
Seijuro Yoshioka – This duel was fought with bokken (wooden sword) and like many instances of one-on-one combat at the time, was not meant to be to the death. Both warriors agreed beforehand that the winner would be declared by a single blow which was promptly administered by Musashi, who broke Seijuro’s arm in the process. After the battle, Seijuro retired from his position as head of the Yoshioka Ryu and became a Zen monk.
Denshichiro Yoshioka – As the brother of Seijuro, Denshichiro became the head of the family and soon challenged Musashi in order to regain honour for his family name. This time the duel would be to the death and as was his custom, Musashi turned up late in order to get his opponent angry, a tactic that worked well on both the Yoshioka brothers. Fighting again with a bokken, Musashi won the fight easily, killing his opponent instantly with a head blow and leaving the reputation of the Yoshioka Ryu in ruins.
Matashichiro Yoshioka – The new head of the Yoshioka Clan was a 12 year old named Matashichiro, who also challenged the warrior who had brought dishonour to his family. As the time requested for the fight was at night, Musashi became suspicious that foul play was afoot so he turned up early and hid himself from sight.
Sure enough, when the boy arrived he had a retinue of men armed with swords, bows and rifles who all found a hiding place intending to ambush Musashi while Matashichiro acted as bait. When the time was right, Musashi charged the young warrior and cut his head clean off. Surrounded by the boy’s retinue, he then drew his second sword and cut himself a path through the men trying to kill him before escaping into nearby rice fields.
This not only ended the Yoshioka Ryu, but was also a pivotal moment for Musashi according to many historians as it is believed that it was his first conception of fighting with two swords, a style that would become his trade mark in later years.
The most famous duel Miyamoto Musashi fought while on his musha shugyo was against Sasaki Kojiro in 1612, who at the time was the Shogun’s martial arts teacher and the most feared and respected warrior in the land. Kojiro was seen as the ideal warrior who looked and acted the part of the samurai as laid out in the bushido code to a tee.
Musashi on the other hand was the complete opposite who was less concerned with his image or how society perceived him and more concerned with beating anyone who faced him in battle. The two agreed to meet on an island and unsurprisingly Kojiro turned up in a timely manner, sporting the best clothes and swords money could buy.
Musashi however made his opponent wait knowing that his turning up late would anger him, thus having a negative effect on his concentration and focus; Kojiro’s anger would have only increased when his opponent did finally arrive sporting his usual dirty rags instead of attire befitting a man of their social class.
Kojiro had his swords made just a little longer than the average sword length to give himself reach advantage over his opponents however it seems Musashi knew this and devised a strategy to combat it. It is believed that he fought with a bokken that he fashioned out of an oar on the boat ride to the island, making it longer than his opponent’s sword in order to beat him at his own game.
When the fight began, the two moved to attack simultaneously and Musashi’s reach advantage showed through from the start as while Kojiro managed to cut a nick in Musashi’s clothes, he himself was cut in the head. The two great samurai warriors moved towards each other for a second attack and once again Kojiro could only cut his opponent’s clothes while the extra few inches of the bokken allowed Musashi to cut his opponent’s throat, killing him instantly. In other versions of the story, Musashi uses two sticks to defeat his enemy and in others still he wins the fight with two swords (as depicted below).
The Later Years of Miyamoto Musashi
In 1614, Musashi once again found himself at war and again is believed to have sided against Ieyasu Tokugawa, this time in favour of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Both winter and summer battles were fought at Osaka and Musashi was on the losing side once more, though some believe he switched allegiances before the end of the conflict.
After Osaka, Musashi spent a number of years teaching his sword skills until in 1620, he decided to undertake another musha shugyo, this time less to fight and test his abilities, and more to learn and develop his skills. During this time the master did partake in a number of duels, he won all of them though none of them were to the death.
By 1640, Musashi had become the retainer of Hosokawa Tadatoshi, Lord of Kumamoto for whom he would write his first book, the Hyoho Sanju Go (The Thirty-Five Instructions on Strategy). Two or three years later, the samurai became sick and sensing that his end was near, he retired to a cave where he would write his masterpiece, Go Rin No Sho (The Book of Five Rings). While in the cave, he also managed to write a book on self-discipline called Dokkodo (The Way of Walking Alone), which he completed in 1645, just months before he died.
The influence of Miyamoto Musashi on future generations of martial artists cannot be overstated. He became known in Japan as a kensai (sword saint) and many see him as the greatest swordsman that ever lived. While this is debatable, his skill with the pen has insured that his legend lives on and his main work, The Book of Five Rings, is today studied as a guide for strategy all over the world by martial artists and non-martial artists alike.
http://www.historyoffighting.com/miyamoto-musashi.php
Helpful to pump gas pedal to get car to start
Bought our RAV4 (V6) new and not a bit of trouble until 3 months ago. At 35K, it started to take a second try before starting. Once started, it ran great and always started after shopping or a movie, …until recently. If I do not touch the gas pedal it takes 9 tries before it starts. Cranks like a champ. If you pump the gas pedal, you can get it start in two or three tries. Time is a factor. If stopped a short period of time, the car starts on the first try. Leave it for 4 hours or more and it takes 8-10 tries or once again, pump a few times and the car starts in two or three. Recently, I put a 16 ounce bottle of Seafoam in a 3/4 full tank and am planning on trying a fuel systems cleaner and premium gas when refilling. Please do not tell me this may be the fuel filter, which is part of a $600 fuel pump, located in the gas tank. We typically get gas from a large volume national chain. Never any sputtering or hesitation.
What does it do when you turn the key just before the start position and do that a couple of times? Does it then start up like normal?
I ask because the fuel pump gets primed by running it for a second or two before starting. If that isn’t happening, it may be something electrical.
Have you noticed any black smoke from your tail pipe when the car finally does start?? After you get it running does it run rough for a few seconds??
Run back to the dealer and stop trying to fix this. This is a failure that likely is under warranty or undisclosed recall. Approach the dealer with righteous indignation and serious insistence for a free repair. Did I say right away? And don’t mention the seafoam. Or for that matter anything at all, just that it does not start right and it is too new to be a problem unless the manufacturer had a mistake. There is absolutely no reason to use the gas pedal at all to start this car, something has failed and the dealer needs to fix this under warrantee.
Are you pumping the gas pedal while cranking it, or before trying to start it? If while cranking it, try holding it to the floor instead. If before cranking it, you’re doing absolutely nothing whatsoever. Fuel injected cars completely ignore input from the throttle when the engine is not running or at least being cranked. Like pushing buttons on your remote with the TV unplugged from the wall. If you’re pumping the pedal while cranking it, it’s probably doing the same thing as holding it to the floor would do–this tells the computer to not inject any fuel, and is programmed to work like doing the same in a carbureted vehicle–it clears a “flood” condition. If this works, you may have a leaking fuel injector or bad fuel pressure regulator.
As said by @oblivion, I don’t think this is related to pumping the gas pedal. Or if it is, it is only indirectly related. It appears to me to be some fault in the fuel injection system which is yielding an incorrect fuel/air ratio at cold start. The most likely cause I’d guess is a problem w/ the cold start injector or it’s associated electronic timer. The timer meters out some extra gas at start-up depending upon the coolant temperature. Mechanics have several good ways to test it – often they disable the ignition system and listen for the cold start injector timer to to kick-in the cold start injector. Usually this causes the fuel pump to run too. Don’t try this yourself. Get someone who knows exactly how to test the cold start gadgets on your make & model.
Oh, one more thing. There’s been some gasoline recalls in some areas due to bad gas making it to some gas stations, and the bad gas clogging fuel injectors. Google to find out if this affects your area. Best of luck.
George, Most cars now do not have a cold start injector. The temp sensor is the master control usually until the o2 sensors
How many miles on the Rav 4 now? Some Toyota’s call for new spark plugs at 30K miles. My Camry is 60K miles on the plugs. Check for a dirty air filter also.
You say it takes mutiple TRIES to start the engine. Why do you stop and TRY again? wh ynot stay with the starter until it starts?
@euryale1 … I didn’t know that. Do you mean most “new” cars no longer sport cold start injectors? These used to be common. My early 90’s Toyota Corolla has one. And my 70’s VW Rabbit had one as I recall.
Have they eliminated this component now, in favor of just letting the existing injectors put out a bit more fuel at cold start based on the engine coolant temp? Do you know what model year appx the manufacturers made this transition? It makes sense, as it elimates an extra fuel injection component.
If the OP’s car doesn’t have a cold start injector, then would the symptoms reported most likely be caused be a failing coolant temp sensor then? Or would it be the ECU? Or the injectors themselves? What do you think?
Here’s some more info about the elimination of the cold start injector on Toyota engines.
On page 22 of the link below, it says starting with the 91 model year, cold start injectors have been eliminated on 3e-e and 4a-fe engines. It uses the THW signal (water temp sensor) as input, and lengthens injector pulse wide to supply enough fuel to start the engine.
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h22.pdf 6
Note: This must not apply to all Toyota engines post 91, as mine is post 91 model year, a 4a-fe, and retains a cold start injector and associated timer.
As others have said, pumping does nothing. What might be happening is that one of the injectors is leaking with the car off, and pushing down on the gas opens the throttle, letting in extra air and helping to clear out the excess gas. So get all the injectors tested, along with the fuel pressure, see if it drops off when the engine is shut off (if it does an injector is leaking).
https://community.cartalk.com/t/helpful-to-pump-gas-pedal-to-get-car-to-start/74263
Used until just 30 years ago, the humble canary was an important part of British mining history.
Mining foreman R. Thornburg shows a small cage with a canary used for testing carbon monoxide gas in 1928. (George McCaa, U.S. Bureau of Mines)
Never mind the gas—it was automation that got them in the end.
On this day in 1986, a mining tradition dating back to 1911 ended: the use of canaries in coal mines to detect carbon monoxide and other toxic gases before they hurt humans. New plans from the government declared that the “electronic nose,” a detector with a digital reading, would replace the birds, according to the BBC.
Although ending the use of the birds to detect deadly gas was more humane, miners’ feelings were mixed. “They are so ingrained in the culture, miners report whistling to the birds and coaxing them as they worked, treating them as pets,” the BBC said.
At the time, it was the latest of many changes in the British mining industry, which was a source of great strife in the country through the 1980s. Pit ponies, the other animal that went underground with human miners to haul coal, were also phased out by automation. The last of them retired in 1999, wrote Clare Garner for The Independent.
The idea of using canaries is credited to John Scott Haldane, known to some as “the father of oxygen therapy.” His research on carbon monoxide led him to recommend using the birds, writes Esther Inglis-Arkell for Gizmodo. He suggested using a sentinel species: an animal more sensitive to the colorless, odorless carbon monoxide and other poisonous gases than humans. If the animal became ill or died, that would give miners a warning to evacuate.
Why was a canary Haldane’s suggested solution? Canaries, like other birds, are good early detectors of carbon monoxide because they’re vulnerable to airborne poisons, Inglis-Arkell writes. Because they need such immense quantities of oxygen to enable them to fly and fly to heights that would make people altitude sick, their anatomy allows them to get a dose of oxygen when they inhale and another when they exhale, by holding air in extra sacs, he writes. Relative to mice or other easily transportable animals that could have been carried in by the miners, they get a double dose of air and any poisons the air might contain, so miners would get an earlier warning.
Britain wasn’t the only place to adopt Haldane’s suggestion. The United States and Canada both employed canaries, as these images from the Department of Labor show. Miners are pictured holding the birds in small everyday cages and returning from the scene of an explosion with a canary in a special cage intended to resuscitate the bird after exposure.
The modern carbon dioxide detector is certainly a less romantic image than a canary in an overused saying. Remembering the canary, though, is an opportunity to remember a world of coal mining that no longer exists.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/story-real-canary-coal-mine-180961570/
Africa’s ancient baobab, with its distinctive swollen trunk and known as the “tree of life,” is under a new and mysterious threat, with some of the largest and oldest dying abruptly in recent years.
Nine of the 13 oldest baobabs, aged between 1,000 and 2,500 years, have died over the past dozen years, according to a study published in the scientific journal Nature Plants.
The sudden collapse is “an event of unprecedented magnitude,” the study says.
Climate change, with its rising temperatures and increasing drought conditions, is a suspected factor but no definite cause is known. The deaths occurred in the southern African countries of Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
“The trees that are falling over are at the southern range of the distribution of baobabs,” said Stephan Woodborne with South Africa’s National Research Foundation, an author of the study. “What we believe is happening is that the climate envelope in which they exist is shifting, and so we are not talking about the wholesale extinction of baobabs.”
Researchers are seeing very few juvenile trees in the affected region while the mature trees are dying off, “so what we are probably looking at here is a shift in their distribution in response to climate forcing,” Woodborne said.
Baobabs stud southern Africa’s hot, dry stretches of savanna and are often in areas roamed by elephants, rhinos and other wildlife. Elephants help to propagate the trees when they eat baobab fruit, with seeds often sprouting in the nutritious elephant dung.
“Baobab trees are obviously iconic because of their size and their shape and they are very distinctive on the African landscape, and communities have been using them for various reasons through time,” Woodborne said. “We find many archaeological sites underneath these trees, and when we have trees that are more than 1,000 years old we are talking about occupations that took place many hundreds of years ago.”
Baobabs store large amounts of water in their trunk and branches, giving the trees their bulbous shape. Large trees can store as much as 140,000 liters (37,000 gallons) of water sucked up during rainy seasons. Thirsty elephants often strip a baobab of its bark and wood to get their moisture.
The trees are often revered by local communities which sometimes gather around them to hold traditional religious ceremonies and communicate with their ancestors. People also use the tart baobab fruit to make drinks and mix with milk for a yogurt-like food, or simply shelter in the trees’ shade on a sweltering summer day.
“Long, long ago there were no shops, so we used those baobab seeds and water to make our yogurt,” said Anna Munzhelele of the Pafuri region near the Limpopo River in South Africa.
“We would become strong ... it’s like a type of medicine, we get energy from it.”
https://apnews.com/dee9b829ca494c8883400d4502572255
Here in Australia I’m currently drinking some UK ales from the Black Sheep brewery in Yorkshire, UK.
Aldi currently have a huge selection as a special deal for their monthly beer specials and have imported masses of Black Sheep. However unlike in the UK where these beers are served from the cask on hand pump, these bottled beers are filtered and pasteurised. Ignore glass in picture, that’s just condensation as it’s currently around 35C here in my part of Australia.
Looking at the dates on the bottles these are fresh beers imported directly by Aldi for the special. However despite being flavourful with magnificent hop and malt characteristics I realise, as I drink them, that they are a shadow of their true selves.
Hmm. flights to the UK are comparatively cheap right now… let’s check bank balance…..
The main reason for pasteurizing beef is shelf life, as with other pasteurized products. Beer is inherently a little better at resisting spoilage than most foods, for many reasons (alcohol of course; hops are a preservative; the brewing process involves the beer up to boiling; the yeast will usually kill off any competitors, etc) but it can go bad.
For example, a popular beer brand around here is Straub, which doesn’t pasteurize their beer. As a result, it’s not uncommon for some random bottle from a case of Straub to have gone off. Bars around here generally take it in stride and just give the patron another bottle.
https://www.quora.com/Why-drink-unpasteurized-beer-vs-pasteurized-beer-Healthier-better-tasting-etc
Beers normally undergo pasteurization to ensure longer shelf life and uniformity.
Craft brewery, also called micro brewery, generally means a brewery which produces a limited amount of beer. In the U.S.A, the "Brewers Association" use a fixed maximum limit of 15,000 US beer barrels (1,800,000 l; 460,000 US gal; 390,000 imp gal) a year to define microbrewery. An American "craft brewery" is a small, independent and traditional brewery.
Craft Beer (produced from a Craft Brewery or Micro Brewery) is an American term which is also common in Canada and New Zealand and generally refers to beer that is brewed using traditional methods, without additives such as rice or corn; brewed for distinction and flavor rather than mass appeal. In the early 1980s, with just a dozen or so national brands of beer to choose from, microbrewers were established in the U.S. so as to offer the full-flavored beers available in Europe. It wasn’t until the mid 1990s, however, that these craft brewers started gaining real momentum. According to the Institute for Brewing Studies, there are now nearly 1500 microbreweries and brewpubs that produce 3% of all the beer consumed in America.
By the late 1990s, certified organic beers started appearing on the shelves nationally. Craft beers uses the best quality malts and hops. Take the case of the Czech pilsner, now the most common style of beer brewed worldwide. Craft brewers follow the course of their European ancestors, making all-malt pilsners with a full-bodied flavor and generous helpings of hops. Because of the increased percentage of specialty malt and hop ingredients you are going to experience flavors and aromas not found in light Industrial style lagers. Craft beer means natural beer brewed in a non-automated brewery of less than 50-barrel brew length, using traditional methods and premium, whole, natural ingredients, and no flavor-lessening adjuncts or extracts, additives or preservatives
There is a resurgence of appreciation for craft beers in many countries of the world as a product of fine craft, like wine. In general almost all mainstream commercial and mass-produced beers (Budweiser, Coors, Miller), except for some keg beer or draught beer, is pasteurized. The list below shows list of craft beers that have confirmed that they don’t pasteurize their beers, either their bottled beers or keg beers version.
Pasteurization is named for French scientist Louis Pasteur, who discovered that fluids can be partially sterilized at high temperatures. This process enables the brewer to kill traces of live yeast or other organisms which helps the beer stay fresh longer. The filled and closed packages are conveyed through different sections of a "tunnel" pasteurizer, and are sprayed with heated water. Pasteurization is also needed to preserve product uniformity. The brewer has only minimal control of the conditions and the length of time packaged beer will be stored, particularly by the retailer and the consumer.
The downside of pasteurization is that it alters the taste and destroy the natural yeast and enzymes in the beers, and along with them, potential health benefits.
Non pasteurized beers have better taste and better health benefits since it is not subjected to heat.
Drinking unpasteurized beers is safe. An unpasteurized beer is "live" beer, containing living micro-organisms such as yeast. The alcohol in beer will kill any harmful bacteria, which is why unpasteurized beer is not a health risk. Unpasteurized beer has health benefits. It has live yeast, which is one of the most effective ways of getting vitamin B complexes. (The B vitamins also counteract hangovers, just an added benefit of unpasteurized beer.) Certain types of beer contain lactobacillus, which is the beneficial bacteria in fermented vegetables and dairy ferments (yogurt, kefir). Sour beers are the ones which usually contain lactobacillus. Of course, only an unpasteurized beer will contain live lactobacillus that are beneficial for you. Almost all or all commercial beers are pasteurized, which makes the yeast not very useful, and the lactobacillus useless.
Beers that are “bottle-conditioned” are not pasteurized. Many Belgian Ale and U.S craft beers are bottle conditioned. Big Beer (Budweiser, Coors, Miller) pasteurizes beers after bottling to prevent microbes from causing “off” flavors. These microbes, however, do not cause illness. Craft brewers do not typically pasteurize, and while there is little evidence to support any claims, I expect that research will ultimately reveal that unpasteurized “live” beers are nutritionally superior to pasteurized beers. The major difference between Big Beer and craft brewers extends beyond pasteurization to filtration. The big beers companies filter their beer to remove yeast and protein that causes the beer to cloud at lower temps, called chill haze. But filtering the yeast removes most of the B vitamins – think brewer’s yeast – and other nutrients like chromium, evidence that unfiltered beers are more nutritious.
Some brewers are reverting back to “bottle-conditioning”, a centuries-old tradition of preserving beer. Bottle-conditioned beers undergo a second brief fermentation – in the bottle – which carbonates the beer naturally. In addition, the added yeast fights off the microbes that cause “off” flavors and enables the beer to improve with age, like a bottle of wine.
There are health benefits associated with moderate beer consumption. Keep in mind, too, that darker beers contain more antioxidants than lighter beers.
Thank you again for your inquiry. At this time none of our brews are pasteurized. We may consider it with beer aged in oak barrels but only the barrel aged portion of the brew would be pasteurized. We prefer un-pasteurized brews as well. Hope this helps. :)
Thanks for the inquiry. All our bottled beer is brewed, filtered and packaged without the use of isinglass, bone char or any other animal by-product. Pale Ale, Celebration and Summerfest is filtered using cellulose trap filters coupled with centrifugation. All others use centrifugation only.
We do not pasteurize at all as the heat would kill the yeast and the beer would not bottle condition. Bottle conditioning is unique to Sierra Nevada beers. We dose back a small amount of yeast in the bottle. The yeast ferments the priming sugar and creates the finish carbonation and flavors unique to our beer. Hope this helps.
Beck’s Beers: Beck’s beers from Germany is not a craft beer, but I wrote to them and was not surprised to learn that all Beck’s beers are pasteurized.
All beers from Budweiser, Millers, and Coors are all pasteurized for both keg and bottle versions. I have visited and done brewery tour of the Budweiser brewery in Fairfield, California; and one of the stops in the brewery tour is to see the pasteurization machine where they spray all the beers with hot water to pasteurize their beers.
Live beer, however, generally refers to the presence of noble yeasts left over from the brewing process. Beers that have been bottled unpasteurized and unfiltered, with a significant amount of live yeast, are called "bottle-conditioned" beers. The purpose of bottling beers in such a manner is to give them the potential to age and develop more complexity. Yeast inhibits oxidation and contributes complex flavors as it breaks down slowly in the bottle. Many Belgian ales are traditionally bottle conditioned through a secondary fermentation in the bottle, in a process similar to that which produces champagne. Some bottled beers from U.S.A, such as Mendocino RedTail Ale from Mendocino Brewing Company are bottle-conditioned. is brewed in the traditional "old world" manner, using premium two-row malted barley, hops and our own special proprietary yeast strain. It is an amber ale with a rich complex refreshing flavor and a crisp dry finish. Red Tail Ale is "Bottle Conditioned." Like good wine, Red Tail Ale is a perfect complement to fine dining. Mendocino Blue Heron Pale Ale is a delightful, medium bodied smooth ale, with a distinctive crisp mouth-feel and a fresh hoppy finish. It is brewed using premium two-row Pale malted barley, generous amounts of both Cluster bittering hops and Cascade finishing hops and our own special proprietary yeast strain. Blue Heron Pale Ale is "Bottle Conditioned.
An unpasteurized beer bottled with its yeast will not age in the manner of a conventionally processed beer. With age, bottle-conditioned beers develop a rounded, smoother mouthfeel, and over the course of years, often take on winey, vinous flavors.
Bottle conditioning is an economical means for small-scale craft brewers to bottle ales without the need for costly pasteurization or filtration equipment. How long one cellars bottle-conditioned beers is a matter of personal taste and will also depend on the specific character of the beer in question.
Fresh, well-brewed beer that has traveled only a small number of miles will invariably taste better than an equivalent beer that left the brewery a few months ago. Indeed, a draft beer that has traveled a great distance (almost all beers on tap that are imports, such as Beck’s, Heineken, Stella, Guinness, etc) will certainly have been pasteurized, thus is slightly handicapped from the start. The flip side to this is that a pasteurized imported keg of beer will certainly last longer when it is tapped than an unpasteurized, "live," craft beer. The latter needs to be drunk fresh. A conscientious draft bar should keep a few tap handles devoted to local craft brews and ensure that they remain fresh.
If a beer fails to live up to its obligation of being fresh, send it back over the bar-politely of course. Beer condition must always be the primary concern of any good bar. When confronted by a long line of tap handles, your first question to the bartender should be, "What’s fresh?"
For the most part, keg beer brewed and packaged in kegs in the U.S. is not pasteurized although the big three (Budweiser, Coors, Miller, plus some such as Anchor Steam) pasteurize even their keg beers. During the packaging process non pasteurized draft beers are sterile filtered and chilled to the point that any surviving bacteria, which could ferment the beer, become dormant. Kegs are kept cold ( < 50°F ) from the brewery to the point of dispense. Draft beer dispensed from a keg should be fresh by storing as short as possible, and serving cold at 38°F.
Temperatures above 38°F may promote non pasteurized draft beers to turn sour or cloudy. Should the temperature rise above 50°F, the dormant bacteria which ferments and spoils beer will once again become active and, subsequent growth will rapidly begin to spoil flavor and cloud the beer.
Most of the keg beer brewed and packaged outside the U.S. (Import beers), are heat pasteurized during packaging. This process kills off the bacteria that ferment and spoils the beer.
Pasteurized draft beer kegs can be transported and stored at room temperature. The beer in these kegs can be flash cooled at the point of dispense. However, most imported kegs are stored and dispensed at the same temperature (38°F) as domestic, non pasteurized kegs.
You were wondering if we pasteurize our Beck’s bottled beers. Yes, we do. Furthermore, I’d like to explain the process a bit more in depth. Pasteurization allows packaged beer to be shipped and stored without refrigeration.
Beck’s beer is a Classic German Pilsner and features a light grainy malt character and distinctive flowery or spicy noble hops. Brewed according the German purity law, this classic German Pilsner carries a distinctive full-bodied taste, with a fresh “hoppy” bouquet, golden color and rich full head. The taste doesn’t end there. With a slightly fruity but firm crispness, this exciting blend of intriguing flavors ends with a clean, dry finish.
I hope this information is helpful, and that you’re able to raise a cold glass of Beck’s and celebrate your San Francisco Giants winning the World Series (if you’re a fan). Feel free to get back in touch anytime about the beer or anything we do. Until then, I raise my glass to you.
Thanks for the short, well written article. I live in a small town Wyoming and we are fortunate enough to get Sierra Nevada and Deschutes ales out here. I'll have to do more research on the local breweries, but this information is encouraging!
To further clarify, the only MillerCoors product that is pasteurized is Blue Moon. Coors Light, Miller Lite, PBR, Mickeys, Milwaukees Best, Batch 19, Killians, Keystone, etc are all UNpasteurized.
Great List! One thing to mention, Coors Light is not pasteurized. The cold filtering is equal to what home brewers call "cold crashing" to drop the sediment out of the beer. That is how they clarify it. This includes bottles and cans, no pasteurization at all with Coors Light.
Trust me on this one you need the probiotics in you diet in some way. The government is trying to kill us with their regulation to pasturize and preserve our food to the point it is too sterile. I home brewed and got well then foolishly went back to commercial beer and got sick again.
Hady Chahine profile image
Budweiser kegs are not pasteurized. I've been on the tour in Saint Louis twice, and they clearly say that the bottles are pasteurized, but not the kegs.
Nice hub! I ran through it pretty quick (as I am at work right now) but this has a lot of good information and detail. There are some excellent British ales that are bottle conditioned that you should check out if you can: Old Speckled Hen has a bottle conditioned ale that is far superior to the regular (albeit pretty tasty) offering. Also Hopback Brewery has several including Summer Lightning... And while you are at it try St. Peters organic and bottle conditioned ales!
https://hubpages.com/food/Unpasteurized_Beers
Yayoi home
When looking at the greatest bodybuilders, those with the most awesome density and thickness to their physiques, those who come immediately to mind for me are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lee Haney, Lou Ferrigno, Tom Platz, Sergio Oliva and, of course Franco Columbu. All of these great bodies were built on a combination of bodybuilding and powerlifting movements. These great bodybuilders and many like them have spent many thousands of hours over and under a bar of iron.
What is so outstanding about these physiques is their intimidating size and shape. Some forget how Tom Platz achieved such awesome legs. He did not merely wake up with them. Tom must have close to 20 years of training under his belt. When I was reading this magazine in the early '70s and onward, Tom was noted for powerlifting as well as bodybuilding competitions. The Austrian lad who at one time was a European champion in powerlifting, with the greatest pecs, delts and biceps in bodybuilding history, is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Then, of course, we could never forget the giant killer of his era, one of Arnold's best friends as well as one of his main rivals. This man could outlift Arnold in any of the power movements as well as being able to outlift any man in the game during his powerlifting days - the one and only Franco Columbu. In 1976 at the Mr. America competition in the Scottish Rite Temple in Los Angeles, I was fortunate enough to witness a 750-pound deadlift by Franco. He also deadlifted 710 for 3 reps. You can get an idea how this build was achieved through heavy power movements. In my opinion no one has matched Franco's cobra-like lat spread.
Helpful to pump gas pedal to get car to start
Bought our RAV4 (V6) new and not a bit of trouble until 3 months ago. At 35K, it started to take a second try before starting. Once started, it ran great and always started after shopping or a movie, …until recently. If I do not touch the gas pedal it takes 9 tries before it starts. Cranks like a champ. If you pump the gas pedal, you can get it start in two or three tries. Time is a factor. If stopped a short period of time, the car starts on the first try. Leave it for 4 hours or more and it takes 8-10 tries or once again, pump a few times and the car starts in two or three. Recently, I put a 16 ounce bottle of Seafoam in a 3/4 full tank and am planning on trying a fuel systems cleaner and premium gas when refilling. Please do not tell me this may be the fuel filter, which is part of a $600 fuel pump, located in the gas tank. We typically get gas from a large volume national chain. Never any sputtering or hesitation.
What does it do when you turn the key just before the start position and do that a couple of times? Does it then start up like normal?
I ask because the fuel pump gets primed by running it for a second or two before starting. If that isn’t happening, it may be something electrical.
Have you noticed any black smoke from your tail pipe when the car finally does start?? After you get it running does it run rough for a few seconds??
Run back to the dealer and stop trying to fix this. This is a failure that likely is under warranty or undisclosed recall. Approach the dealer with righteous indignation and serious insistence for a free repair. Did I say right away? And don’t mention the seafoam. Or for that matter anything at all, just that it does not start right and it is too new to be a problem unless the manufacturer had a mistake. There is absolutely no reason to use the gas pedal at all to start this car, something has failed and the dealer needs to fix this under warrantee.
Are you pumping the gas pedal while cranking it, or before trying to start it? If while cranking it, try holding it to the floor instead. If before cranking it, you’re doing absolutely nothing whatsoever. Fuel injected cars completely ignore input from the throttle when the engine is not running or at least being cranked. Like pushing buttons on your remote with the TV unplugged from the wall. If you’re pumping the pedal while cranking it, it’s probably doing the same thing as holding it to the floor would do–this tells the computer to not inject any fuel, and is programmed to work like doing the same in a carbureted vehicle–it clears a “flood” condition. If this works, you may have a leaking fuel injector or bad fuel pressure regulator.
As said by @oblivion, I don’t think this is related to pumping the gas pedal. Or if it is, it is only indirectly related. It appears to me to be some fault in the fuel injection system which is yielding an incorrect fuel/air ratio at cold start. The most likely cause I’d guess is a problem w/ the cold start injector or it’s associated electronic timer. The timer meters out some extra gas at start-up depending upon the coolant temperature. Mechanics have several good ways to test it – often they disable the ignition system and listen for the cold start injector timer to to kick-in the cold start injector. Usually this causes the fuel pump to run too. Don’t try this yourself. Get someone who knows exactly how to test the cold start gadgets on your make & model.
Oh, one more thing. There’s been some gasoline recalls in some areas due to bad gas making it to some gas stations, and the bad gas clogging fuel injectors. Google to find out if this affects your area. Best of luck.
George, Most cars now do not have a cold start injector. The temp sensor is the master control usually until the o2 sensors
How many miles on the Rav 4 now? Some Toyota’s call for new spark plugs at 30K miles. My Camry is 60K miles on the plugs. Check for a dirty air filter also.
You say it takes mutiple TRIES to start the engine. Why do you stop and TRY again? wh ynot stay with the starter until it starts?
@euryale1 … I didn’t know that. Do you mean most “new” cars no longer sport cold start injectors? These used to be common. My early 90’s Toyota Corolla has one. And my 70’s VW Rabbit had one as I recall.
Have they eliminated this component now, in favor of just letting the existing injectors put out a bit more fuel at cold start based on the engine coolant temp? Do you know what model year appx the manufacturers made this transition? It makes sense, as it elimates an extra fuel injection component.
If the OP’s car doesn’t have a cold start injector, then would the symptoms reported most likely be caused be a failing coolant temp sensor then? Or would it be the ECU? Or the injectors themselves? What do you think?
Here’s some more info about the elimination of the cold start injector on Toyota engines.
On page 22 of the link below, it says starting with the 91 model year, cold start injectors have been eliminated on 3e-e and 4a-fe engines. It uses the THW signal (water temp sensor) as input, and lengthens injector pulse wide to supply enough fuel to start the engine.
http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h22.pdf 6
Note: This must not apply to all Toyota engines post 91, as mine is post 91 model year, a 4a-fe, and retains a cold start injector and associated timer.
As others have said, pumping does nothing. What might be happening is that one of the injectors is leaking with the car off, and pushing down on the gas opens the throttle, letting in extra air and helping to clear out the excess gas. So get all the injectors tested, along with the fuel pressure, see if it drops off when the engine is shut off (if it does an injector is leaking).
https://community.cartalk.com/t/helpful-to-pump-gas-pedal-to-get-car-to-start/74263We cannot overlook the thick physique of one of the greatest in the bodybuilding world, with the Mr. Olympia under his belt and once Arnold's nemesis, he has a chest, arms and deltoids to match anyone's in the world. My understanding of his workouts from years ago included bench pressing 500 pounds for reps. I am talking about the one and only Sergio Oliva.
Many other bodybuilders have achieved that same thick look but it would take too much time to name them all. But we must single out the current Mr. Olympia, Lee Haney. Haney has spoken out more than once in this magazine about training heavy with power movements, especially for his legs.
Let's get back to the point at hand. All of these bodybuilders have reached the top of their field and are considered the world's finest. All except Haney are also over the age of 30. All of them have trained 15-20 years or better and they have all used powerlifting movements to help achieve their awesome size. Not all of us can be as thick as these great athletes, although we can become thicker than we are through heavy lifting.
When you see a routine written by a pro, understand that he more than likely started where you may be right now - thinner, younger, and hungry for size. His workouts were more than likely much different and heavier than his movements today. Once you have reached your size, then you can concentrate more on the sculpture and shape of your body, not being as concerned about the weight on the bar as much.
If you are at a point where you need more size, you might look back at some pictures of these giants when they just started. Then look again at year 10 to see their development, and then again at year 15, and finally today. We all started out much smaller.
You might consider lifting more like a powerlifter. Don't give up your bodybuilding movements. Just enhance them by lifting heavier with fewer reps, and allowing more time for the muscles to recover by only lifting four days a week instead of five or six. You will be stronger and able to handle more weight in all your exercise movements.
Don't fear your added strength, for if will give not only the size but the desire to compete in competitions you may never have thought of before. This can improve not only the body but the mind.
My own personal experience started as a bodybuilder, winning some local, state and regional shows. Through me lifting I found my strength as a bench presser became greater and in the off-season of my bodybuilding competition I started competing in bench press contests. It was a great joy and filled a void during the beefing up period prior to dieting before a bodybuilding show. You will find many very hard, lean, muscular physiques in the power game. Many of these men and women could stand on a national platform in bodybuilding across the country and fare quite well.
In conclusion, let us remember that the two sides of the lifting game are not disparate but rather integral parts of a total process. Your goals should not exclude one in favor of the other. The benefits derived from powerlifting can be easily transferred to bodybuilding and vice versa.
Do not limit yourself by being too narrowly focused.
http://ditillo2.blogspot.com/2019/03/powerlifting-benefits-for-bodybuilder.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeNN1UnILhU
La Jument lighthouse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx706olUG-g
Holland Tunnel from New Jersey to New York
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatktnbxsg0
The Seventh Annual Arnold Classic, 1995
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfi8EQTAhtw
Tokyo Today 07 Underground Regulating Reservoir
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VMhR6fpC-E&app=desktop
minotaur island
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tymp0tJ8s_0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVKy8WpAw2s
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ERVsTICv8gc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_RkbIRn6L4
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uGSPevyOZso
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RhFSR5wU8A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUmihaflUws&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=u00WB4Yhvw8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA3MTU0v-nQ&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txAUO0zjdqc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3hv5AkMI4Q&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EpuOCIx6OA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZ85r89d_Tc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTTQK3bUCSs&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9s9rrNnyl_o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WomUnDHpFZ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heBuAZolrM4&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPw5yf6ezFk&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RG9TMn1FJzc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1S6UCX4RAA&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TTxPZkIGKMo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XZComkkxeEI
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=devo3kdSPQY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEa3P3d9ugk&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k-V_NgZocg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAdht6Lr8z0&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBM8_A1QFII&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2CAVWeWnMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSHMOAJcp_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gatktnbxsg0&t=537s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMkeys67-i8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3Rq7km6yK4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB5RnaUlS8A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV2EPaICXO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_xr0PFsDSo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8C4VSPzpng&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VK657-YaXMc&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3-lqtQWgvw&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmq4WIjQxp0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PTJJC4gfSAU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOk7IczsIrA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdx6lLvvRyg&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDrVzyQNpaw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5AdFuEkPmM&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4qiCV8sIXQ&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rewvqm4pdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpESCE-XWjw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22y6L0nlfPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov3Iyytuqzw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ztbQbo48Jc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5hQ-aW3VRk&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HQKlBss0b9s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDyPwiVObzg&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyBg3o42mFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VMhR6fpC-E&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfD6jY6Cv5A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh-evsJ1RMA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24rYz9QAvdQ&app=desktop
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLw-okCdSKE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Wf142VMX4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BNP126zgPU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65mfotO_Bo0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBTHnRNbGe8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp2l6nFIsZA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME8wzyR6pO8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA3MTU0v-nQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHxIB5Hk_v8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujs84tvAra4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=505&v=S_kdGJ8l0Fg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EpuOCIx6OA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLh0YZS9mEQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9BSsIX2j7M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocwrnSkD-VI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-dHiAHJnM0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DSbxx-U6S8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-eIxwY5a6k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEbbzLkhrUg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoKllU-zoSo&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsJfZcpkBes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x0oG0yHkAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=376&v=BS-X_3A35xA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D1tQ3vCdYQE
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jPhO9ouiYBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcBhQpRBWgU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-xHUhvlTgY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8t6aG_hANk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxvbb2VzMrU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44y-iFb_sCA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hp3KL_oip0I&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x0oG0yHkAA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew9-IMbCyKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsSERCBWTbc&list=PLCpoJzS9saKOhNwcID3mE7A5heFrAHDiH
The Association is one of the most popular and successful bands to have
come out of the sixties. They have sold over thirty million records,
earning six gold discs and one platinum. Their album, The Association,
Greatest Hits (Warner Brothers), continues to be one of the longest
best-selling albums in the history of the company.
Their number one hits, Never My Love, Windy, and Cherish have achieved
standard status, receiving almost as much airplay today as they ever
have.
The songs include Goodbye Columbus. which was the title song for the
film and was written and performed by The Association. It also won the
Golden Globe and Foreign Press Awards. Other songs, including Requiem
For the Masses, Time For Living, Along Comes Mary, Everything That
Touches You, and Six Man Band, showcases the versatility, the carefully
crafted vocals, and the intricately woven instrumentation that is the
signature of The Association, a cornerstone of American pop music.
The Association was formed in 1965 after the breakup of an eleven-man
electric folk group called THE MEN, the first folk rock group in
America.
The six-man Association rehearsed for five solid months and then began
performing at nightclubs (The Troubador, The Icehouse, etc.),
coffeehouses, folk clubs, high schools, colleges, proms and parties
throughout California.
The intense rehearsal and hard work paid off. Before the release of
their first album, the group had a fan base exceeding twenty-five
thousand.
That base soon became millions as Along Comes Mary and
Cherish, both from their first album, topped the charts.
The Association is the first electric group to break through the
anti-rock biases in many of the major venues across the country. They
were the first electric group to perform at Hollywoods Greek Theatre,
The Coconut Grove, The Copacabana, Tanglewood Music Festival, Blossom
Music Festival, The Latin Casino, Saratoga Performing Arts Center and
Ravinia Park.
In 1967 The Association was given the honor of opening the first
international pop festival in America, The Monterey Pop Festival.
The Association appeared on every major television variety show at the
time — Ed Sullivan (twice), The Smothers Brothers (three times),
American Bandstand (again and again), Shindig, The Carson Show, The
Cavett Show, The Andy Williams Show, The Carol Channing Specialthe list
goes on and on.
However, being on the road for so many years, with over two thousand
concerts and television performances, inevitably took its toll, and the
group began parting ways in 1972 to pursue individual careers and
interests.
http://www.castproductions.com/association.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxdWZlKJmmg
Re: Vietnam feels close to you lol
We do have the Chinese culture, but in our minds it’s not really Chinese, it’s somehow ‘ours’, like a background that we will not do away with for any reason
True. Vietnamese are more Chinese than modern Chinese. Modern Chinese are conquered descendants and they hate Chinese culture. They went through a cultural revolution that was aimed to rid of all Chinese elements. Prior to that, they prefer Manchu pigtails and content to a confined four walls serving their emperor. Meanwhile , Vietnamese maintained that classical Chineseness. This included resiliency, exploration, and creativity. Which led to the experimentation and the confounding of Chu Nhom.
Only recently where the Chinese embraced being Chinese again. They stop being ashamed and once again proud to be Chinese. I believed they were inspired by Vietnamese. And secretly they admired us. :)
True true. Vietnamese want China to be their master but unfortunately Chinese don't take low iq. -cryariver
Nope. According to history and legend, Vietnamese fought against invading Chinese army and their Mongol/Manchu overlord. And won. The recent one was 1979. Won that too. Chinese are not known for high IQ, that's just propagandas. Infact 93% Han was ruled by a handful of Manchu. Manchu high IQ, yes. Chinese? No. :p
True true about the highest Vietnamese iq can get is 94 and it won't get up beyond that despite decades of enriched diets. The closest that they can get to Chinese is to get the scraps that Chinese cast off like recycling trash and making hand made items to sell.
I dont think so
For decades. Cargos of trashes left the United States and Canada...headed to China. And that's what your people did. Making recycling and hand items to sell. Even plastic rice are made from that.
Vietnam never accepted Chinese trashes. Sorry.
Vietnamese are the real Chinese. If you love Chinese, then you love Vietnamese. We are the real deal.
Modern Chinese are imposters and Mongrels raped descendants. Sun Tzu must be rolling in his grave if he returns. You are nothing like him. While we embodied Sun Tzu art of war in our core. We worship our ancestors, while you kill your elders, disrepect teachers, and destroy your ancestors relics. There is nothing Chinese about modern Chinese. You are nothing but hybridized barbarians.
Tran Hung Dao was a Sinitic descendant, the tran clan of fishermen. He led an army to burn down your Mongol's Overlord vast naval fleet. You see? A real Chinese vs. Imposter Chinese. The real thing is always better.
My friend, I am happy that you are starting to embrace Chinese culture. But remember, Vietnamese has always been Chinese. While you fake Chinese shave your head to pigtail and standing there watching your women raped by the barbarians. While you strongly believed that spreading your women's legs for the barbarians was the best strategy of war. Vietnamese were resistent the barbarians through wars. While Mao burns Chinese literature, destroyed ancient relic, disrespected teachers and encouraged blood shed for the elderly. Vietnamese were wearing conical hats perfecting our Pho noodle. We worshiped our ancestors. We named our streets and capital after our anestors.
So you telling me that you are a proud Chinese? We were proud Chinese centuries ago, while you were busy sucking on the Manchu and Mongol's pickles. While your women spread their legs for them. So you telling me the unification with the Manchu and Mongol's Yuan make us Chinese? No no no, I beg to differ. Actually Vietnamese are more Chinese rejecting the barbarians.
You make fun of our guerilla tactic, but spreading your women's leg to assimilate the barbarians was a better tactic? No no no!
Vietnamese are very Chinese. Real Chinese. Very authentic.
Vietnamese = proud Chinese
Chinese in China= disgraceful fake mongrel hybridize raped descendants barbarians Chinese.
We do have the Chinese culture, but in our minds it’s not really Chinese, it’s somehow ‘ours’, like a background that we will not do away with for any reason
True. Vietnamese are more Chinese than modern Chinese. Modern Chinese are conquered descendants and they hate Chinese culture. They went through a cultural revolution that was aimed to rid of all Chinese elements. Prior to that, they prefer Manchu pigtails and content to a confined four walls serving their emperor. Meanwhile , Vietnamese maintained that classical Chineseness. This included resiliency, exploration, and creativity. Which led to the experimentation and the confounding of Chu Nhom.
Only recently where the Chinese embraced being Chinese again. They stop being ashamed and once again proud to be Chinese. I believed they were inspired by Vietnamese. And secretly they admired us. :)
True true. Vietnamese want China to be their master but unfortunately Chinese don't take low iq. -cryariver
Nope. According to history and legend, Vietnamese fought against invading Chinese army and their Mongol/Manchu overlord. And won. The recent one was 1979. Won that too. Chinese are not known for high IQ, that's just propagandas. Infact 93% Han was ruled by a handful of Manchu. Manchu high IQ, yes. Chinese? No. :p
True true about the highest Vietnamese iq can get is 94 and it won't get up beyond that despite decades of enriched diets. The closest that they can get to Chinese is to get the scraps that Chinese cast off like recycling trash and making hand made items to sell.
I dont think so
For decades. Cargos of trashes left the United States and Canada...headed to China. And that's what your people did. Making recycling and hand items to sell. Even plastic rice are made from that.
Vietnam never accepted Chinese trashes. Sorry.
Vietnamese are the real Chinese. If you love Chinese, then you love Vietnamese. We are the real deal.
Modern Chinese are imposters and Mongrels raped descendants. Sun Tzu must be rolling in his grave if he returns. You are nothing like him. While we embodied Sun Tzu art of war in our core. We worship our ancestors, while you kill your elders, disrepect teachers, and destroy your ancestors relics. There is nothing Chinese about modern Chinese. You are nothing but hybridized barbarians.
Tran Hung Dao was a Sinitic descendant, the tran clan of fishermen. He led an army to burn down your Mongol's Overlord vast naval fleet. You see? A real Chinese vs. Imposter Chinese. The real thing is always better.
My friend, I am happy that you are starting to embrace Chinese culture. But remember, Vietnamese has always been Chinese. While you fake Chinese shave your head to pigtail and standing there watching your women raped by the barbarians. While you strongly believed that spreading your women's legs for the barbarians was the best strategy of war. Vietnamese were resistent the barbarians through wars. While Mao burns Chinese literature, destroyed ancient relic, disrespected teachers and encouraged blood shed for the elderly. Vietnamese were wearing conical hats perfecting our Pho noodle. We worshiped our ancestors. We named our streets and capital after our anestors.
So you telling me that you are a proud Chinese? We were proud Chinese centuries ago, while you were busy sucking on the Manchu and Mongol's pickles. While your women spread their legs for them. So you telling me the unification with the Manchu and Mongol's Yuan make us Chinese? No no no, I beg to differ. Actually Vietnamese are more Chinese rejecting the barbarians.
You make fun of our guerilla tactic, but spreading your women's leg to assimilate the barbarians was a better tactic? No no no!
Vietnamese are very Chinese. Real Chinese. Very authentic.
Vietnamese = proud Chinese
Chinese in China= disgraceful fake mongrel hybridize raped descendants barbarians Chinese.
http://vietrealm.com/index.php?topic=34959.0
The "Silk Road" was an ancient network of trade routes that extended across Europe and Asia, linking powerful civilizations such as China and Rome. The Silk Road flourished from about 1500 B.C. to A.D. 1500 and extended from China through Central Asia to the Caspian and Black Seas. Bounded by mountains to the north and south, this central corridor consisted of a broad desert punctuated by oases.
Silk actually composed a relatively small portion of the trade along the Silk Road. Eastbound caravans brought gold, precious metals and stones, textiles, ivory, and coral; while westbound caravans transported furs, ceramics, cinnamon bark, rhubarb, and bronze weapons. The oasis towns that made the overland journey possible became important trading posts—commercial centers where caravans would take on fresh animals, goods, and merchants.
These cities prospered considerably, with merchants and traders making large profits on the goods that were bought and sold. Most traders sold their loads to middlemen who would make the final transaction further down the line.
Very few caravans, including the people, animals, and goods they transported, would complete the entire route. Instead, goods were passed along through an intricate network of middlemen. These businessmen had to contend not only with the usual concerns of supply and demand but also sandstorms, ice storms, thieves, and feudal warlords.
Travel along the Silk Road was very difficult and extremely dangerous. Dry deserts with no water for miles and mountain passes with avalanches, heavy snow, and spring flooding made the road perilous at all times of year. Bandits lay in wait to rob travelers. To protect themselves, traders often traveled in large groups.
Traders often used camels to travel the Silk Road and carry their goods from one place to another, because camels could travel a long distance without water. But camels could not carry extremely heavy goods over the mountains and across the deserts. As a result, the Silk Road was not used to carry raw materials, such as lumber. Instead, it was used primarily to transport small, luxury goods such as silk and porcelain.
https://archive.artic.edu/chinese/resource/1878
------------------------
After 1434, European world maps changed. There was a shift away from the circular maps centred on Jerusalem, emphasising religious subjects, to depictions of the world as it really is. Toscanelli sent Columbus a map of the Americas; Regiomontanus advertised a world map for sale;
Magellan possessed a world map; Andrea Bianco showed Florida on his Atlantic chart of 1436; on his 1448 map, Bianco described Brasil; then, in 1507, Waldseemueller published his amazing world map accurately rendering North and South America. All of these maps had something in common: they accurately depicted parts of the New World before Europeans ever reached those parts.
They are also all copies, in whole or in part, of Zheng He’s 1418 map. It was a deliberate policy of Zheng He’s mission to distribute Chinese maps of the world. However, the transfer of knowledge went further than maps. It was that combination of a massive transfer of new knowledge from China to Europe and the fact that it came in one short period that created a cumulative effect and hence the revolution we call the Renaissance.
So at this point, not only did kings, captains and navigators have, for the first time, maps which showed them the true shape of the world but they also acquired instruments and tables which showed them how to reach those new lands by the quickest route and how to return home in safety.
When they arrived in the New World, an international trading system created by Chinese, Arabs and Indians awaited them, built up by thousands of sea voyages over hundreds of years honed by centuries of experience of monsoons and trade winds. When China left the world stage this trading system was Europe’s for the taking.
Europeans found not only rich new lands but the results of sophisticated transplanting and genetic engineering pioneered by the Chinese. Raw materials had been mined and transhipped across continents.
Europeans found worked gold mines in Australia, iron mines in New Zealand and Nova Scotia, copper in North America, and a sophisticated steel industry in Nigeria. Knowledge of printing spread the riches of the New World accurately and rapidly and with gunpowder weapons European rivalry took a new potency and urgency resulting in frenetic competition to conquer the New World.
The same dramatic changes can be seen in Europe, not least in food production, mining and processing of raw materials. In art and architecture the new rules of perspective explained by the rational mathematics of Alberti and perfected by the genius of Leonardo da Vinci could be applied to create all manner of new buildings – which could be accurately and quickly explained and described by printing.
Perhaps the most important single transfer of knowledge from China to Europe was how the universe worked. Everything could be explained without the blessing of the Church. Man’s thought was freed from centuries of religious dogma.
The transfer of intellectual knowledge from China to Europe in 1434 came from a people who had created that civilisation over thousands of years. It was given to a Europe which was just emerging from the thousand year stagnation which followed the fall of the Roman Empire.
Until now the Renaissance has been portrayed as a rebirth of the classical European civilisations of Greece and Rome. Chinese influence has been ignored. Whilst Greece and Rome were unquestionably important, in my submission the transfer of Chinese intellectual knowledge was the spark which set the Renaissance ablaze.
https://www.gavinmenzies.net/Evidence/chapter-21-chinas-contribution-to-the-renaissance/
----------------------
In the depths of the ocean, life can extend far beyond its usual limits. Take the tube worm Escarpia laminata: living in an environment with a year-round abundance of food and no predators, individuals seem to live for over 300 years. And some may be 1000 years old or more – meaning they would have been around when William the Conqueror invaded England.
“E. laminata is pushing the bounds of what we thought was possible for longevity,” says Alanna Durkin at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These tube worms live between 1000 and 3300 metres below sea level in aggregations from five to more than 200 individuals around cold seeps. This environment also provides a habitat for brittlestars, shrimps, crabs, mussels, clams, snails, limpets and a huge variety of smaller species of worms.
“The tube worms look like oversized plastic straws with a delicate pink flower at the end when the animal extends its petal-like plume – a gill-like organ for gas exchange – out of the top of its tube,” says Durkin. They can measure more than 1.5 metres, and feed through a symbiotic relationship they form with bacteria that thrive in these seeps.
Finding out exactly how old the worms were was tricky, says Durkin, given that they don’t produce a hard, permanent skeleton or tissue with annual, countable “growth rings”. Instead, her team had to rely on a growth model from an earlier study of a different worm species, which predicts how much a worm grows each year. “The idea behind the growth model is that it lets us simulate how these tube worms grow and age without us having to wait hundreds of years to watch them grow in real time,” says Durkin.
Researchers fed real-life data into the model by looking at how much worms of different sizes grew over a single year. This served to reveal how fast they grow at varying stages of their lives, Durkin explains. “Then we can use that data to simulate tube worms growing over time to find out how many years it would take these animals to reach a particular size,” she says.
According to the model, some of the tube worms have been around for hundreds of years – with some maybe even thousands of years old. It is hard to put an upper limit on their age, because they grow more slowly as they get older. “There may indeed be large E. laminata over 1000 years old in nature, but given our research we are more confident reporting a lifespan of at least 250 to 300 years,” says Durkin.
This suggests that the tube worms are the second-longest-living non-colonial species ever found in the depths of the ocean – the deep-sea clam Arctica islandica can live for 500 years or more. Colony-forming animals, including some corals, are estimated to live for over 4000 years. “It’s possible that new record-breaking lifespans will be discovered in the deep sea, since we are finding new species and new habitats almost every time we send down a submersible,” says Durkin.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2141387-giant-deep-sea-worms-may-live-to-be-1000-years-old-or-more/
----------------------------------
Researchers studying the microscopic roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans recently discovered a set of mutations that extended the worms’ normal 2-3 week lifespan by up to 30%. This was exciting, not least because discoveries in animals such as roundworms can sometimes help us understand processes like ageing in humans.
This was not the end of the story though, as the researchers found that the descendants of the long-lived roundworms could also live longer than normal, even if they only inherited the non-mutated version of the genes from their parents.
This doesn’t seem to make sense at first; surely characteristics such as hair colour, height and even how long we or a microscopic worm could potentially live are carried in the DNA sequence of the genes that we inherit from our parents. So how can we solve the conundrum of how the roundworms inherited the long lived characteristic, without inheriting the DNA sequence that initially caused it? The answer is epigenetics.
It’s not all in your DNA - In a nutshell, epigenetics is the study of characteristics or “phenotypes” that do not involve changes to the DNA sequence; and the long-lived roundworms are just one of many examples.
Others, as we will see below, include how queen and worker honey bees can appear so different despite being genetically identical, how starvation in human populations may affect the health and longevity of the next generation, why all tortoiseshell cats are female and even how we all develop from a single cell (a fertilized egg) to end up with bodies containing many different types of specialised cells but which all contain the same genes and DNA sequence.
So what is epigenetics? Another way of looking at epigenetics is like this; while traditional genetics describes the way the DNA sequences in our genes are passed from one generation to the next, epigenetics describes passing on the way the genes are used. To make a computer analogy, think of epigenetics as metadata, information describing and ordering the underlying data. If you own an MP3 player for example, it will contain a lot of data, the MP3 files.
Think of these as analogous to genes. But you will also probably have playlists or you may play tracks by artist or genre. This information, playlist, artist, genre etc. is metadata. It determines which tracks are played and in what order, and this is what epigenetics is to genetics. It is a set of processes that effects which genes are switched-on, or “expressed”, as molecular biologists would say.
How does epigenetics work? So epigenetics is about how genes are expressed and used, rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves, but how does this work? Many researchers have been studying epigenetics over the past few decades, and it is currently an area of intense research activity. We know that a part of how epigenetics works is by adding and removing small chemical tags to DNA.
You can think of these tags as post-it notes that highlight particular genes with information about whether they should be switched on or off. In fact the chemical tag in question is called a methyl group (see Diagram 1) and it is used to modify one of the four bases or “chemical letters”, A, C, T and G, that makes up the genetic code of our DNA. The letter that is tagged is C or cytosine and when it is modified, or methylated it is called 5-methyl cytosine. Methyl groups are added to DNA by enzymes called DNA methyl transferases (DNMTs).
Diagram 1. Two chemical tags, methyl and acetyl groups that are central to epigenetic phenomena and the chemical structure of cytosine and 5-methyl cytosine in DNA. The pentagonal part of the molecule forms the continuous “backbone” of the DNA . Only one of the two strands of DNA that makes up the familiar double helix is shown.
Queen bee status is partly determined by fewer methyl tags - In most cases, more methylated Cs in the DNA of a gene results in the gene being switched off. Honey bees provide us with a good example of how this can work. Worker bees and the queen have very different bodies; the queen is much larger, longer lived, has an enlarged abdomen and lays many thousands of eggs, while the smaller workers are sterile but have complex foraging and communication skills.
Despite this, the queen and workers in a hive are female and genetically identical. The clue to how this comes about lies in royal jelly, a secretion that is fed to some developing larvae, and which results in these larvae becoming queens rather than workers.
We will come back to royal jelly and its queen-making properties later, but a fascinating piece of research showed that if the amount of the methyl group adding DNMT enzyme was artificially reduced in bee larvae, then the larvae developed into queens, even if they weren’t fed royal jelly. Thus, the switch between queen and worker can be flipped by the abundance of methyl tags on the bee larvae’s DNA. Fewer methyl tags leads to switching on of a special gene or genes in the developing larvae that results in the development of the larvae into queens and not workers.
Tags on tails also operate gene switches - DNA methyl tags are only one part of the story though. In the cells of all plants and animals, DNA is packaged or wrapped up into nucleosomes where the DNA double helix is wrapped around a central core of protein (see Diagram 2). About 150 letters-worth of DNA (or base-pairs) is wrapped around each nucleosome, and this helps package the 3 billion base pairs of genetic code into each of our cells.
Nucleosomes are too small to see using conventional microscopes, but biologists use a technique called X-ray diffraction to work out the shape and organisation of objects like nucleosomes, and in 1997 this technique revealed the beautiful structure of nucleosomes at high resolution – see
(http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore/explore.do?structureId=1aoi).
Diagram 2. The familiar DNA double helix (blue) is wrapped around nucleosomes (grey cylinders) in cells. The string of nucleosomes can be coiled into a thicker filament, called the 30 nm fibre and this can be further coiled into a still thicker chromatin fibre. When genes are switched on their nucleosomes are more uncoiled like the 10nm fibre.
Nucleosomes are compact, but the ends or “tails” of the proteins that make up the nucleosome, which are called histones, stick out from the otherwise compact nucleosome structure. Like the methyl tags on DNA, small chemical tags can also be added to these histone tails (see Diagram 3). Two of the chemical tags that are added to these tails are acetyl groups and methyl groups.
Methyl, acetyl and a few other types of tags can be added to the tails in a large number of combinations and this effects whether an underlying gene is switched on or off. In fact genes can be switched right off (this is called silencing), full on, or somewhere in between by DNA methyl tags and histone tail tags. The combination of DNA and histone tags can also effect how easily a gene is turned on or off.
Diagram 3. Chemical tags can be added to the “tails” of the histone proteins that make up nucleosomes. Grey cylinder, nucleosome; curved black lines, histone tails; green circles, methyl tags; red triangles, acetyl tags; mauve hexagons, other types of tag.
When cells divide - When cells divide, the entire DNA sequence from the original cell (3 billion base pairs contained in 23 pairs of chromosomes in a human cell) is duplicated so that both daughter cells receive an exact copy. What, you might ask, happens to all those epigenetic tags? We have known for some time that the DNA-methyl tags are copied too, so that both daughter cells have the same pattern of DNA methylation.
We now know that the pattern of histone tags is also mostly duplicated as cells divide, although this is currently less well understood. Nevertheless, cell division is also a time when epigenetic tags can most easily be changed.
Return of the long-lived worm - Right at the beginning we came across the story of the long-lived microscopic worms thatpassed on their longevity to their offspring even if the individual offspring did not inherit the variant gene (mutation) that originally caused the extended lifespan. We are now in a position to explain this apparently strange result.
In most cases genes contain the information to make a protein molecule, and the protein molecules might be enzymes that carry out chemical reactions in the cell, or parts of the structure of the cell itself. It turns out that the genes that were mutated in the worm study make proteins that work together to add a methyl tag to nucleosomes.
This tag is an on-switch. When one or more of the genes were mutated this tag was absent and several genes that should be on, including some involved in ageing, were switched off and the worms had a longer lifespan. The unexpected thing is that the epigenetic tags were thought to be completely erased or reset during the formation of sperm and egg, and so unlike the genes themselves they shouldn’t be passed on to the next generation. But this result and other research that shows that this is not always the case and that sometimes, the pattern of epigenetic tags are passed on.
How to make a queen - Whether a larval honey bee becomes a worker or a queen depends on an epigenetic switch, and this switch seems to be “flipped” by royal jelly. But what is it about royal jelly that leads a larva that would otherwise grow up to be a worker, to become a queen? The answer lies in understanding that the individual chemical tags that are added to the histone tails of nucleosomes are constantly being revised by the cell. Acetyl tags are added by enzymes called histone acetyl transferases and they are removed or erased by a second group of enzymes called histone deacetylases (HDACs). Both of these enzymes are present in most cells and this allows genes to be switched on or off over time.
More acetyl tags help deliver queen bee status - Recently, researchers set out to identify compounds in royal jelly that could alter this process, and what they found was something known as an HDAC inhibitor. This was a relatively simple chemical compound that is present in royal jelly and that stops the action of HDAC enzymes that normally remove acetyl tags from histones. This results in a build-up of acetyl tags in the cells of the bee embryos, and like the reduction in DNA-methyl groups described previously, this is thought to switch on key genes required for development of a queen. Without the HDAC inhibitor in the royal jelly, the larvae follow a “default” set of genetic instructions and develop into workers.
HDAC inhibitors are not only important to queen bees, but are also part of a small but growing number of medically useful drugs that target epigenetic tags and which are useful in treating some kinds of cancer. Furthermore HDACs also have a role in the way our brains form memories, and novel drugs that affect histone acetylation may have a role in the future in treating memory impairment in elderly patients.
The environment and epigenetics - We have seen how the difference between a queen and worker bee is determined by exposure to a chemical that directly alters epigenetic tags such as acetyl groups; but are there examples where nutrition or other aspects of the environment affect human populations in a way that can be explained by epigenetics?
Obviously we can’t do experiments on human populations as we can on microscopic worms or bees, but sometimes human history or natural phenomena do it for us. One such example is what is known as the Dutch Hunger Winter. In the last year of the Second World War in Europe, a food embargo imposed by occupying German forces on the civilian population of the Netherlands resulted in a severe famine, coinciding with a particularly harsh winter.
About 20,000 people died from starvation as rations dropped to below 1000 kilocalories per day. Despite the chaos of war, medical care and records remained intact allowing scientists to subsequently study the effect of famine on human health. What they found was that children who were in the womb during the famine experienced a life-long increase in their chances of developing various health problems compared to children conceived after the famine. The most sensitive period for this effect was the first few months of pregnancy. Thus, something appears to happen early in development in the womb that can affect the individual for the rest of their lives.
Epigenetic effects can sometimes pass to grandchildren - Even more surprisingly, some data seems to suggest that grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the Hunger Winter experience some of these effects.
From what we have already discussed, this strongly suggests an epigenetic mechanism. In fact, research with the Dutch Hunger Winter families continues, and a recent study looking at a gene galled IGF2 found lower levels of the methyl tag in the DNA of this gene in individuals exposed to the famine before birth. Although IGF2 may not itself be involved in the increased risk of poor health in these people, it shows that epigenetic effects (i.e. reduction of the number of methyl tags on particular genes) that are produced before birth can last for many decades.
Studies in animals have also found that the diet of the mother can have effects on her offspring. For example, feeding sheep a diet lacking the types of food required to make methyl groups leads to offspring with altered patterns of DNA methylation and which have higher than expected rates of certain health problems.
Epigenetics and imprinting, why genes from Mum and Dad are not always equivalent - We all have 23 pairs of chromosomes in our cells. For each pair, one came from mother and one from father. Thus, we inherit one copy of each gene from each parent and we generally assume that the function of the gene does not to depend on which parent it came from. However, for imprinted genes things are different. For these genes, either the maternal or paternal copy of the gene is active, while the other one is kept silent.
There are at least 80 imprinted genes in humans and mice, many of which are involved in growth of the embryo or the placenta. How can one copy of a gene be switched off, while the other copy in the same cell is switched on? The answer is epigenetics. Probably the most studied imprinted gene is IGF2(see above). One part of IGF2 operates as a switch. If the DNA is methylated here the IGF2 gene can be expressed.
The switch is only methylated in Dad’s copy of the gene and so only this copy is expressed, while the maternal copy is silent. This switch is thought to be set up in the gametes (eggs and sperm) so right from the start, genes received from Mum and those from Dad are labelled differently with epigenetic tags and so are not equivalent.
Imprinting and mental disorders - Angelmann and Prader-Willi syndromes are two distinct genetic conditions with different symptoms, both caused by loss of a part of chromosome 15. Children who inherit one copy of this faulty chromosome develop either Angelmann or Prader-Willi syndrome, despite having a normal copy of the chromosome from their other parent.
So how does the same mutation (loss of part of chromosome 15) lead to these two different conditions? The answer lies in the discovery that this particular piece of chromosome 15 contains a number of genes that are imprinted, so only the paternal or maternal copy of these gene are expressed; which of the two syndromes appears depends on whether the deletion was in the maternal or paternally inherited chromosome.
When the faulty chromosome is inherited from Dad, there is no functional copy of the imprinted genes that are switched off on the maternal chromosome 15 and the result is Angelmann syndrome and vice versa for Prader-Willi syndrome. This is quite unlike most genetic conditions such as cystic fibrosis, where an effect on development or health is only seen when a mutated gene or genes is inherited from both parents.
Boys versus Girls, how to switch off a whole chromosome - A bit of genetics that most of us know about is what makes a boy a boy, and a girl a girl. It’s the X and Y chromosomes. At the very beginning of our existence each of us received one X chromosome from our Mums via the egg, and while the girls received another X chromosome from their dads, via the sperm, the boys got a Y chromosome.
The Y chromosome in the cells of a male embryo directs it to develop into a boy, while with two X and no Y chromosome the female embryo develops into a girl. Now, you might notice that there is an imbalance here. We all have two each of all the other chromosomes, but for the sex chromosomes (X and Y) the girls have two Xs while the boys only have one X (and a Y). While the Y chromosome contains few genes, mostly involved in “maleness”, the X chromosome contains quite a few genes involved in important processes such as colour vision, blood clotting and muscle function.
In order to even up the “dosage” of X chromosome genes between male and female cells, one entire X chromosome is switched off in female cells. This is called X-chromosome inactivation and happens very early in the womb. In this process cells randomly switch off either the paternal or maternal X chromosome, so that when a girl baby is born her body is a mixture or chimera of cells where either the maternal or paternal X-chromosome is switched off.
The way that this happens involves the type of epigenetic tags that we have discussed and it has been known for decades that female cells contain one very compact X chromosome called the Barr body that can be seen under the microscope, and this is the inactive X chromosome.
The case of the tortoiseshell cat - We are probably all familiar with tortoiseshell cats and their mottled coats with patches of orange and black fur. What you might not know is that almost all cats with this type of coat are female!
The reason for this is that a gene for coat colour is located on the cat’s X chromosome. There are two versions of this gene, called “O” and “o”; one gives ginger fur and the other black. Two copies of the same version in a female cat results in ginger or black fur respectively, but one copy of each gives a tortoiseshell effect. This is down to X-chromosome inactivation.
The skin of these cats is composed of patches of cells where either the maternal or paternal X chromosome is inactivated. This results in skin with the O gene switched on and o silenced in some patches (orange fur) and o gene on and O silenced in other patches (black fur), hence the tortoiseshell pattern. Since the male cats only have one X chromosome, and no X-chromosome inactivation, they are either orange or black all over.
Epigenetic inheritance, can epigenetic states be passed from one generation to the next? As we have seen from the roundworm example, epigenetic effects (in this case extended lifespan) can sometimes be passed from one generation to the next, although the effects only seem to last for a few generations. Are there examples where epigenetic effects carry over to subsequent generations in humans or other mammals?
There is some evidence that the effects of the Dutch Hunger Winter affected grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the famine. Similarly, in a study of a 19th century northern Swedish population who underwent cycles of famine and plenty, the amount of food available appears to have affected the health and longevity of the next generation.
Hair colour in mouse can be determined by an epigenetic effect - Perhaps the best known example of transgenerational epigenetic effects is provided by the mouse Agouti gene. This gene controls hair colour, and is switched on at just the right time in hair follicle cells to produce a yellow stripe in the otherwise dark hairs, resulting in what is called an agouti coat. But mice with a particular variant of the Agouti gene called Avy have coats that are anywhere between yellow and the normal dark (agouti) pattern of wild-type mice. The yellow mice also become obese and suffer other health problems.
So the Avy gene seems to have a variable effect (in fact the Avy stands for Avariable yellow). How this works has puzzled geneticists for years, but we can now recognise this as an epigenetic effect. The yellow fur occurs because Avy version of the Agouti gene has faulty controls and is switched on all the time. However, methyl tags are often added to the faulty control DNA sequence and this tends to switch the gene off, resulting in mottled or dark agouti fur in individual mice.
Pups born to dams with the Avy gene range in colour from yellow to dark, but the proportion depends on the coat colour of the mother; litters of dark (agouti) females are more likely to contain dark pups. Furthermore, a higher proportion of dark offspring is observed if both the mother and the grandmother have the dark colouration. So the agouti colouration, which is determined epigenetically (by the number of methyl tags on the Avy gene) can to some extent, carry through from one generation to the next.
Eggs and sperm do not usually ‘carry over’ epigenetic effects - Although we can find cases where epigenetic effects apparently last from parents to offspring, this is not usually the case and almost all of the epigenetic switches or marks are reset in germ cells (eggs and sperm) and in the very earliest stages of development of an embryo. In fact if this wasn’t the case, the amazing development of a fertilised egg into a fully formed creature would be impossible.
Getting from a fertilized egg to a fully formed human, it’s all in the (epi) genome - So far we have described some specific cases of epigenetic regulation, but we now know that epigenetics in its broad sense, (how genes are expressed and used, rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves) is central to how a fertilised egg can eventually give rise to a whole organism and how cells of, let’s say your skin, remain skin cells and are different from your brain cells, despite containing exactly the same genes.
Shortly after fertilisation, a developing human embryo consists of a ball of cells called embryonic stem cells. Each of these cells has the capacity to give rise to any of the types of cells in the body as the embryo grows (for example, brain cells, skin cells or blood cells). By contrast, 9 months later when a baby is born, most of the cells making up his or her body are committed to be a specific type of cell with specific functions.
So as the cells divide, the ball of embryonic stem cells gradually develops into all the cell types and structures of the baby at term. For this to happen, thousands of genes must be switched on or off at just the right times and in the right cells as an embryo grows. For example, genes that make the fibrous keratin protein that gives our skin its strength, are only switched on in skin cells and not in the developing brain and genes required for brain cells to develop and make their interconnections are on in the brain but not in the skin.
During development genes have to be switched ‘on’ and ‘off’. Epigenetic tags help with this - A very big area of research today concerns how all this gene switching on an off works, and a large part of this process uses the epigenetic chemical tags, especially acetyl and methyl histone tags. In order for those embryonic stem cells to be able to give rise to all of the other types of cells, their epigenetic switches are (almost) completely reset compared to adult cells. I have put “almost” in brackets as we know from imprinted genes and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance that there are exceptions.
Epigenetics, Dolly the sheep and friends - In February 1997, a sheep called Dolly became the most famous example of her species, briefly even becoming a TV celebrity. The reason for her fame is that she was the first mammal to be “created” by a process called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or in other words the first man-made clone (man-made to be distinct from identical twins, who are natural clones).
The process leading to her birth required a mature oocyte (a unfertilised egg) from one female sheep and an ordinary cell from the udder of a second sheep. First the nucleus (the part containing the DNA) was removed from the oocyte. This was done using a special microscope as although oocytes are quite big compared to other cells, they are still too small to see with the naked eye. Then the nucleus from the udder cell was inserted into enucleated oocyte. Thus, Dolly had three “mothers”: the donor of the oocyte, the donor of the udder cell and the sheep that carried the developing embryo to term.
No father was involved. Although this process was, and remains, very inefficient it was the first proof that the genes from an adult mammalian cell can be “epigenetically reprogrammed” back to the state of the embryonic stem cells that can develop into any other type of cell. Subsequently the same process has been applied to other species and may have medical uses in generating cells that could repair tissues damaged by injury or disease.
Summary: the epigenome and the ENCODE project – the “Large Hadron Collider” of Biology - Whereas the term “genome” refers to the entire DNA sequence of an organism (three billion letters of it for humans), the epigenome refers to the entire pattern of epigenetic modifications across all genes, including methyl DNA tags, methyl histone tags, acetyl histone tags and other chemical tags that we have not mentioned, in each cell type of an organism.
This represents an almost unimaginable amount of information, dwarfing even the human genome project. Nevertheless, knowledge of the epigenome is essential to fully answer some of the biggest questions in biology such as: how do we develop from a ball of identical cells into a whole organism? why do we age? and how can we better understand diseases such as cancer?
Not surprisingly then, epigenetics and the epigenome is a big area of research.
Some of the research in this field is encompassed by the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) project, an ongoing venture to identify patterns of epigenetic tags in many different types of cells for the entire human genome (http://genome.ucsc.edu/ENCODE/). The ENCODE project is sometimes likened to the Large Hadron Collider or LHC in Switzerland.
The LHC is the largest piece of scientific equipment ever built and the experiments physicist conduct with it aim to probe the fundamental details of the matter that makes up our Universe. Although biologists don’t have (or need) such a spectacular piece of kit for their research, the effort to examine the intricacy of the human epigenome has been likened to the LHC project because of its scale, complexity and the amount of information being created.
Epigenetic errors - Epigenetics is an area where our scientific knowledge is rapidly increasing. One thing that scientists have discovered is that epigenetic errors are common in diseases such as cancer and in ageing cells. As a result, scientists are developing medicines that target faulty epigenomes and one of the first examples is the use of HDAC inhibitors, similar to the compound found in royal jelly.
From the study of strange patterns of inheritance such as genetic imprinting, the yellow/agouti Avy mouse, the all-female tortoiseshell cat population and other related phenomena biologists have uncovered a whole new layer of information that lies “on top” of the DNA sequence of our genes. These new discoveries explain these previous puzzling observations, but also have great potential for new understanding and treatments for human disease.
https://bscb.org/learning-resources/softcell-e-learning/epigenetics-its-not-just-genes-that-make-us/
---------------------
Epigenetics is one of the hottest fields in the life sciences. It’s a phenomenon with wide-ranging, powerful effects on many aspects of biology, and enormous potential in human medicine. As such, its ability to fill in some of the gaps in our scientific knowledge is mentioned everywhere from academic journals to the mainstream media to some of the less scientifically rigorous corners of the Internet.
Wondering why identical twins aren’t actually, well, identical? Epigenetics!
Want to blame your parents for something that doesn’t seem to be genetic? Epigenetics!
Got a weird result from an experiment that doesn’t seem to make sense? Epigenetics!
Want to think yourself healthy? That’s not epigenetics! (Sorry ‘bout that).
Epigenetics is essentially additional information layered on top of the sequence of letters (strings of molecules called A, C, G, and T) that makes up DNA.
If you consider a DNA sequence as the text of an instruction manual that explains how to make a human body, epigenetics is as if someone's taken a pack of highlighters and used different colours to mark up different parts of the text in different ways. For example, someone might use a pink highlighter to mark parts of the text that need to be read the most carefully, and a blue highlighter to mark parts that aren't as important.
There are different types of epigenetic marks, and each one tells the proteins in the cell to process those parts of the DNA in certain ways. For example, DNA can be tagged with tiny molecules called methyl groups that stick to some of its C letters. Other tags can be added to proteins called histones that are closely associated with DNA. There are proteins that specifically seek out and bind to these methylated areas, and shut it down so that the genes in that region are inactivated in that cell. So methylation is like a blue highlighter telling the cell "you don't need to know about this section right now."
Methyl groups and other small molecular tags can attach to different locations on the histone proteins, each one having a different effect. Some tags in some locations loosen the attachment between the DNA and the histone, making the DNA more accessible to the proteins that are responsible for activating the genes in that region; this is like a pink highlighter telling the cell "hey, this part's important".
Other tags in other locations do the opposite, or attract other proteins with other specific functions. There are epigenetic marks that cluster around the start points of genes; there are marks that cover long stretches of DNA, and others that affect much shorter regions; there are even epigenetic modifications of RNA, a whole new field that I’m simultaneously fascinated by and trying to ignore because it’s bound to create a lot of extra work for me in both the project manager and the grant writing parts of my role. There are no doubt many other marks we don’t even know about yet.
Even though every cell in your body starts off with the same DNA sequence, give or take a couple of letters here and there, the text has different patterns of highlighting in different types of cell – a liver cell doesn't need to follow the same parts of the instruction manual as a brain cell. But the really interesting thing about epigenetics is that the marks aren’t fixed in the same way the DNA sequence is: some of them can change throughout your lifetime, and in response to outside influences. Some can even be inherited, just like some highlighting still shows up when text is photocopied.
Any outside stimulus that can be detected by the body has the potential to cause epigenetic modifications. It’s not yet clear exactly which exposures affect which epigenetic marks, nor what the mechanisms and downstream effects are, but there are a number of quite well characterized examples, from chemicals to lifestyle factors to lived experiences:
Bisphenol A (BPA) is an additive in some plastics that has been linked to cancer and other diseases and has already been removed from consumer products in some countries. BPA seems to exert its effects through a number of mechanisms, including epigenetic modification.
The beneficial effects of exercise have been known for generations, but the mechanisms are still surprisingly hazy. However, there’s mounting evidence that changes to the pattern of epigenetic marks in muscle and fatty tissue are involved.
Childhood abuse and other forms of early trauma also seem to affect DNA methylation patterns, which may help to explain the poor health that many victims of such abuse face throughout adulthood.
Epigenetic inheritance - This is an area where the hype has advanced faster and further than the actual science. There have been some fascinating early studies on the inheritance of epigenetic marks, but most of the strongest evidence so far comes from research done on mice. There have been hints that some of these findings also apply to human inheritance, but we’ve only just started to untangle this phenomenon.
We’ve known for some time that certain environmental factors experienced by adult mice can be passed on to their offspring via epigenetic mechanisms. The best example is a gene called agouti, which is methylated in normal brown mice. However, mice with an unmethylated agouti gene are yellow and obese, despite being genetically essentially identical to their skinny brown relatives. Altering the pregnant mother’s diet can modify the ratio of brown to yellow offspring: folic acid results in more brown pups, while BPA results in more yellow pups.
Research on the epigenetic inheritance of addictive behavior is less advanced, but does look quite promising. Studies in rats recently demonstrated that exposure to THC (the active compound in cannabis) during adolescence can prime future offspring to display signs of predisposition to heroin addiction.
Studies of humans whose ancestors survived through periods of starvation in Sweden and the Netherlands suggest that the effects of famine on epigenetics and health can pass through at least three generations. Nutrient deprivation in a recent ancestor seems to prime the body for diabetes and cardiovascular problems, a response that may have evolved to mitigate the effects of any future famines in the same geographic area.
Epigenetics research continues apace in labs investigating a dazzling variety of topics. One interesting direction is the application of high-throughput sequencing technologies to the characterization of hundreds of ‘epigenomes’ (epigenetic marks across the entire genome). I manage a project that’s part of the International Human Epigenomics Consortium (IHEC), and am also a member of a couple of the consortium’s working groups, so I see for myself every day how fast this field is progressing.
The goal of IHEC is to generate at least 1,000 publicly available ‘reference’ epigenomes (patterns of DNA methylation, six histone modifications, and gene activation) from various normal and diseased cell types. These references will serve as a baseline in other studies, in the same way that the original human genome project sequenced a reference genome to which scientists can now compare their own results to identify changes associated with specific diseases.
This is a field that’s guaranteed to keep generating headlines and catching the public’s interest. The apparent ability of epigenetics to fill some pretty diverse gaps in our understanding of human health and disease, and to provide scientific mechanisms for so many of our lived experiences, makes it very compelling, but we do need to be careful not to over-interpret the evidence we’ve collected so far. And we certainly need to be highly sceptical of anyone claiming that we can consciously change our epigenomes in specific ways through the power of thought.
Now that I’ve piqued your interest in this fascinating field (and maybe that of your unborn children. Epigenetics!), in my next piece I’ll explore the role of epigenetic changes in the onset of cancer and other diseases, and what this means for the development of new treatment options.
There are links to videos and other resources about epigenetics on the IHEC website. There’s also a free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) in epigenetics offered by the University of Melbourne on the Coursera site; I can’t vouch for the course yet, but it looks good and I’ve signed up for the session that starts on April 28th 2014 so I can vet it for work-related purposes.
Cath Ennis is a Vancouver-based project manager and grant writer in the field of cancer genomics and epigenomics. Help her investigate the epigenetic effects of Twitter: @enniscath. America faces an epic choice...
... in the coming year, and the results will define the country for a generation. These are perilous times. Over the last three years, much of what the Guardian holds dear has been threatened – democracy, civility, truth. This US administration is establishing new norms of behaviour. Anger and cruelty disfigure public discourse and lying is commonplace. Truth is being chased away. But with your help we can continue to put it center stage. It will be a defining year and we’re asking for your help as we prepare for 2020.
Rampant disinformation, partisan news sources and social media's tsunami of fake news is no basis on which to inform the American public in 2020. The need for a robust, independent press has never been greater, and with your help we can continue to provide fact-based reporting that offers public scrutiny and oversight. You’ve read more than 18 articles in the last four months. Our journalism is free and open for all, but it's made possible thanks to the support we receive from readers like you across America in all 50 states.
"America is at a tipping point, finely balanced between truth and lies, hope and hate, civility and nastiness. Many vital aspects of American public life are in play – the Supreme Court, abortion rights, climate policy, wealth inequality, Big Tech and much more. The stakes could hardly be higher. As that choice nears, the Guardian, as it has done for 200 years, and with your continued support, will continue to argue for the values we hold dear – facts, science, diversity, equality and fairness." – US editor, John Mulholland
On the occasion of its 100th birthday in 1921 the editor of the Guardian said, "Perhaps the chief virtue of a newspaper is its independence. It should have a soul of its own." That is more true than ever. Freed from the influence of an owner or shareholders, the Guardian's editorial independence is our unique driving force and guiding principle.
We also want to say a huge thank you to everyone who supported the Guardian in 2019. You provide us with the motivation and financial support to keep doing what we do. We’re asking our readers to help us raise $1.5m to support our rigorous journalism in the new year. Every contribution, big or small, will help us reach it. Make a gift from as little as $1. Thank you.
--------------------
My basic understanding if epigenetics, is an ability to adjust to environmental pressures that isn't mutation driven. I suppose we cant just blame our parents but our great grand parents for the fact we get an urge for cheesecake..Environmental elasticity makes sense for any animal but does any long term factors have an effect on our core DNA as a fixed trait? I always assumed Savana theory section fixes a trait as best served genes get to have a next generation. A new mix of DNA rinse and repeat. Ironically it seems we need a monks life until we have children, then have our crazy 18 to 24 lifestyle in our early 40s. Sex is ok just no rock and roll until your midlife crisis. Its an epigentic who done it. Grandpa Colonel Mustard with the desert trolly...
It certainly adds a layer of complexity to trying to understand gene and environment interactions (which are already complex and poorly understood).
The tv piece I saw was based on data from placental records in the middle east as they have to be buried as they are part of the body....
I hate to use the Gataca distopian example but as a long term health plan, epigenetic inherited adaptions could be avoided or reversed. A bit of a guilt trip before you're potty trained but would save you from a tutting doctor at your 50 year MOT..
If epigenetics was better understood, it would be a potent ally of feminism. In cultures where men are fed better, educated more and expose their wives and daughters to damagingly high stresses, they would suddenly realise that inequality hurts THEM too. Deprive women, and the consequences for the next generation of their sons and daughters persists.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2014/apr/25/epigenetics-beginners-guide-to-everything
------------------------
Epigenetic changes alter the physical structure of DNA. One example of an epigenetic change is DNA methylation — the addition of a methyl group, or a "chemical cap," to part of the DNA molecule, which prevents certain genes from being expressed. Another example is histone modification.
---------------------
Ah, let the Yank bashing begin. Seriously, is there an actual Quora desk somewhere in the Kremlin basement solely dedicated to trolling Britons and Americans on to each other's throats? It's get this as crystal clear as possible: if any ONE of the Allied forces of WWII had either sat out the war or (worse still) actively supported the Axis, the result would have been what it damn near was: triumph of the dictators. Germany fought the entire world alone in the two greatest and most terrible conflicts in human history and, but for the bungling of the high command, they would have won them both.
No USSR? Germany wins. No Britain? Germany wins. No US? Germany wins.In each case, the other axis dictators tag along for scraps like the jackals they were.
Without the Soviet eastern front, Western Europe would have been what it damn near was: fortress Europa, bristling with crack SS units and battle hardened Wehrmacht. All of the soldaten lost to the Reich in Stalingrad would have greeted the Anglo Americans with death. The specter of Paulus, Manstein, and Heitz waiting for D-Day with an intact Army Group B and Army Group Don? With 600,000 more troops? The most terrifying alternate history imaginable, utter annihilation for GI Joseph and Tommy Atkins. Period.
Without an unsinkable and unbowed Britain, American troops, planes, and material would have been forced to run a gauntlet of Kriegsmarine on the Atlantic before ever setting foot in North Africa, Italy, or France. The notion that an undefeated Britain at Herr Hitler's back would have made no difference to Operation Barbarossa is ludicrous on the face of it.
Yes, our Fraternal Socialist allies stopped Hitler at Stalingrad. Literally at the last square foot at which they could have stopped him. If not for Stalingrad, Moscow would have fallen. There simply was no other place on which to take a stand. Just a handful more of German units would have turned the tide Red and Black instead of Red and Gold. A crooked cross rather than the hammer and sickle. Period.
Without an aroused and vengeful United States, both Stalin and Churchill would have been brought to terms, their forces dwindled by starvation and lack, their fuel bunkers empty, the ammo dumps desolate.
North Africa would have not been kept by Monty without GI boots on the ground, Italy would have remained in Mussolini's fist without Americans, German factories and troop movements, free from the terror of the USAAF's b-25s, p-47s, and p-51s, would have crushed allied resistance. Period. I don't know how many an alternate history would have taken to beat Hitler, but I know how many real history DID take: ALL OF US. So spare us your disingenuous pot-stirring, you trolls.
------------------
Its an interesting question, are we assuming that the Japanese tried the northern strategy again, hitting the Soviets in the back whilst the Red Army was in a desperate fight in the west? Or that the Japanese continue as before but their plan worked the way they hope and the US is so crippled after Pearl harbour that it sues for a humiliating peace?
If its the former, the Russians have huge problems, They had just barely managed to turn the tide against the Germans at Stalingrad that same winter. The loss of Siberia’s resources would of been a blow. It still possible for the allies to have won, but the Soviet Union would of bled white. Germany and the Russians would likely collapse into revolutions or Chinese style warlordism or else reached an uneasy peace. Japan would control the entire east of Asia from Siberia to Manchuria. Europe’s Jews would likely be fully exterminated.
The British would probably liberate Italy, Greece and Southern France, but the sheer length of the war and likely favourable peace terms from the Germans might see them reach a peace, Churchill would likely need to be replaced for that to happen. Alternatively the British might continue the air war, and slowing grind Germany down and starve them with the blockade. It would likely be alot longer and more bloody.
If they knocked the US out of the war, or FDR can’t convince the Republican senate to declare war, then its the British who face the hardship. I think it would largely be the same until 1944. The British would still commit the same numbers to the theatres it did.
Though the majority of the Japanese army was bogged down in China, the British and its commonwealth particularly Australia and India are in for a long hard fight. The Japanese would likely eventually take all of what is now Indonesia pushing Allied forces back to Australia, they might make a landing in Australia but I doubt they could seize much territory fighting a long war through the Australian outback particularly against North African veterans wouldn’t have gone well for a Japanese army with little desert experience.
India provided the largest volunteer army in history to the allies, with the North Africa theatre largely secure by the end of the 1942 those forces rather than turning towards Italy might have large parts of them hived off to reinforce India. If the British were so concerned they did that, General Slim might have had the resources to retake Rangoon sooner, however it would be likely the Japanese would have control of the pacific and indian oceans, and the British didn’t have the resources to divert to hit the Japanese home islands.
D-Day wouldn’t happen, the British were never keen on attacking Northern France in a full frontal assault instead you’d of likely seen small fronts opened up in Southern France, Greece, the Balkans, and Norway. The war would of gone on longer in Europe with Germany and Russia slugging it out slowly in Eastern Europe. They would of likely just both collapsed from fatigue. Any extension of the war would likely see the holocaust completed and the Jewish people sadly wiped out from the continent of Europe.
In the East, the British might still have developed nuclear weapons on their own, the Japanese were working on them and biological weapons so might have deployed both. I think it would be more likely the British would cut a peace with them allowing the Japanese to keep all the territory they had captured from the US, French, Dutch and Chinese. Thus Japan would have achieved its imperial ambition and the British would leave the Chinese high and dry, Mao might have had to finally commit his forces against the Japanese rather than let the Nationalists do all the work. War in China rages hot and cold until the 50s when I think the Chinese would ultimately win.
The British might try to keep hold of their empire more firmly than they did. So there could be a bloody wars of independence in India, Nigeria etc. Israel would likely never be formed as there wouldn’t be the influx of jewish refugees to reinforce the jewish terrorist groups there. Europe is in ruins, no Marshall Plan sees it mostly rebuild slowly with some communists takeovers. Europe might unify though it could go the other way and the existing nations like France and Germany fragment back into their smaller progenitor states.
The american economy I think would still boom, to a lesser extent, from selling food, munitions and materials for reconstruction. Isolationism takes hold and the US though economically dominate doesn’t take an active role on the world stage. It might focus solely on the americas and ensuring that communism doesn’t take over latin america. The Cuban revolution would likely fail without the protection of the Soviets.
Japan having escaped any attacks on the home islands and gained at least for a while resources of larges parts of China, South East Asia, and the Indonesia. It would likely find itself fight communist and nationalist rebels as the returning European powers did. It might take Siberia from the shattered Soviets.
The South Africans would probably annex large parts of the region. Ultimately without the US, there is a much higher chance that at least part of the axis powers would have survived in some form till today. Japan as a major power, and the Nazis as a broken remnant. However the Soviet Union would of been unlikely to have become a superpower.
-----------------
Assuming you mean completely stayed out as in no helping the allies whatsoever there is no way the Allies would have won. All the people that say Britain or the USSR could have won the war without the help of the US are delusional.
“The US didn’t enter the war until 1941.” Yeah neither did Russia until 5 months before the US. In fact Russia was allied with Nazi Germany, and only started fighting them when Germany betrayed them and attacked them. Otherwise they might have sided with the Axis against the US.
“The Soviets fought more of the war than the U.K. or US.” The Soviet Union was invaded by Germany and had no choice but to fight or die. In fact every country near Germany spent years avoiding the war, and did not join the war until they were forced to. Russia sent 17% of their population to fight a one front war to defend their homeland. The United States sent 12% of our population across the world to fight a 2 front war to defend other people’s homelands. Russia fought defensively to defend their home. The United States has to be on the offensive to drive back people’s on foreign nations.
Also the UK sent less troops than the US, and they were fighting a one front war to defend their homeland. But here’s the kicker.
The United States supplied troops to fight in Europe and Asia, but more importantly the US supplied equipment and supplies to the US, UK, Russia, and all other allies. Without supplies from the US Russia would have been overrun by Germany. Without the US and UK bombing Germany’s infrastructure Russia would have been overrun by Germany. Without US supplies and troops Britain would have either been overrun by Germany or left in ruins depending on what Germany wanted to do with them, but no way they win the war.
Let’s not forget Russia didn’t enter WWII until Germany betrayed them, and attacked them, and let’s not forget they did not declare war on Japan until after the first atomic bomb was dropped, and the war was over. They saw the nuke and thought wow these things really are destructive let’s not piss of the US.
------------------
To answer the question, you'd have to explore why the US didn't enter WWII. Maybe Japan elects to attack Siberia instead of going into SE Asia for its natural resources? Also, Hitler manages to keep the US out of the war diplomatically? And what happens to Britain: does Hitler invade or does he basically leave it alone in terms of land invasion? (The latter is quite likely.)
The big question is whether Japan attacks the Soviets - which would seem possible if it isn't going to attack the US - and if it coordinates its attack with Germany's invasion. If Japan attacks Siberia and ends up cutting off a decent part of the Trans-Siberian Railroad while Barbarossa is in full swing, things could have gone much worse for the Soviet Union and it may have collapsed.
Another (more likely?) scenario is Japan ignores the US and the Soviet Union but attacks "everyone else" in the Pacific, basically mopping up everyone else's Pacific empires. If this happens, Australia may have fallen; the Battle of the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal are big reasons why Australia wasn't invaded by land. Assuming the US stays neutral, the Philippines are not invaded as this would trigger a US war declaration, but pretty much everything else in the Pacific is occupied by Japan.
With Japan's fleet not fighting the US and free to build out without a "real enemy" to stop it, there's no way for the UK to support India or for Indian units to be sent to the UK, so India is essentially cut off - does it simply revolt (as Japan tried to encourage)?
Assuming that the Soviets manage to beat Germany on their own (possibly with help from Lend-Lease, which I'd imagine continues), all of Europe ends up being part of the Warsaw Pact, possibly including Britain. Japan ends up with East Asia, the Pacific, and Australia. The US manages to make it through the war without direct conflict, but is likely very cold to Japan and not in love with the Soviets either, so a three-sided cold war may end up developing. In general, it is not a pleasant world, particularly since Japan would have been a victor in this war and its imperial fascism would now be backed with a vast empire with hundreds of millions of subjects.
Not sure if the US would favor the Japanese Empire or the Soviet Union in this situation, but my guess would be the Soviets for strategic reasons, although this would not be a "warm" alliance. It's hard to see how another big war doesn't happen with this very unstable geopolitical arrangement. Other items: the Manhattan Project itself likely still happens, although without the sense of urgency - or cash - it would have if the US actually fights in the war, but the US still ends up with nukes before 1950.
----------------
Before we can address what the world would look like without US involvement in WWII, we have to consider what would have had to have happened to have removed the conditions necessary for US involvement in the war. Otherwise, it becomes a particularly torturous exercise to argue why the US sits out when so many of its strategic interests were at stake.
First, we have to take President Franklin Roosevelt out of the picture. Whether we do it in 1932 or 1940, his commitment to providing assistance to America’s allies, and his guarantees to protect US holdings in the Pacific, guaranteed the country’s entanglement in WWII. It would be more convenient for this scenario to remove him in 1932 than 1940, because by the later date the criteria that guarantee US involvement in the war are almost set in stone, regardless of whether a non-interventionist is sitting in the White House.
As it happens, we might be able to do this easily. In February 1933, just weeks before he was to be inaugurated, FDR was the target of an assassination attempt. He was not wounded, but the mayor of Chicago was killed instead. If we assume for purposes of this question that the assassin was successful and killed FDR, then John Nance Garner would become president.
Vice President Garner’s interests were decidedly at home, and he was not nearly as enthusiastic a proponent of Federal intervention as Roosevelt was. As such, he would likely have taken a far more reactive approach to ending the Depression – which might well have happened more slowly, but likely with enough progress to secure his reelection in 1936. When war began to rear its ugly head, Garner would have likely taken steps to affirm US neutrality. His philosophy towards the war was as follows:
"These European wars never seem to settle anything. They unsettle. Every war there seems to create the necessity of another one. A war now would be the most wasteful and costly in history. We would probably have to do most of the fighting and pay most of the money costs. . . . If war comes and we stay out of it our interest will be in bringing about a just peace. Any President backed by the might of this country can be effective in that way."
-Timmons, Bascom. Garner of Texas: A Personal History
And unlike Roosevelt, he was also staunchly against seeking a third term in office:
"I am against a third term whether there is war in Europe and the Orient or not. There are many men of capacity in the Democratic party. . . . I have had everything from my party I have a right to ask or expect. I want to be of what service I can to it, but as a private citizen. I would oppose my own brother for a third term."
-Timmons, Bascom. Garner of Texas: A Personal History
Given a slower economic recovery and several years of "forceful neutrality," it's possible that the US could have been conditioned for a Robert Taft Republican presidency, or A. Victor Donahey if the Democrats managed a third term, with a policy of keeping the US out of the war at all costs. This could mean, among many factors, dramatic concessions given to Japan in negotiations during 1941 - as it could be assumed that the US had not embarked on rapid naval expansion in Garner's second term as it did under Roosevelt's, while Japan's went on course, thus putting the US in a position of weakness.
Likewise, with both Taft and Donahey opponents of providing aide to the European powers, there's no lend-lease program to Europe.
So having taken the US out of the war in all plausible scenarios - but we'll give it a policy of armed neutrality, to prevent a scenario whereby the US is attacked and brought into the war - let's look at the impact on the war in its major theaters.
North Africa - It's unlikely that Operation Torch could have proceeded in 1942 without the 50,000-odd US forces that participated. If it did go forward, it would likely have been much more limited in scope. More likely, it seems, the troops would have been committed to the defense of Egypt and the Second Battle of El Alamein, and this would have set up a very long battle of attrition across the rest of the theater.
The Axis position in North Africa wasn't exactly untenable, but it was their weakest front. Fighting might have dragged on until the Allies could threaten the Axis supply base in Tunis - say late-1943 - at which point the Axis would likely withdraw.
While the North African Campaign is often overlooked in the popular narrative of WWII, it was necessary to defeat the Axis powers there in order to open up the potential for landings in Italy and Southern France, thus further extending Germany's armed forces. However, without the US, it would be a while before the Allies could reorganize and rebuild their strength in North Africa to consider invasion of either country. In this timeline, perhaps the invasion of Sicily comes in early-1944, after the Royal Navy had sufficiently cleared the Mediterranean of Axis fleets.
Almost certainly the commitment of additional resources to securing North Africa would stall plans to invade France via the English Channel.
Europe - It's difficult to imagine a scenario in which the Soviet Union would not dominate the European theater of operations in the absence of US engagement - and certainly if the Allies found themselves stalled in primary operations in Africa.
Even lacking the benefit of Lend-Lease materials from the US (which weren't guaranteed until November 1941 and didn't begin arriving in the Soviet Union in large quantities until 1942), it's unlikely that the Soviets would have surrendered in the face of German aggression. The Soviets would have absolutely suffered higher casualties in the march to recover lost territory in the absence of that equipment; however, once their offensive got rolling, in earnest, it would be difficult for the Germans to stop.
The Soviet advance would undoubtedly be a motivating factor for Germany to begin withdrawing its forces from other parts of Europe, which might allow for the battered UK and Allied forces to attempt an invasion of France in 1945 (or 1946, depending on the extent of the damage). The withdrawal of German troops might alleviate Italian resistance (in the absence of a significant Allied presence in the country) and secure its liberation from German control before the Soviet onslaught. In the race to Germany, however, the Soviets would be the winner, perhaps taking the whole of the country before the Allied forces could get their act together.
Pacific - The operations in this part of the war would be most dramatically changed without US presence. As Churchill considered the Pacific a secondary theater - part of his lobbying the US heavily for a "Hitler first" strategy - it was woefully under-prepared to defend against Japan. With the US out of the picture, far more of Japan's considerable military might would be dedicated to its blitz through the South Pacific.
Singapore and Burma would fall more rapidly, and Australia, having been effectively sidelined by Churchill (almost all of Australia's trained soldiers had been sent to the Middle East) and without American reinforcements, would almost certainly be invaded.
The trend of the situation in Malaya and the attack on Rabaul are giving rise to a public feeling of grave uneasiness at Allied impotence to do anything to stem the Japanese advance. The Government, in realising its responsibility to prepare the public for the possibility of resisting an aggressor, also has a duty and obligation to explain why it may not have been possible to prevent the enemy reaching our shores.
We looked to America, among other things, for counsel and advice. . . . It is a matter of some regret to us that, even now, after 95 days of Japan's staggering advance south, ever south, we have not obtained first-hand contact with America. . . . We are, then, committed, heart and soul, to total warfare. . . . We will not yield easily a yard of our soil. We have great space here and tree by tree, village by village, and town by town we will fall back if we must. . . . For, remember, we are the Anzac breed.
-Australian Prime Minister John Curtin, in cables to Winston Churchill (January 1942) and address to America (March 1942)
In the meantime, and similar to the Soviet Union, without the benefit of Lend-Lease equipment from America (and later direct military assistance from US General Joseph Stilwell's expedition), and a greatly reduced capacity to be reinforced from the UK following the severing of routes from Burma and India, China would face a significantly harder war.
But even with early, dramatic successes, it's highly unlikely that Japan would be able to hold on to its expanded holdings. There's no reason to believe that the Chinese would ultimately surrender, nor the Australians. Further, it's likely that the Japanese, bolstered by their gains across the Pacific, would more enthusiastically attempt an invasion of India to force the UK and its dominions out of the war, and this would likely be its "bridge too far."
Facing resistance in Australia, China, and concerted offensives out of India - and quite possibly still the Soviet Union - with the end of the European war, Japan would be looking at a rollback of its gains. After losing ground in mainland Asia, and the threat of more losses to come, Japan might settle for peace negotiations that would allow it to retain its Pacific island holdings while giving back some ground taken from the Allies in exchange for resource guarantees.
Fighting / resistance might persist in China for a while longer until it becomes too costly a venture for Imperial Japan, at which point they might attempt to negotiate an armistice.
Europe would be in shambles and have poor prospects for recovery. The casualties it would have suffered, and the destruction to its industrial centers, would have been phenomenally higher the longer the war went on. Furthermore, here is the last kicker of the lack of the US Lend-Lease Program:
Nations who participated in Lend-Lease had to agree to promote a "liberalized" international economy at the end of the war as part of repaying the US (another way of saying the US demanded increased access to global markets after the war). Without this commitment, and the Marshall Plan to follow, and the Soviet Union holding sway over a much larger swath of the continent, the European economy would be painfully slow to recover from the devastation.
The US might now step in with offers of assistance to rebuild in the aftermath (at least for the non-communist belligerents) and Europe might begrudgingly accept, but it would unlikely engender the kind of friendly relations between the US and Europe that we would know in our timeline.
The Cold War, too, would settle in much faster and harshly, with the flashpoint being France instead of Germany.
Post-war in our timeline, France's communist party's popularity was nipped due to the Marshall Plan's restricting communist activity in aid-receiving countries. In this timeline, however, it's unlikely that the US - which would have retained suspicions and mistrust of the Soviets and communism through its neutrality - would be able to exert such influence over Europe's domestic affairs.
France, then, might become the proxy grounds for fights between the democratic and communist blocs - if not also Greece, per our timeline, and Italy.
In short, the foundations, if not the very idea of a robust, interconnected European Community like the kind we see today is going to be kicked back several decades.
The US might have sat out WWII, but its lingering suspicions of communism and the Soviets, and the utter ruin of Europe's democratic powers, would certainly be compelling forces for it to take a more assertive role in the new Cold War.
European powers would still lose their colonial holdings, and perhaps at an even more rapid pace than in our timeline. How dramatically and disorderly colonialism comes to an end would determine the level of volatility in Africa and the Middle East, but it doesn't seem very likely that it would be too different from our history.
In the Pacific, Japan would be able to secure its holdings and would hold power over an immense amount of resources and territory. It might seek rapprochement with the West after a time in order to further its economic fortunes.
Australia, having kept up the fight without significant UK backing for several years, might join India in seeking independence from a thoroughly bankrupted and broken British Empire. It wouldn't be beyond reason for Australia to then adopt a position of neutrality in order to avoid being entangled in another conflict and threatened with invasion.
Australia would also be economically devastated, as the Curtin government had drawn up scorched-earth plans in the face of a major Japanese invasion. If the invasion was quick and overwhelming, some elements of major industry might have been spared; but civilian and military casualties would result in a significantly depleted workforce on Japan's withdrawal.
Long-term, and even with investment by the US into global recovery - because a business opportunity is a business opportunity - economic growth would be difficult to come by for many years following the war; and the geopolitical situation would be tense. The flashpoints might shift from what we know them to be, but it's unlikely that the 20th Century, on the whole, would be any more peaceful.
-------------------------
Very unlikely. In practice it was the Soviet Union that bore the brunt of the fighting, and defeated most of the German forces, and while the lack of American lend-lease assistance and bombing raids on German industry would have slowed it down, it is unlikely that it would have changed the final outcome much.
The Eastern Front absolutely dwarfed all fronts on which American troops participated both in terms of military capacity the Axis had to devote to it, and in terms of casualties they suffered. The invasion of Soviet Union cost Germany at least 2 million dead, possibly much more (many MIAs) plus many millions more captured and wounded. All other fronts combined (including the earlier invasions of Poland, France, and the Balkans) only cost them about 300 thousand dead in total.
The Brits have clearly demonstrated being able to defend their home islands and Egypt on their own before any American forces arrived, so they would not have been defeated either.
What might have been possible (though still unlikely in my opinion, given the deep hatred they earned from the Soviets) if there was no American participation is that the Axis powers might have been able to wear down their opponents enough to negotiate a peace deal that would not see them completely annihilated and perhaps even hold on to some of the land they conquered between 1938 and 1940 (this applies especially to Japan), but that’s about it.
Victory in the East was basically out of the question as soon as the German invasion of Russia started losing steam in autumn 1941, and victory over Britain became virtually impossible as soon as RAF reorganized their defences in the Battle of Britain. More likely, the Soviet forces would have still smashed the Axis and then proceeded to take over most of Europe, and this is precisely what D-day was designed to prevent.
-----------------------
More or less the same thing; albeit another 15 years.
Turkey would have joined the Axis, and Fascist Spain would have most certainly won their civil-war.
Iran, Iraq, Syria, and millions of other Muslims of occupied countries ( Allied or Axis) would join the German War Machine.
Poor, poor Israel; I don't even want to know what the SS & Muslim ( maybe even an Islamic state by then?) Nations would do? At some point the U.S. would have to declare war, and would have by then!
Japan:
They would have taken full control of New Guinea, as well as other Oceanic countries. Austraillia would eventually be cut off from most or all import-exports. Japan still would have had fuel and supply issues from the embargo, and whatever they “ liquidated” from their new territories, would still not have been enough to build a solid shipping/transport & modernized navy.
Eventually China would be Squeezed out by Nazi Muslim Iran/Iraq ( yes, there were Muslim Nazis) & Japan, but there still would have been guerillia Chinese units in the mountains, and maybe even a region or two.
India would be forced to fully enter the war, and thus keep China and a few other countries from falling completely.
Africa would have also fallen to the Axis control, other than South Africa.
Hitler would often stay awake for long hours or even days, just studying war maps and pondering ideas of bizzare and progressive nature.
One such idea was to utilize the millions of African soldiers of unoccupied countries into an anti- British & Israel (USA?) African army. This would have raised hell on that continent as well.
Sweden would have eventually been sucked in, and they had an impressive military as well. Sweden had many Fascist sympathizers during the war and this would have come to a head.
Russia would have gained back all their lost territory/ give or take- and engaged in a stalemate win Germany until one of the other got the “Bomb”…”flip a coin”?
England:
Would have gave up on all advancmemts in Europe, and concentrated on home defense and navy; specially in helping British colonies.
South America:
Argentina was a Fascist-symthatic country, and this new “non-american” war would have opened up some doors in this continent as well, specially if the Axis was in control of the war.
Germany:
Hitler’s health would have ended him one way or another; or maybe another assassination attempt. Germany would have been split between the SS and the Warmaucht. This “civil war” would have been definite had Hitler died suddenly!
Germany and Russia would have pounded each other into submission, and eventually both parties would have dissolved. Hitler had the Leabense borne (sp?) and the Hitler youth to bring up another generation of Nazis, thus extending the war into the early 60’s perhaps, but nothing more.
Muslim’s would eventually fight the Nazis, and English tenacity would never give in, and the USA would have still helped in many many ways other than Declaring war. The black sheep squadron in China would have probably grown to epic proportions, Canada would have aided England relentlessly with everything it had as well.
With no resolution, and no super power, there would have been a good chance of a WW3?! This would have been devastating for Europe n Asia, maybe even in North America on a small scale?
Things today though would look about 75% the same as there is now. I don't think Israel would exists, and South America would be more of a power than it is today, China wouldn't be a Mega power , nor even a super power, let alone even a country?
There would more Islamic nations today, and that would be the biggest difference.
I have done exstesive research into scenarios like this, as well as computer Analysis, with an active online group that actually played out and caulculated this very scenario, and others like it. We did not “play” this just to have fun or were “curious”, but quite the opposite; we wanted to know what happens when people or nations do nothing.
---------------
An American government that wanted to not join World War II would not have supported the Anglo-French alliance confronting Nazi Germany in 1939. Assuming that Germany still defeated France in 1940, Britain would have had to make peace with Germany sometime in the next few months to a year. Her international finances were collapsing (per Winston Churchill).
Without Britain maintaining a naval blockade of the continent, Germany would have defeated the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1942. Their strategic goal was to drive the Russian government east of the Urals, thus providing land for colonization in European Russia.
The next German goal was to seize control of the North Atlantic by defeating the United States in a naval war, somewhere between 1946 and 1948. That was as far as Hitler’s ambitions went, as he knew his health would be fading by then and he wanted to rule Europe as a distinguished senior statesman, the pride of the German race, etc.
However, it is likely that, after defeating the American navy, Germany would see the obvious opportunity to eliminate the British navy as a threat. That would be reasonably easy with the new technologies available in the late 1940s. It might not even take a war.
An American government not wishing to get involved in the world conflict would not have been able or willing to put as much economic pressure on Japan in 1940 and 1941. Without that pressure, Japan had several options, but the securing of the Soviet Far East, Eastern China, and Indochina would have been the simplest. A German defeat of Britain would have allowed Japan to get access to British and Dutch resources in Southeast Asia without war.
The Japanese strategic planners intended to conquer the Philippines, regardless of other considerations, but only after the Americans left in 1944. It would have taken an extraordinary collapse of the American government to keep the United States from re-arming and building a modern navy and air force in the 1940s. That would leave it, around 1946, with no option but to face down the German and Japanese empires with no European support. Canada would be fully mobilized.
Thanks to Roosevelt’s far-sighed Good Neighbor policy, Mexico, Brazil, and the rest of Latin America would be available to be mobilized using American industrial production. Australia and New Zealand would be available, though wary of Japan’s naval power. Africa would be dominated by fascists, which would give Germany access to the uranium mines in the Congo.
India would most likely be independent and industrializing at a frantic pace. Exiles from Britain and the Russian-Soviet rump state would have been welcomed, under the circumstances, especially scientists and engineers. India would be seeking support from China and Persia, both well aware that they were unavoidably pawns in the confrontations between battlegrounds between major powers. The confrontation avoided in 1939 would surely occur well before 1949. With the “wild card” event still being the invention of atomic weapons.
----------------
Quite Apt map. A Picture worth a thousand words and all that. So let’s suppose for the sake of supposition that Isolationists in America Triumph. (Seriously Doubt it but let’s assume. PoD #1) America withdraws into own self and works through the depression. More people suffer and potentially a lot live under poverty line. Since they’re in isolation, military expenditure is severely curtailed and is above bare minimum. That equates to no Jobs at the Docks on West Coast or Aircraft assembly plants.
Another assumption (PoD #2) is that the isolationists do not comment/interfere/lift a finger to save the Chinese. Other countries in Europe tut tut over it with much hand wringing and that’s about it. Scrap metal and Gasoline keeps on flowing to Japan. No Pearl Harbor. The Attack North Camp gathers momentum and Japan decides to go North. American Holdings in Far east remain intact for now. Japan does still go after other areas such as Burma, Singapore, Malaya etc. But their main thrust is into India and beyond along with Far Eastern Siberia.
In the meanwhile Hitler happens to Europe as expected. Maybe he manages to draw a truce with Far Right in Britain and gets his peace with them. Royal Navy does not blockade him. They too are worried since UBoats could savage their underescorted Convoys from America. Since America is out, no lend lease. So Britain has to pay for every single thing or import from Asian Holdings. They end up making Peace with Hitler, who gobbles up France anyway.
Then he turns East and gets into a long Drawn out war. Stalin trades land for time and eventually routes Germany by causing Communist Resistance all over Eastern Europe and particularly in Romania (read Ploesti Oil). Hitler is defeated and Communists in western Europe Celebrate World Communism Day. Lenin and Marx’s Dream comes true. Soviet Socialists rule from Atlantic to Balkans to Pacific.
Meanwhile Japan realizes they have bit more than they can chew with Siberia, get bogged down into mushy snow after making good progress. But due to lack of good Armor and Artillery, they are eventually pushed out. They do still manage to reach Mid India and driving British to Truce Table. The Indian Azad Hind Force makes a stunning comeback and causes a 2nd Indian Sepoy Mutiny like the one in 1857. Aghast at this shock, the British find pushed on all sides with Stalin wanting his own peace in Middle East and Afghanistan. British leave Asia.
In China in the meantime,Chiang Kai-shek and his Kuomintang gains momentum and with secret British help, manage to subdue the Communists and sideline them. He bides his time and gathers resources. With Stalin Hounding the Japanese, he decides to strike, driving the Japanese out once and for all. Chiang Kai Shek is considered as the True Successor of Sun Yat-sen. He becomes a National hero and is worshiped as such. He doesn't stop there and goes on to push the Japanese from Cambodia and Vietnam asserting those as the long lost Territories of China.
2nd Butterflies - Germany actually grows a Diplomatic Bone and gets a gargantuan dose of rational thinking. They massively help the East Block provinces such as Baltic nations and Particularly Ukraine. With those being built as Buffer Zone and suitably antagonized and armed against Moscow, a coalition is formed that goes to war against Soviets. The forced Collectivization and Famine already had done the groundwork for such animosity. After the Purges, Red army had been severely weakened. They keep on trading land for time.
But with Siberian and Far East Armies busy Guarding against and Fighting the Japanese, there’s nothing more for them to draw upon and they reach stalemate. In the face of Coalition Armies at the door of Moscow, Stalin is assassinated and Kruschev/Beria take his place. A Truce and Ceasefire is reached with Berlin. Severe Curtailment on Army Size and reparations are agreed with Berlin.
-------------------------
I am going to make 2 assumptions. One, Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor and two, the US maintained strict neutrality.
The British Empire was nearly broke by the beginning of 1941 and the USSR lacked the industrial capacity to build the materials necessary to fight the Nazi’s. Both were very dependent on the US for the materials provided through the lend-lease program. The UK received over $31 billion worth of materials from the US and the USSR received about $11 billion.
From Wikipedia: The USSR was very dependent on rail transportation, but the war practically ended rail equipment production. Just 446 locomotives were produced during the war, with only 92 of those being built between 1942 and 1945. In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars which augmented the existing prewar stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars.
Furthermore, much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks. By 1945, nearly a third of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge ¾ ton and Studebaker 2½ ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations, and clothing were also critical.
Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30% of Soviet wartime aircraft production (mid 1941-45). And while most tank units were Soviet-built models, some 7,000 Lend-Lease tanks were deployed by the Red Army, or 8% of war-time production.
According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:
“On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR's emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany's might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.”
Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:
“I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.”
Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference during 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations [the Allies] could never have won the war."
In a confidential interview with the wartime correspondent Konstantin Simonov, the Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov is quoted as saying:
“Today [1963] some say the Allies didn't really help us… But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war.”
With the USSR and the UK unable to sustain the costs of the war, the Axis powers would have won and the world would look much different today.
Virtually all of Europe would have been Fascist, the USSR would have been pushed east of the Urals, the UK would have made a tenuous peace with Germany and the US would have remained a weak country.
In the Pacific, Japan would have taken and held the Philippines, Indonesia, Australia, New Guinea and much of China.
The USA’s arsenal of Democracy was vital to defeating Fascism in Europe and Japanese Militarism in the Pacific. The attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s declaration of war on the USA were the key turning point in the war.
--------------------
Sitting back and letting happen what happened to the rest of the world wasn’t something this nation would have been able to do. Yes it might have been out of it for a while, but there were problems which more than likely would have happened which would have brought us into the war no matter what. But there is also information which seems to keep being left out of history books, that turn out to be some of the most agonizing problems FDR had to deal with in the beginning stages of the developing second world war.
In China, and other countries like Indonesia, the Philippines, French Indo-China the Solomon Islands there were into the thousands of American Missionaries, nurses and doctors, as well as construction workers. As these locations were over run by the Japanese these people were treated as combatants and put into prison camps, this included men, women and their children as well. Some of these people were interned from 1937 and possibly earlier until the end of the war. Children grew up in these camps, and nothing that I’ve read goes into any details as to how many of these people died while being held.
As you read about the different embargos that America used against the Japanese be it oil, be it scrap iron, or whatever it is my speculation here that this real reason for these was to pressure the Japanese into letting these people go from where they were being held.
Returning to those nations or countries mentioned in the second paragraph Japan would have had to work around the Philippines, which had a rather large American presence there in Air Force, Naval, and of course Army personal. Having this country would allow the Japanese to be able to send troops to it so that they could train their men in jungle warfare. Also with Manila bay, they could have used this anchorage for protection during the times in the Pacific Typhoons, extremely large hurricanes were taking place.
Imagine, just giving you an idea of the size difference if Katrina which hit America and did the damage it did was a Typhoon from the Pacific, and the size of it being 3 and a half times larger than Katrina that did hit the southern part of America? Instead of the destruction as it was, imagine the scope of things because the area hit could be from Tampa Bay, Florida, to the Brownsville, TX, area and with the storm surge the same, we would be looking as such destruction it is unimaginable! But remember this is just giving you the idea of the difference in size and scope of a hurricane and a typhoon.
Japan as was also stated in other answers wasn’t allowed to use the Panama Canal, how and why they didn’t use disguised ships and go in and take this over we will never know. Unless it was explained to them that this would be destroyed by our troops stationed there, again something we will not know the answer to.
Not willing to allow the German’s to starve England out of existence nor allow them to sink their ships with impunity, we would have begun sending our own convoy’s and the fact the German’s were conducting full scale war on shipping in the Atlantic, it would have taken only one, maybe two incidents of German U-boats sinking American shipping to have brought about what took place on December 7th, 1941.
The next real problem which no doubt would have caused problems unknown is the fact the supply lines of our shipping to the underbelly of Russia through Tunisia, known today as Iran, without those supplies being sent, could Russia have withstood the German invasion? We haven’t any clue or number of how many American made tanks were destroyed on the Eastern Front by the German’s as they were driving towards Stalingrad?
The interesting point of this is that when our tanks came into Europe in 1944 after Normandy, their losses were staggering. But consider this please, this was with a depleted German Panzer corp, if these had been sent against Panzer corps missing only 10% instead of 40 or 50% of their tanks, Normandy wouldn’t have happened, and depending upon when the T-34 was being produced en mass, along with the KV-1, quite possibly Germany with it’s lightning war tactics would knock out Russia, thus setting the stage for something we never would have considered, another invasion of a foreign power trying to take over our country.
Bottom line regarding the question asked here there really wasn’t any way we were going to be kept out of this war. By the bombing of Pearl Harbor, this did a number of things which saved thousands upon thousands of American lives. It showed the Navy the vulnerability of our singled hulled battleships and what one or two torpedos could do to these ships. Also it showed that the days of the Battleship were numbered as well.
This is why at wars end America had 110 Air Craft Carries of various sizes operating in the PTO. When you add to these ships they support ships, it is no wonder the armada which was preparing to invade Japan was the biggest fleet every assembled in history with an estimated 25000 ships from the Fleet Carriers down to the PT Boats and mine sweepers and everything in between.
Had we simply let the world wreck itself in yet another world war and we didn’t assist, but worse, when those who had money could purchase war materials, and if we didn’t care who purchased, yes we could have become even wealthier than we were, but we also would have at that time in history become the most hated nation every upon the face of the earth.
Secondly the nuclear age would quite possibly not happened for another 10 to 15 years, but worse, without our supplying Russia with unlimited war materials, from 75mm, 90mm, 105mm, and 155 mm artillery, P-39 airacobra planes which the Russians mastered in usage against German tanks, and fortification, along with an unlimited supply of munitions, food, and other needs to keep an army able to fight, Russia quite possibly would have been knocked out of the war completely allowing Germany to begin moving it’s manufacturing further east and out of range of American bombers.
Conscripts would have been used in these factories and with the Tiger 1 and the Tiger 2 tanks being massed produced, without worry of bombing raids, if they would have produced 5,000 of each of these with twice the number of the Panther G models who were using both the 88 mm gun and the new high speed 75 mm which for the most part devastated any of our tanks, plus building of the Me-262 fighters in mass, we would have been hard pressed to overcome them.
If they also had been able to go into Georgia and put out the fires in the oil fields, frankly the war in Europe would have been over. What would take place afterwards, we can sit and speculate like the question here speculates on what would have happened if the US would have stayed out of the war.
Without the government funding required the Manhattan Project might never have come to be, which means that Germany with Russia now out of the war had accomplished everything it set out to do. With a focus now on getting the atomic bomb without interference, well you can imagine the results if Germany at this time in history had gotten there first.
----------------------
It entirely depends on how little the US would intervene, if the US decided to not enter the war at all while still sending lend lease; it is likely that the war would remain somewhat similar to the outcome in our second world war but with a twist. In this scenario the Red Army never stops advancing, they cleave into Denmark, Austria, and Northern Italy while British and Free French forces struggle desperately to save the Low Lands and as much of Italy as physically possible.
It is entirely likely that Stalin, seeing the US completely unwilling to get involved in any European war, would decide to stiff Churchill at the negotiation table and instead set up puppet governments in all of the countries the USSR had occupied. As a result, it is far more likely that Communism would prevail over Capitalism as the USSR without a deterrent may see fighting the Western allies for control of the entire continent of Europe as profitable.
The Second scenario is that the US simply flat up refuses to help the Allies at all, no lend lease, and no US intervention. Without US trucks, trains, planes, tanks, and high grade fuel, the Soviets are unable to quickly and efficiently mobilize their entire army, costing them dearly as time suddenly becomes Germany’s friend.
The British would suffer greater losses in Africa without the American designed Sherman and the British converted Grant, while they would still win eventually as Rommel was on his last limb, the conflict would be an extremely bloody affair as the tank forces would be equal on a technological level.
Japan would run wild in the Pacific, breaking Britain’s access to it’s oil rich colonies and soldiers from India; crippling her. Australia and New Zealand would be blockaded by the far superior Japanese Navy. The Germans would definitely take Moscow in this scenario, whether or not they would have won the war is entirely unpredictable.
-----------------
I guess we would have just unilaterally surrendered to Tojo and Hirohito, and said “We’re not willing to fight, so you just take over.”
We didn’t have a choice in the matter. The Imperial Government of Japan decided that the United States was going to actively participate in World War II, and then Adolf Hitler decided that was a good idea and declared war on us, too.
The only way to make your premise actually happen would have been for Japan to meet U.S. demands and withdraw from China and French Indochina, which they were not willing to do. Had they done so (fat chance), then there is a chance the United States might not have ever joined the war. Assuming it still provided Lend-Lease to the Soviets, they still would have defeated Nazi Germany, and the ultimate outcome of World War II would have been a Communist-dominated Europe all the way to the Atlantic. The border between East and West would have (at best) been the Pyrenees and the North Sea, rather than the Oder.
The Cold War still would have happened, only with China on our side and Germany, France and Italy on the Soviet side, and both sides courting a still militaristic Japan. I have a feeling that we and the Brits would have protected Falangist Spain, and it would have been a much more significant part of the postwar world order.
There’s a cliche in jurisprudence circles to the effect that “Hard cases make bad law”. In this context, a poor question has generated ahistorical responses.
As worded, the question implies America had a choice of participating or not in WWII. This premise is false - Japan declared war by aerial attack on December 7, 1941, and Germany declared war via a Hitler proclamation 4 days later. Despite the best efforts of the isolationists, the U.S. was perforce involved.
Now we come to the disappointing responses. Suresh says “[The Royal Navy} too are worried since UBoats could savage their underescorted Convoys from America.” The convoys had been setting out from Halifax, Nova Scotia almost since the war began in September, 1939. How do you think Britain stayed fed and armed during the early years?
Jack writes “In a situation where the USA does not fight and does not provide special treatment for the Allies, the course of the war changes quite a bit. Germany takes over all of continental Europe and launches the Battle of Britain, however, Hitler realizes that the USA is not helping, so scraps Sea Lion. “ What are you talking about? Germany already had done those things before the U.S. was a combatant.
Then Mathew says “Without American aid, predominantly food, industrial goods, and vehicles like trains and trucks, the Soviets may have lost more ground. Seeing a Soviet collapse, Japan might just declare war and help mop up the Soviets instead of attacking American possessions. “ Another what-are-you-talking-about moment…there was no American aid to speak of during the critical period between the start of Germany’s attack on the USSR of June 22, 1941, and Pearl Harbor Day. Lend-Lease to the USSR from the US was only extended in October. Here’s an interesting piece of research which suggests aid from Britain may have helped turn away the Nazis from the gates of Moscow just before Christmas, 1941. Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans. Do your homework before you respond, guys.
------------------
What if Germany had never declared war on the United States during World War II?
Scholars and analysts have long wondered whether this represented one of the great “what-ifs” of World War II; could the Germans have kept the United States out of the war, or at least undercut popular support for fighting in the European Theater, by declining to join the Japanese offensive?
Was the decision to declare war on the United States, effectively relieving the Roosevelt administration of the responsibility of mobilizing American sentiment for war in Europe, among Hitler’s greatest blunders?
Probably not. Washington and Berlin agreed that war was inevitable; the only question was who would fire the first shots.
At War:
The United States and Germany were at war in all but name well before December 1941. Since early 1941 (at least) the United States had shipped war material and economic goods to the United Kingdom, enabling the British government to carry on with the war. American soldiers, sailors, and airmen served in the British armed forces, albeit not in great numbers. And in the late summer of 1941, the United States effectively found itself at war in the Battle of the Atlantic. The Greer Incident, in which a U.S. destroyer tangled with a German U-boat, served to bring the conflict into sharp focus.
The Fireside Chat delivered by President Roosevelt on September 11, 1941 made clear that the United States was already virtually at war with Germany:
“Upon our naval and air patrol -- now operating in large number over a vast expanse of the Atlantic Ocean -- falls the duty of maintaining the American policy of freedom of the seas -- now. That means, very simply, very clearly, that our patrolling vessels and planes will protect all merchant ships -- not only American ships but ships of any flag -- engaged in commerce in our defensive waters. They will protect them from submarines; they will protect them from surface raiders.
It is no act of war on our part when we decide to protect the seas that are vital to American defense. The aggression is not ours. Ours is solely defense.
But let this warning be clear. From now on, if German or Italian vessels of war enter the waters, the protection of which is necessary for American defense, they do so at their own peril.”
This declaration did not simply apply to U.S. territorial waters. The United States would escort convoys filled with military equipment to Europe with surface ships and anti-submarine craft, firing at will against any German submarines, ships or planes that they encountered.
Moreover, even U.S. ground forces had begun to participate in the war. In early July 1941, the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps, with Navy support, began deploying to Iceland. The Americans relieved British and Canadian troops who had invaded the island a year earlier.
Why?
In the long run, Hitler (and the rest of the German government) believed that confrontation with the United States was virtually inevitable. The U.S. had intervened in 1917 on behalf of Russia, France, and the United Kingdom; it was almost certain to do so again. U.S. behavior in 1941 reaffirmed this belief. Starting the war on German terms, before the U.S. was prepared to effectively defend itself, was the consensus position within the German political and military elite.
And so Germany declared war on the United States not out of a fit of pique, but rather because it believed that the United States was already effectively a belligerent, and that wider operations against the U.S. would help win the war. In particular, the Axis declaration of war enabled an operation that the Germans believed was key to driving Britain out of the conflict; a concerted submarine attack against U.S. commercial shipping. Although the Kriegsmarine had targeted U.S. vessels in the months and years before Pearl Harbor, it radically stepped up operations in the first months of 1942, launching a major effort just off the U.S. Atlantic seaboard.
The German tactics were devastatingly effective against a U.S. military that lacked good tactics, equipment, and procedures for fighting the U-boats. For their part, British military and political authorities worried that the German offensive might work, destroying enough shipping to cut Britain’s lifeline to North America. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force quickly dispatched advisors to the United States in an effort to staunch the bleeding, but 1942 nevertheless proved the most devastating year of the war for shipping losses. Overall, Operation Drumbeat proved far more successful for the Axis than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
But What If…
If, despite all this, Germany and Italy had somehow managed to avoid an open declaration of war against the United States, conflict would have continued in the North Atlantic. The U.S. would have continued to supply Britain and the Soviet Union with war material, potentially with somewhat more secure lines of supply, especially if the Germans continued to avoid attacks along the Atlantic seaboard.
In the real war, U.S. air, naval, and ground forces made their first decisive contribution in the Mediterranean. Plenty of analysts, now and then, have questioned the strategic logic of the Mediterranean campaign, but in the long run it helped beat U.S. ground and air forces into shape. If the U.S. had maintained formal neutrality, Operation Torch (the invasion of North Africa) might never have happened, and progress in the Med would have come much more slowly.
U.S. participation in the Combined Bomber Offensive (CBO), designed to destroy German industry and morale and drive the Third Reich from the war, might also have developed more slowly. Given the limited impact and immense cost of the CBO in its early stages, however, it’s unclear how much of a net impact on the tides of war that this would have made.
A reduced U.S. combat commitment in the Atlantic could have led to a greater effort in the Pacific, although it’s difficult to see what impact that would have made in the first year of the war. Over time, the U.S. built up an enormous advantage over the Japanese; this would have happened even more quickly with a smaller commitment to Europe. Still, the overwhelming superiority that the U.S. exhibited in 1944 depended on technology, training, and the availability of ships that remained on the slipways in 1942. Schemes to step up the fight in China or in Southeast Asia suffered from immeasurable logistical problems, which the U.S. could not solve until 1944 in any case.
The Final Salvo
Both Hitler and Roosevelt believed that war was inevitable, and they were both probably right. Restraining the war machine in December of 1941 might have bought some additional time for Germany in the Med and (possibly) in the skies, but would have forced the Kriegsmarine to forego an offensive that it believed could win the war. And in the end, the Americans likely would have joined the conflict anyway, perhaps with less experience, but with greater overall preparation to make a decisive commitment.
------------------
Maybe no Pearl Harbor because Japan decided not to invade Indochina (Vietnam) and thus no oil or scrap iron embargo?
No excuse for Germany to declare war on the United States except Cash and Carry and Lend Lease is still helping Great Britain, who is the enemy of Germany.
Even with a neutral USA, Germany is still going to have s tough time defeating the Soviet Union. Stalin is willing to risk losing one of three million soldiers to defend Mother Russia. In addition, the brutal winter of 1941 might make it too much for the invading German army.
One likely scenario has the USA as a perpetual war supplier making money sending war supplies to whomever can purchase or take out from the USA on their own. Another scenario has both sides in Europe begging some country to help negotiate a peace treaty as the war dead continues to rival and likely surpass World War One.
Another scenario has the USA finding another way to join the Allies in World War Two like Germany or Japan sinking of US merchant or passenger ships. Maybe Japan simply invades or in their view “liberates” the Phillipines causing war between the USA and Japan.
Some wonderings…
If no war, would FDR win a fourth term?
Would he have picked Harry Truman as his Vice President?
Knowing FDR’s deteriorating health by 1945, even without going to war, would FDR continue as President?
Would Great Britain and USSR been able to defeat Germany and Italy without the US military? Great Britain was in no shape by themselves to defeat Germany in North Africa and still invade Italy.
Without FDR, would Churchill, who didn't trust Stalin, be able to plan a victory with Stalin?
Would the Holocaust have expanded and moved faster without US involvement?
Would the development of the atomic bomb been delayed or not developed without the capture of German scientists?
Would Germany have developed the atomic bomb before the USA?
Considering a weak League of Nations, would a United Nations ever exist?
Too many doubtful questions about how the Allies would have won without the total involvement of the USA. There are some serious and quite different outcomes had the USA decided not to join the Allies in World War Two.
------------------
::What would have happened if the USA had stayed completely out of WW II?:: For that to happen, the attack on Pearl Harbor must be butterflied away. For this to happen, Admiral Yamamoto must prevail and convince the rest of the Japanese leadership to stop pushing against the Chinese, despite the oil & scrap iron embargo, and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shiping enacted in 1940.
It could have happened, if the Imperial Japanese Army had accepted the US conditions and had retired its forces from China (not including Manchukuo) & Indochina after making peace with Chiang Kai-Shek. Let’s say that it what happened.
So, in 1941, Japan withdraws its forces to Manchukuo, after exacting from Nanking harsh terms, including the recognition of its Manchurian puppet. After leaving Vichy Indochina, the US lifts its trade embargos. Chiang remains in power over a shaky alliance of warlords: China licks its wounds for a generation or two, and waits.
The same year, Operation Barbarossa starts. It could go either way: either Germany wins, or as I think would happen, the Eastern Front destroys Germany: it is occupied, looted and partitioned, together with the rest of Eastern Europe, by an exhausted, revengeful Soviet Union: millions of German and eastern European refugees attest to the Soviets’ genocidal lust for vengeance.
In panic, the Franco-British Union comes to be, and together with the US and Japan, devotes itself to contain the Soviets. The Cold War becomes even more perilous than in our timeline.
--------------------
Pearl Harbor would have remained unavenged... but let's imagine Pearl Harbor never happened. We would have entered the war when Japan invaded our colony in the Philippines. But let's say Japan avoided the Philippines on the way to conquering the rest of the Pacific.
Once the Japanese had conquered British Malaysia and the Dutch East Indies, they would have had enough rubber and oil to avoid the US and Allied embargo (the Allies had refused to appease the Japanese like they did the Germans). At that point, without presenting a second front, the US would have had little to no leverage in preventing Japan from finishing its brutal conquest of China. Perhaps the Soviets would even try to snag a piece of Western China.
The US still would have sold materiel to the Soviets, who would have eventually beaten the Germans. Probably. But in the West... without the US to help invade North Africa and Italy, or conduct "precision" daylight bombing raids, the Soviets would have a much more difficult time. Also, the Soviets would have advanced well West of where they ended up.
If they had liberated all of continental Europe, the Cold War would have shaped up much differently, as a tripolar system: The US in the Americas, the Soviets in Europe, and Japan in the Far East. All three would have wound up with nuclear weapons by 1960. Eventually, that might blow up, or it might end up like it did in real life, with the powers busting each others' chops with proxy wars.
The US would not have fought in Korea or Vietnam, as these were solidly part of the Japanese Empire by then. Oddly enough: Without the massive trading partners that Western Europe and Japan turned into, the US (and Canadian) economies would probably not have made the gains they did in real life. Also, there'd probably be no United Nations, and thus none of all the good it did. There might not have even been the human rights revolutions that came at the same time.
At that point, it starts to get difficult to predict. But you can see, even at a moment's thought, things would have been rather different. Then again, the US might have cooked up some pretext to attack Japan at a later date. At which point, history re-enters its actual course, and we are where we are today.
--------------
The US wouldn’t be a superpower, the Soviets would’ve been the first to have the bomb, and we all would probably be communist by this point, I wouldn’t be surprised. Why?
The US only became a superpower because of our military might in World War 2. After earning the prestige of winning the war, and expanding our military to be the most fearsome on the planet, we were a superpower. Then the Soviet Union came around and was annoyingly another superpower but they fell. Now it is just the USA who is a superpower but other countries are coming up.
The US only got the bomb (which really cemented our position as a superpower) after years of painstaking research done with huge amounts of money invested. Without it, it would’ve taken much longer but I suspect the Soviets would’ve gotten the nuclear bomb instead. It is possible that the Nazis would’ve gotten it before then, but there was an active resistance movement working to destroy the raw materials that the Nazis needed. The Soviets could have (if they really tried) gotten the bomb, making them the sole superpower, and the only nuclear superpower.
Why would we be communists? Simple. There would be the unrivaled USSR to spread their influence across the world. And even more than that there would be no one to challenge the theories. It would be a powerful message is the USSR was the top dog and other capitalist countries were so weak in comparison. I can’t speak for others, but honestly that might work to convince me personally.
Keep in mind, I am an amateur, and by changing such a large portion of history the way things would turn out would could easily be completely differently from the way they are now. If anyone thinks something else would happen I would love to hear what you have to say.
-------------------
Involved how? If they hadn’t been involved at all, as in no arms or materials sales or lend lease, it’s probable Germany would have triumphed. I’m not certain if Hitler would have bothered to invade Great Britain, as that may have been enough to provoke the US, especially combined with unrestricted submarine warfare. Both Zhukov and Khrushchev admitted as much in two different instances.
If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, and had instead continued in China and Manchuria, the Soviets would still have needed a large number of divisions in their east to prevent a Japanese incursion there. The Japanese and Russians had a long history of conflict.
This might have been enough to allow the Germans to succeed on the Eastern Front, especially if you combine that with the first scenario, no lend lease. (And it should be remembered that £500M Of lent equipment and materiel to the Soviets came from the UK. That’s about £5B today). And without resources wasted on the Western Front, men and materials tied up on the Atlantic wall to prevent an Anglo-American invasion, and no hope of a second front for Stalin.
--------------------
That presupposes that Japan does not attack American interests. The US was already supplying lots of war material to Britain, but they were being paid, not lend lease. They were repairing the damaged ships , huge amounts of food that is transhipped to Canada and sent in Commonwealth ships, huge amounts of weapons, oil fuel, in Norwegian ships as well all coming out of Canada.
2 ship building harbours were already being built 1 on the west coast and 1 on the east paid for by Britain with ships to be built to a British design. Hong Kong, Singapore and the Dutch east Indies lost, maybe India, depends if India can be properly mobilized. Northern Australian neutralized, raids on the south and New Zealand. No need to invade, they had China to beat.
Food and resources from New Zealand and Australia would have to be rerouted around Africa taking extra months. Britain supplying the USSR with tanks and planes and what it can because the supply is coming in from the US, both USSR and Britain continue to pay for the armaments but nothing on the scale of lend lease,
Iran might go to the Nazi’s, the allies being the Commonwealth and USSR do not have the troops to suppress or invade. Britain still out produces Germany in tanks and aircraft and the US supply better aircraft all the time. Germany has not the ability to invade Britain.
The USSR out produces Germany in tanks, cannon and aircraft and will bleed Germany dry, The Soviets go find heaps more gold to pay for supplies from the US. Japan allows the trade from the US because it is in USSR ships brought from the US. They do not want to fight the Soviets, 1938 was enough.
The soviets have almost no way to drive the Germans all the way to Berlin but over some years could drive them back and forth in a see saw slugging match. Britain will control North Africa, her own bit and the Italian bits and a toss up on whether they drive in and take the rest of the French bit after the Aussies took Syria and Lebanon from the Vichy.
Axis controlled Europe with continuous drain on manpower. Mass hunger, mass unrest, mass murder. Atlantic controlled by Canada and the Commonwealth navies with lots of ships built by the US. Britain an unsinkable aircraft carrier, no raw materials getting into Europe with the blockade.
Huge steel and manufacturing complexes being built in Canada and Australia with Australia getting a huge influx of Indian workers to build ships and weapons. Iffy if Britain gives the US access to code breaking and visa versa, same with the nuke start up info and equipment that the US did not have, not an ally give them the secrets to the bomb ???????? Does Britain invade in 48′ or 49′ when the whole of Europe is a basket case of Death and the soviets somewhere in the east bled dry???????
---------------
The USA was never going to stay out of WWII, an impossibility. Way too much money to be made selling weapons. As long as the UK was going to blockade Germany the only buyer for those weapons was the UK, and if you give them a big enough line of credit, (lend-lease) they will bankrupt themselves to your advantage.
So the USA was fighting two wars, one against the Brits the other against the Germans. If there had been not been movement on the neutrality issue the Brits would of allied themselves more closely with the USSR - and the Tizard mission would of gone to Russia.
The Russians get the basic design for the bomb, antibiotics, radar, computer aided code breaking, jet engines etc. It would of been a Russian bomb dropped on Berlin by a Lancaster bomber that ended the war. The UK maintains control of seaborne trade, the USSR has the military dominance. And the USA gets exactly what it wanted. It’s completely ISOLATED.
-----------------------
The Axis made some real mistakes, besides goading the US into the war. Germany declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor. They could have skipped that. And we know how Japan’s bold stroke turned out.
Germany didn’t have the amphibious assets, nor the strategic bombing capability, to take out Britain. As was demonstrated in 1940–41. They never developed those capacities. If the Nazis had stayed focused on knocking out British airfields and radar stations, they might have brought the UK to its knees; but they didn’t. Even then, Germany never had the naval resources of Britain, and wouldn’t have been able to develop them in time to knock the UK out.
Japan did what it did until mid-1942, but it didn’t have the industrial capacity to rule the empire it accumulated over the long haul. They never completely subjugated China, though they had more than a million troops there for a decade. So it’s tough to say how it would have played out, without the US. It would have been a slug-fest. The really decisive player wasn’t the US — beyond supplies of armaments. It was the USSR. They did the killing, and bled the Nazis thoroughly. If the USSR was out of the war…. a whole new game.
-------------
The difficulty of answering your question is whether or not the United States continues and Great Britain and still stay on the sidelines. I also answer this assuming Japan doesn’t attack Pearl Harbor.
The outcome of such of war would depend on both Germany and Japan’s research into an atom bomb. We know this. Both countries had sufficient knowledge to build a bomb. When Albert Einstein warned the United States we were able to build a bomb first and bring a quicker end to the war.
If we were not active participants in the war there is every likelihood that perhaps Germany or Japan could have finished the bomb sooner. If we extrapolate this future history we could see a war lasting two or three more years with Germany dropping a bomb on Moscow, Great Britain surrendering under the threat of a bomb on London, and Japan dropping one on China or even the U.S.
Once Asia and Europe was conquered, it only depends on whether the Axis powers wish to finish off the United States. Perhaps 200 million, 300 million dead? Along with this would be the elimination of the children of Israel, the Slavic peoples, and perhaps all of the western Russian populations.
I have said this many times. World War II was a race between the barbarism that kills millions and the ultimate weapon in which to do it. Underscoring all the battles during the War was whether humanity would survive the worst possible scenario . I believe the war turned out for the very best. I say that looking directly in the face of 65 million dead.
We survived because the one country that would be willing to give up using such a weapon for world domination was the one that won the race. As we look back 70 years to that generation that had no idea the future of humanity we have to thank our stars that the ultimate weapon was not used in an even more perverse fashion. We survived, barely.
-----------------------
Being a hypothetical question, the answer also will be hypothetical. Had the US not entered the war, the British would have thought long and hard before attempting another landing disaster like Dunkirk.
Because of this, much needed German forces could have been deployed to the eastern front to push back the soviets and capture the also much needed Oilfields to guarantee supply of fuel to the fighting machine. With the USSR having to deploy huge numbers of their armed forces to fight Japan, their position in the west would have been severely weakened, although they had massive reserves to start with.
In this scenario one could also assume the the US would not have supplied the USSR with war material and by doing so would have weakened the same in military terms. Because of the long logistics and supply route the Germans needed to ge their gear to the eastern front, I presume that at one stage they would have run out of sufficient supplies to conquer the entire USSR and would have had to negotiate a cease fire or some sort of peace with the Communist regime.
-----------------------
In Europe, Germany would still have lost. The Soviets would have beaten them but they would not have stopped with Eastern Europe. I expect that the entire mainland of Western Europe would have been “liberated” by the USSR and Great Britain would be the only hold out.
In the Pacific, Japan would be content to hold onto it’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere but would not have been able to add India to it’s holdings. India was never in real danger from the Japanese and would not have been subject to a greater threat without US involvement. China would have eventually fallen and the Chinese Communists would have never come to power. They avoided fighting the Japanese by staying out of the way. Without American assistance, the Republicans would have been destroyed and the areas occupied by the Chinese Communist Party would be next on the list.
The USSR and Japan would maintain an uneasy peace for about a decade while they both consolidate their holdings. Eventually, the Russo - Sino war would break out - probably to the detriment of the Japanese Empire. The technological advantages of USSR and Europe would be able to offset the numerical superiority of the GEAPS.
-----------------------
Nothing more than educated speculation but: Britain would not fall to fascism and would be the only large Western European country not to do so. Hitler would mount several invasion attempts but would fail, due to the strength of the British Navy and Air Force. He would eventually give up Britain would eventually lose its ambition to defeat the Nazis, considering themselves lucky just to have defended their homeland.
For decades, Europe would have been a juxtaposition between two major powers: Soviet power and Nazi power. Both sides would have frequent skirmishes over East European countries. There would be a constant worry about whether these skirmishes would boil over into a full scale war but it would never happen because neither side would dare start one.
Britain would not side with either power, considering them both to be as bad as each other. The situation would remain unresolved today. Neither the Soviets nor the Nazis would allow themselves to be weakened for the certain knowledge that they would be immediately overwhelmed by the other. The Soviet collapse would not have happened.
-----------------------
The USSR would have had a tougher time beating the Nazis, but it would have prevailed. The USSR also would have taken over Western Europe and maybe the U.K. The USSR would have had Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Eventually, the conquered populations would have staged uprisings and the spirit of rebellion would have spread to the original SSRs.
The main reason for the uprisings would have been the very slow pace of recovery from the war's devastation. With the USSR no longer facing a European enemy, Japan might have pulled out of territories near Russia's border with China, Mongolia, Korea, and Manchuria.
Japan probably would have become mired in decades-long war of attrition in southern China. Japan probably would have stayed out of the Philippines so as not to provoke the U.S., but it probably would have expanded its hegemony into Southeast Asia and Indonesia where there were oil reserves. It also may have influenced India to throw the Brits out, unless the USSR moved in first.
-----------------------
The war would have been longer, and bloodier. The allies would have lost more casualties, and been far worse supplied. Likely Hitler would have lost anyway, but it’s much harder to tell what would have happened in Asia. I hope Japan would have collapsed… but without the USA, that’s not guaranteed.
In the immediate post-war, Russia would either be so broken that the USSR would have collapsed or all of Europe would have become communist. Hard to say. Either way, there likely would have been a genocide of ethnic Germans. In our timeline they faced mass killings and ethnic cleansing in the immediate post-war period. In our timeline, it was the war colonists and the many also German enclaves that had existed for centuries in Eastern Europe, as well as much of East Prussia, that faced killings and ethnic cleansings. East Germany was ravaged, but not as badly.
In a timeline without the USA? Likely no major landing in Normandy, likely no western allies in Germany, and a far more broken allied force. And an angrier, poorer, worse-supplied Russia. They would likely have destroyed all of Germany, like a swarm of locusts. The land for desperately needed resources and industry, the people to revenge the atrocities committed on Russian soil.
-----------------------
Hitler would eventually have failed against the Russian army, but both sides would have paid a price too heavy in terms of manpower to keep on fighting. A fragile cease-fire would have been agreed on, which might or might not have been respected. Europe would have been shared between a German lebensraum, a new Italian empire, and an eastern part under Russian influence. Poland would have become a major point of dispute between Berlin and Moscow.
In Asia, Japan would have become a superpower, annexing Korea, possessing the majority of the current Chinese territory and a large chunk of the Pacific islands. The United States would have chosen economic and diplomatic isolation, unable to agree with the other powers in presence. This would have had major implications on its economy and growth, and it is not certain the country would become as powerful as it is nowadays.
In South America, various civil wars would have happened, with leaders trying to establish either a communist regime on the Russian model, or a fascist regime on the German/Italian one. The United Nations would never have been founded. The nuclear and space races, however, would have been frantic, with at least 4 superpowers competing.
-----------------------
I’m going to assume you mean the USA. If the USA stayed out of WW1 there would’ve been a chance that a peace deal would be signed between the Central and Allied Powers. Thus, No pissed off Germans because there isn’t a unfair treaty signed.
The monarchy would still be in power. No League of Nations as the fourteen points isn’t a thing. But…The second Sino-Japanese war would definitely happen. The USA might trade embargo Japan which might or might not lead to an invasion in South East Asia by the Japanese as the the resource rich regions in South East Asia can supply them for the war with China. Plus, the British and French would be extremely weak due to WWI.
The Great Depression will happen, the stock market crashing does not have anything to do with war. might’ve strayed far off from the subject so here’s my answer: Adolf Hitler and the Nazis would not be as popular like in our timeline. Germany or well, the German Empire would remain a thing for awhile longer. So, no Hitler! That’s great but Japan and China at war with each other might bring in the British, French and the USA. A war would definitely spring up during such tumultuous times.
-----------------------
Earlier - better for Allied war effort overall in that US mobilization of its industry starts sooner. Assuming Japan did not attack the US, and US simply declared war on Germany in 1939 or 1940, then US forces are available sooner and could participate in the defense of France and Britain.
Also, Hitler wouldn't attack Stalin unless France were defeated, but Stalin has many options and could decrease or turn off supplies to Germany, or invade Roumania while Hitler is distracted in France, or even join the Allies and invade Poland if it appears the German people are revolting against Hitler. Lastly, if France is not conquered, then Italy likely remains neutral and Japan likely doesn't invade French Indochina and trigger the US oil embargo. Lots of opportunities for the Allies with early US involvement.
Later - better overall for Axis war effort since no US forces are available to support Allied war effort until US joins the Allies. Although there is material support to Allied nations, it is very small since US war industry is not fully mobilized. This means that Japan has likely not invaded French Indochina and triggered the US oil embargo, but may have joined Germany in attacking Stalin, which can only be worse for the Soviets than in reality, and the chances of a Soviet defeat increase in such a scenario the longer the US stays neutral.
Regardless, eventually the US enters the war and will invent atomic weapons and use them, but there were only a few bombs at first, so it's hard to say if it will be enough to make Germany surrender, but might refocus Hitler’s efforts on getting his own weapons and the ICBMs to deliver them. Of course, all these events hinge on the actual cause and timing of a delayed US entry, so it might not get this bad if it still happens in 1942.
Not at all - it's curtains for the world and a totalitarian future awaits it. This might include the US becoming more totalitarian as propaganda from victorious Axis affects people’s sense of vulnerability and laws are enacted to tighten government control over daily life. As the Axis threat looms, the US military is likely mobilized and society begins to transform from an open, free commercial one to a militarized, secure one.
This means many restrictions placed on civil liberties. Obviously, this could backfire and cause demonstrations and outright revolts, but not likely since the alternative is to accept the Axis new world order. Eventually, the US government is either subverted to support this world order, or the US is invaded once the Axis gains solid footholds in the Americas. How long this new world order lasts, regardless of US joining it or not, is another question.
-----------------------
In Europe the Soviets probably would have won…. eventually. Definitely not as early as 1945 though. If the Nazis and the Soviets didn’t decide to make terms the Soviets would have likely beat the Nazis after many, many years of slogging out, eventually taking over all of Europe. As a result all of Europe would be as economically underdeveloped as the ex-communist bloc countries, or maybe this increased burden would have caused the USSR to collapse faster, hard to say. In Asia the Chinese and the Japanese likely would have reached some sort of peace, as there was no way the Japanese could have taken all of China and likewise there was no way the Chinese could kick the Japanese off the continent.
Once peace was reached the Nationalists and the Communists would have resumed their civil war. Imperial Japan, being as anti-communist as it was, likely would have intervened and gone to war with China again. This state of affairs would likely extend far into the foreseeable future. Since Britain would have assisted the Soviet Union in defeating the Nazis they would have a place at the victor’s table, but it would be limited due to not really occupying in territory in Europe, having mainly provided air support for the Soviets.
They would have lost their empire in Asia to the Japanese/Japanese support for independence movements. After the war the British would have to fight to hold on to their other colonies as well due to Soviet support of anti-colonial movements. The United States still would have pulled itself out of the Great Depression once FDR finally croaked and the US could return to sensible economic policies. Truman, being the anti-communist that he was, would have still opposed the Soviet Union, in addition to opposing Japan due to his liberalism. At this point whoever invents the atomic bomb first would take the initiative in breaking this complex gridlock.
-----------------------
It depends a lot on “not drawn into” as: The US sells anything and everything to the Allies and Neutrals with apparently cargo vessels unimpeded by the Axis or losses tolerated by the US when near England or Russia. Possible although the food and fuel for Britain and the manufactured goods as well for the Soviets certainly prolonged those wars.
The US only ships to neutral nations, no belligerents, which means Spain becomes even more of a conduit for the Axis supply chains to get their raw materials and fuels from the US while Japan is mostly frozen out but perhaps able to get it’s conquests of Dutch East Indies, French Indochina, and the Kra Peninsula North of Singapore into full production to make up the gaps. Much of the US Navy buildup like the new Essex aircraft carriers would get based along with more aircraft in the Philippines, Guam, and Hawaii.
The US sells to anyone with gold, hard currency, or valuable products/commodities it doesn’t produce by the 1940’s (rubber, bananas, wines, chromite, coconuts, pineapples, German mining equipment and pharmaceuticals, English chemicals, Chinese teas, etc.) so the US economy booms and a lot more manufacturing develops but not nearly to the extent of our timeline’s war production impacts (16,000+ factories involved, over 1,000 completely new factories built.)
The Axis benefits the most with American gasoline, tungsten, steel, and coal while England eats better and gets the fuels it needs while Japan progresses more in China with more metal and fuel intensive equipment like artillery and tanks. Shipping to everyone should make the US ships immune to the belligerents’ navies and air forces.
The war in western Europe likely is negotiated to end in 1942 with England remaining free, Sweden, Persia, Turkey, and Switzerland becoming Nazi allies with no other options, Spain formally becoming an Axis member, and the Suez Canal likely in German control along with all of North Africa and Syria/Iraq.
The Axis war with the Soviets, with much greater fuel supplies, American-made locomotives and railroad rolling stock, Brazilian tire rubber, American aluminum for aircraft, American wool and leather for uniforms, steel for tanks and artillery manages to take Moscow, Stalingrad, and Baku, resulting in an uneasy armstice in 1943 (although the Third Reich’s chaos and incompetences certainly could have thrown away the advantages of much greater supplies and a single battlefront war. )
The Japanese remain mired in China but with larger territory controlled and probably more of Siberia taken from the Soviets (keeping the Siberian Soviet troops there rather than being available to reinforce and save Moscow as in our timeline.) French Indochina, Singapore, the Dutch East Indies, Thailand, Taiwan, Korea, Manchuria, and Malaysia are fully integrated into the Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere for important ports, vast natural resources, manufacturing, trade, and vast populations to conscript additional infantry from for the endless war in China (perhaps a 20 year conflict.) Indochina and China aren’t able to sustain as much of a resistance without US or Soviet military aid so maybe that does end in the mid-1940’s.
China loses the threat of Mao Tse Tung’s forces without Soviet aid and gets informal or secret aid from the US organized by Henry Luce of TIME-Life media, FDR, and others.
The US is probably economically stronger at least than in 1939–41 with lots of manufacturing-based demand, FDR not running in 1940 and the New Deal fading away quickly, and huge debt load of the war with tax rates as high as 90% avoided. Without FDR demanding unconditional surrender, extending the war, and from a position as the major supplier to the Allies, negotiated peaces are managed so the death toll from the wars are much less while the captive populations in the surrendered countries and colonies suffer about the same as those that ended up under Soviet control and suffer much more than those who truly were freed in our timeline.
----------
Well, the soviets would have defeated Hitler all by themselves. There would be no Berlin wall. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that Germany would have been communist. Without a cold war, the soviets would probably leave Europe sooner and keep a few troops behind to secure the peace.
Europe would have been very similar to what it is now, a kind of socialist continent. Perhaps, Europe would be a bit more peaceful in areas like Ukraine and former Yugoslavia. The bigger difference, IMO, would have been in east Asia.
China would continue to be a weak nation intervened by Japan and other European countries for a few more decades. Perhaps even the Soviet Union would be owning a part of China. The entire Korea would probably be annexed to Japan. New Zealand and Australia would no longer be English speaking nations. In other words, Asia would be divided between Japan and Soviet Union in a more or less friendly agreement.
-------------
Then we need assume Pearl Harbor had never happened, and U.S. turned an deaf ear to British. Then, Germany could have occupied British. Germany would have occupied the whole Europe, and would have concentrated on Russia on the second wave of invasion.
Japan would send troops to attack Russia from north of China. It would have to fight Chinese Communist Party. The war between them would be a hard one. But since Japanese navy were strong, it could occupy all the harbors of both China and Russia and cut off any supports. By 1945, Russia and China would have been defeated. Now, Axis would focus its efforts on Canada and U.S…By 1950, There would be only Japan and Germany. A lot of races would disappear completely from Earth planet…
-----------------------
The US had in a sense entered war long before it entered explicitely, through landlease and through the supplies it sent to the UK. The war would have probably been longer and mire destructive, but the US took their time entering the war in Europe. Still, the northafrican campaign stayed mostly in the hands of the British and Free French troops and it could have likely ended later but still with an allied victory.
The Italian campaign would have probably ended differently, or maybe it would have not started at all, yet Mussolini had been reluctant to enter the war, and he may have just opted out when things turned sour for Hitler. What prevented him is the fact that after he was freed form the Gran Sasso imprisonment by Otto Skorzeny and reinstated as the dictator of the “Reppubblichina” he had become essentially a puppet of Hitler. By late 1943 the war was already turning. The Soviet Union had successfully stalled two invasion attempts and the nazis and their allied were goingto be evicted from Stalingrad. The USSR was on a roll industrially and Germany wasn't able to keep production of weapons up. Even the troops they were using weren't as good as the Soviets’.
Basically blitzkrieg had failed, Stalin was forcing on the Germans a war of attrition that he could hardly lose with his superior levels of production and reserves of men. When the French front was opened, in June 1944, the fate of Nazi Germany was already sealed. Sure, the face of Europe would have been much different, but let's face facts, Roosevelt made a smart move (from the US point of view) when he delayed the opening of the secon front so late: he reaped the maximum benefits from the European part of WWII with the minimum effort.
-----------------------
The biggest strategic mistake Hitler ever made was to declare war to US. It would have been almost impossible for FDR to change the opinion of the large majority of Americans in order to intervene in an unpopular war in Europe. Landing in Normandy, France would have never happen, therefore German army would not be forced to fight on two fronts. Germany would have definitively won the war.
Soviet Union would have been pushed East of the Urals mountains. Europe would have kept most of its borders, and would have been under the doctrine and political dominance of Germany. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Ukraine, Baltic countries would disappear and become part of Germany. US would have won the war in the Pacific. Japan would become democratic.
China would not become communist since Soviet Union would not have any influence in helping Mao in the civil war that ravaged the country. Korean war, Vietnam war, Cambodia atrocities would never happen since Soviet Union and Chine would not have any political, and military influence in the area. Both Germany and US would have acquired the nuclear bomb, and nobody would have used it, for the same principle of MAD, (Mutual Assured Destruction) that kept the world safe for over 42 years. It would have been a cold war, somewhat similar with that we had with Soviet Union.
-----------------------
The best counterfactual scenarios are the ones that flow from the change of a single key event, in a way that could have actually happened. In this case, the key event that could have changed everything would have been if Britain and Japan had renewed the Anglo-Japanese alliance. In his WWII memoirs, Churchill revealed that this was seriously considered by a desperate Britain in 1940, and talks were actually attempted with the Japanese.
The British could have actually made the Japanese an attractive offer, but only if it was painfully costly. I am thinking that the British would have had to offer the Japanese the British colonies in Borneo at a minimum, and maybe some Pacific islands as well. They would also have had to consent to Japanese occupation of French Indochina and maybe even of the Dutch East Indies, leaning on the governments in exile to cooperate.
They would probably have had to enter into extensive contracts with Japan to supply them with planes (imagine British Zeroes going against Messerschmitts!), ships, and other arms. They would probably have had to broker some sort of agreement with Japan and the US that would leave the Philippines secure but not a factor in the Western Pacific region. Finally, since the Soviet Union was still allied (loosely) with Germany at that time, Britain would have had to consent to give Japan a free hand to move against E. Siberia (which would have become the target of choice for Japan with their southern supply lines secured).
With an Anglo-Japanese alliance in place, there would have been no Pearl Harbor, and the US could have been left alone and happily neutral. The Japanese might not have been able to quite match what the US was able to supply Britain, but it might nevertheless have been enough to enable Britain to hang on. If Japan did attack Eastern Siberia, though, then what would have happened when Hitler inevitably attacked from the West? Things would have gotten quite complicated for Britain.
I doubt, though, that Churchill would have ditched Japan for Russia. More likely, he would have seen it as being extremely important that the Japanese make it all the way to the Urals as soon as possible, both in order to stop the Germans and to get into position to enter the fray against Germany from the East. At the same time, Churchill might have had to come around to recognizing that the only achievable war aim was to secure the independence of France and the low countries from German occupation, and this might need to be negotiated.
----------
The United States moved, briefly, into a command economy. This enabled full mobilization and also had the effect of bringing the Depression era to a full stop.
The United States was one of a small handful of belligerent nations that did not see combat on its own soil. We had an advantage of actually growing our industrial capacity. We achieved a level of employment that was as close to universal as it has ever been. For a period of about 3 years, we functioned as a national-security state with a socio-economic model that was damned near close to Socialism.
When we came out of the war, we were strong enough to rebuild the economies of Europe and Japan. But we also expanded the national-security state apparatus at the same time. The CIA is a product of WWII. So is the policy of covert operations to remake the world in a particular image. It starts with Truman.
The Cold War, to a great extent, allowed this state of affairs to continue for about 35 years: huge expenditures in defense, accompanied by prioritization of science and technology, and by extension, education. The great anti-poverty programs and civil rights gained traction as much as a response to Soviet propaganda as to any domestic agenda.
If you look at the Cold War era, without considering ethics, body counts, dirty wars in 3rd World countries, anti-communist hysteria, it was actually very good for the average American. Huge expenditures in social support, education, tools such as the GI Bill, gave the average person access to unprecedented affluence. This is the period that everyone supposes was “Great”.
If we had not entered WWII, Europe would still be a wreck. The Soviet Union would have probably inserted itself into a few revolutions: Greece, maybe Italy. It would be the overarching power throughout Eurasia. OTOH there would be a lot more people alive today in Vietnam, Indonesia, Central America, Chile, etc.
We’d be where we are now, with the country’s resources and wealth pooling at the top, and the vast majority struggling from paycheck to paycheck. Only we would have been there about 2 generations earlier.
-------------
A number of different scenario's would of taken place if the US had of stayed out of the war if it stayed completely out including not selling hardware and equipment to Great Britain there’s no doubt in my mind that England was done for there is no way Britain could sustain itself without any outside help the same was the case with Japan being an island nation it was totally dependent on sourcing outside materials from other countries and the primary reason it was in an expansion mode as all the surrounding countries had all the resources it so desperately needed.
If the USA had supplied Britain as it did but still not actually gotten involved in the war itself this would have prolonged the war, Russia on the other had was totally self sufficient even though the other allies sent materials to Russia this was more about helping build up their Armour before they could actually get their factories up and running again once they did Russia could easily build tanks and other aircraft for warfare in its own factories. The Russian army was a much larger force then that of Germany’s, the only thing the Russians really lacked was a powerful Air force and Navy.
So in the end because Germany could not secure the oil fields in the Caucuses or the middle east this would of still led to its eventual down fall, it just would of taken a lot longer to achieve by the allies. Now if Russia and Germany had of settled on peace terms this would of really thrown a spanner in the works as now Germany was holding and occupying vast parts of Europe it would of been invincible .
-----------------------
Had the United States stayed out of World War II the Axis Powers would have won. For example without American aid Britain could hardly have sent many ships to the Soviet Union (many allied sailors died on those Arctic Convoys) to send vital supplies to the Red Army (especially as those supplies were mostly American anyway). The Soviet Union would have been crushed by the German National Socialists (Nazis).
And what of Britain in 1940? Without American aid Britain would have had to “make peace” - i.e. give in to the German National Socialists. Much of the world would have fallen to the tyranny of the Axis Powers (mainly National Socialist Germany and Imperial Japan) - and sooner or later the Axis Powers would have turned their attention to the United States, with the vast resources of the world to back Axis aggression against the United States.
-----------------------
Probably Nazi domination of western Europe and Russia. BUT, it depends of what you mean by intervening. Lean/Lease had started long before Pearl Harbor. If Hitler had an ounce of sense and NOT declared war on the USA he might have dominated Europe and western Russia. But always remember the Nazi regime was always a very ramshackle affair.
Without the Allies he might have taken over much of Russia but I doubt that he could have kept it down with out a lot of military expenditure. Unless Hitler died (very likely, he was a sick man by 1944) and the Reich was taken over by someone competent (NOT Der Dicke (Goering)), but someone like Albert Speer for example. Then National Socialism would have been greatly redirected and may have had a chance at long term survivability.
-----------------------
Without American aid, predominantly food, industrial goods, and vehicles like trains and trucks, the Soviets may have lost more ground. Seeing a Soviet collapse, Japan might just declare war and help mop up the Soviets instead of attacking American possessions. With all of Europe and much of Asia under fascist control, Britain may be brought to the table as it loses more ground to Japanese expansion in the South Pacific and Bengal and German forces redirected to cutting off the Suez and North Africa. With any luck, Franco may decide to hop on and cut Gibraltar. Paired with Vichy controlled Morocco and pressure on Suez, a peace deal may come about.
--------
Most likely Japan would have continued seizing the Pacific region and South East Asian territories. It would seem increasingly unlikely for German domination of Europe to be challenged. Soviet Union may survive but may have to fight for a stalemate. U.K situation would be more critical in comparison to our own timeline. Especially if Germans went into total manufacturing war industry. Luckily for the world the Americans did get dragged in.
---------------
Assuming you mean that the US didn’t fight Japan as well? I believe the Axis would have won. Without the US taking on Japan, Stalin would have not been able to move his Far East divisions to european Russia to augment the decimated Soviet divisions already fighting there. In all probability, Japan would have attacked the Soviet Far East and Stalin would fighting two major powers at the same time.
The daily thousand plane bombing runs from the Allies wouldn’t have occurred and German infrastructure and industry would have been untouched. The Soviets were not a mechanized army by American standards until the US supplied thousands of trucks, jeeps, half tracks, etc. The Soviet people would have starved and the Axis would be the victors.
-----------------------
It would have taken Russia an extra year to defeat Germany. Most of the German people are city folk and not country folk living in cold weather. They live in comfortable warm houses. The Russians have been more conditioned for winter weather…they are the true Vikings for sure! I wish the Republicans like John McCain would stop trying to call everyone who Talks to RT as s spy doing Putin’s bidding then we could start having better relations…
I warn you American soldiers, the Russians have far more commitment in defending their land then you could ever be trained for and I am going to hate you for trying to start crap with the Russians just to keep your jobs. Your not patriots defending our country you are mercenaries trying to do the bidding of the spoiled rich kids. The Russians will destroy you. I know am researching how long I will not be able to see the beautiful things the Rus built because of the Hitler(John McCain) of the United States!!!
-----------------------
Had America opted out of declaring war, in spite of Japan`s attack on Hawaii, and if Germany had been very, very careful about not provoking us, I honestly believe that Germany & Japan (along with their far lesser allies) would absolutely have won WWII. Without America`s support in weapons, supplies, lend lease, etc., Great Britain would not have been able to afford fighting wars in both Europe, and Asia, and would have had to make the best deal they could with Japan.
It`s quite possible that an “on their own” Great Britain would have had try to make peace with Germany too, assuming that Germany wasn`t able to quickly conquer them first. Russia ultimately would have run out of everything! Without America & Great Britain, Japan soon would have been at, and past Russia`s Eastern border. I see no way that any other outcome would been possible. None of this minimizes Russia`s heroic defense, but the bravery of their troop, and civilians could only go so far.
---------------
They could manage not to lose. Japan could win the oil riches of Dutch East indies but would be bled dry in China before it could subdue the whole country. A sort of peace would follow, which China remaining a dangerous rival to the Japanese maritime empire.
In Europe Germany could functionally defeat the USSR, rendering them incapable of undertaking offensive actions due to depletion of manpower and overall exhaustion of the state but would be unable to hold and profit such vast lands after losing millions of people in the war against the Soviets.
If they dealt with rebels by exterminating the local populace (as was planned) they would quickly find rich soil and resources in the ground are worthless without people to farm and mine them. A sort of peace might follow with Germany holding lots of empty lands for future colonization.
Britain, unable to prosecute an offensive war herself, would accept a return to status quo eventually. Germany wouldn’t be able to produce enough children to properly benefit from the new lands in fifty years, no matter how hard they tried. It turns out it’s easier to kill people than to produce them, imagine that.
Neither Japanese nor German empires would last longer than a generation or so, both would collapse under the weight of the lands they now had to garrison and a horde of revanchist enemies they had created but failed to destroy during their time of strength. Is that a victory? One could argue either.
--------
I assume by “we” you mean the United States? If that is the case, then absolutely we still would have had WWII. Direct US involvement in WWI was mostly a shot in the arm and mopping up for the Allies - the Central Powers had really already lost by 1918 when US troops finally showed up in significant numbers. So, with the Allies winning, we still get Versailles. Which means we still get a lot of the seeds for WWII - disarmament and reparations, in particular. That means we probably still get a severe economic depression in Germany, leading to a rise in radical politics as desperate people turn to radical solutions to problems their current system seems unable to fix. Which means demagogues like Hitler and the NSDAP get elected, which leads to a war.
------------
North and South America would have remained un touched and the US would have prospered enormously by selling arms to both sides. The big question is how long could the UK have held out for with no American help ? If the UK can make a real fight of it then Europe would look very different today. The USSR would have walked through the whole of Western Europe unopposed. They may even have been welcomed by some of the local population. Post war, the whole of Europe and Russia would have been the USSR. As for the Far East, assuming Pearl Harbor never happened Japan would probably still be Japan and not under the USSR.
-----------------------
It depends on where. If the USA had not been in world war 2, there would not have been much of a war in Japan. This would mean that the Japanese would fight with Russia and Stalin would not have his second front which was led by the USA at Normandy. There would not have been much bombing of Germany since the American eight Airforce would not have been involved. In addition, the USA sent 8 million soldiers over all to Europe. It is likely that England could not have been able to hold on by itself. So, Hitler would have won…. clearly…
-----------------------
Then Japan would never have attacked it and entered WWII. Which means the thing would have remained British Empire+USSR vs Germany+Italy+Satellites. With the Americans continuing to profiteer by the economic straits of Britain to bolster their own coffers and territorial ambitions with further concessions. As such, the British Empire+the USSR would eventually win, and the USA would profit greatly by the exhaustion of both those victorious powers, almost as greatly as it did do by entering the war.
-----------------------
The same way we had a WWII because of unfinished business and issues on WWI, if the USA does not took part on WWII it would lead to a third world war by the 6o’s or 70’s. Yes, probably Japan would be greater, but still would had several problems as an industrial nation at that point to provide the required arms and supplies for their army as well to keep the supply chain intact with distant needs as many predict (India).
I just don’t think they could run a war in India and another one in China. They would probably focus on China as the reason for their attack to the Southeast Asia was the lack of supplies.
In Europe i just can’t see Germany and the Soviet Union not engaging in a conflict. Hitler does not trust Stalin and would attack them in 1941 with or without the United States. It would be a longer conflict, and both sides would be directing resources for a good period of time, without a final winner after Germany sign the peace with the UK
By 1948 the conflict would be ended and the US could not be the main force but would take full advantage of being a provider for many nations of supplies and why not, arms, despite protests from the top 4 current military forces: Germany, Soviet Union, Japan and UK. By 1949, Hitler would begin to take advantage of the superior technology (jets, missiles) and enter again into a spread of requests looking to secure their power projection.
During the 1950’s, the world experience a lot of development, trade grows and countries such as USA begin to become more of an economic leader, specially as millions of qualified immigrants run away from places such as France, Netherlands, UK and others. This move starts to draw Hitler’s attention as other nations such as Spain, begin to slowly move towards UK. Concerning over the real focus of the USA & UK, Hitler decides to annex Spain in s move objected by the USA and UK.
It could be Spain or any other Nation but the fact is Hitler is a territorial dictator with aspirations to build a greater German Empire. If it does not reach that during WW2, he would provoke a new one sooner than later, and a third one would lead to a confrontation with the United States. And Germany would lose that even with new technologies.
--------------------
Churchill has Stated that Britain would not be able to finance the war (pay for American War Materials) after the Spring of 1941. This is why Lend Lease was Started, but America Stayed out of the war so there was no Lend Lease in this Scenario. Quote: “ Money is the Sinews of War” Marcus Tullius Cicero …No money no war. Britain would not be able to Prosecute the war in an Offensive Manor anywhere near the Level they did without U.S. Aid.
The Soviets have long insisted that Lend-Lease aid made little difference. Newly discovered files tell another story Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans. In the above Article, it States how Critical British Aid was to the Soviets in Late 1941 and 1942. Do you really think the British would have sent this Aid if they were not Receiving any Help from the U.S.? Also, Read Nikita Khrushchev's Memoirs. In it, he states of the Several Conversations he had with Stalin on American Aid during the War and how Stalin Repeatedly Told him that The Soviet Union Could not have Defeated the Germans without it.
Statistics: Half of the world's total war production came from America. Military production during World War II - Wikipedia. Without America in the War, Germany would have Defeated the Russians If not in 1941 then by 42 and Probably would have made Peace with the British.
--------------------
Short answer, (since there are veritable treatises here…) Britain would have been slowly choked to submission. The U-boat siege and the lack of materials and millions of tons of provisions from the USA would have finished the British. The Soviet Union, without the gigantic contribution from the USA in trucks, planes, tanks, steel, food, ammo, etc. etc. would have probably lost the war as well. especially considering that Germany wouldn’t have had to worry about a huge contingent of reserves in the west. Of course, the US couldn’t have stayed out of the Pacific war, where they were attacked. but in Europe, That is what I’m fairly certain would have happened.
-------------------
Hard to know for sure, but I think that the Soviets would have won the whole thing anyways. As it was, 80% of the European fighting was between the Soviets and the Germans. Not having to worry about a Second Front in France would have allowed the Germans to position maybe 10% more forces in the East, but not all of them. Many hundreds of thousands of troops were required just to maintain the occupation of Western Europe and the Nordic countries. So, on balance, I think that the Soviets win, but not as quickly and with a higher butcher’s bill. One thing for sure, they would have occupied all of Western Europe in the process and they would not have left.
--------------------
I suspect the Soviet Union would have, for a time at least, occupied all of Europe. It would have been interesting to see how the Soviet Union would have ruled Europe without hostile NATO along the borders. I'm assuming the American/British strategic bombing was as ineffectual as most studies show and the UK leadership hated Hitler more than they feared Soviet Communism. If America didn't join the war and the Soviet Union threatened to take over Europe and Hitler had been a typical European adversary the British might have joined Germany to maintain the balance of power. Though, if the USSR was on the verge of taking over Europe the U.S. Would have joined the war to make sure that didn't happen.
-----------
That would mean the USA would not have retaliated for Pearl Harbor. Don’t see that as a possibility. Now, you could ask what would have happened if Hitler had not declared war on the USA in 1941 (in his failed attempt to have the Japanese open up a second front in Eastern Russia)? The answer to that is the Nazis still would have lost
.--------
It is an unlikely scenario since the Japanese did attack us first. However, if you are speaking of the European theater, then, it’s hard to say. It basically would have been the Nazi’s V. Russia and although Germany was very pressed for fuel at the time, opening up Southern Europe and North Africa would have provided them with what they needed. Germany also had the scientists and Rommel. Gotta go with Germany.
--------------------
If the United States hadn't joined us in the war against nazi germany then the world war 2 would have taken a different course . As long as the way the war went after the Battle of Britain in keeping the german invasion from happening - and the Russians still took the same path that they did then war in Europe would have continued - either the red army would have cleared their way through Europe or stopped after defeating Germany. BUT AND THIS IS A HUGE BUT - germany were on the brink of introducing jet fighter planes and new long range rockets - if the allies had not invaded when we did the the war would have taken a totally different range of events . …. who can ever say what that end would have taken .
-------------
If the U.S did not enter the war at Europe then:
-the Afrika Corps still do not takes north africa and the Suez Canal, not hurting the supplies lines of the U.K. (remember the second battle of Alamein, U.S provided only air support)
-U.K struggles more on the Atlantic. Soviets equal on their defense.
-the European Axis still struggle with resources. oil from Rumania, Hungary and what Spain can get is simply not enough.
-perhaps with support from the armies stationed at France (left there for prevent an invasion, an unlikely one now) the Germans reach the Caucasus but do not secure the oil fields, or at least do no take them still in use.
-German war machine is already starving.
-Soviets pull the Siberian reserves and the resources from their factories at the Ural mountains… along with the lend lease of the allies (that only at 1943 was significative) and attack at all the front.
-we see the same dinamic at these point i think
the Soviet Union would have advance until the river Rhine, leaving the Allies with meagre bargaining chips at the repartition of the spoils, that if U.K decides to invade France. we would not had seen a splited Germany but a complete communist Germany. from that position they could have gained influence in France, Norway, Denmark and the low countries.
*ironacly Italy might have managed to defense itself. the Alpes are not the best place to attack even with superior numbers. altought still surrenders because of British naval blocade.
It goes without saying that the Soviet Union would have gained much more credibility and support internationaly, painting the cold war very differently.
Italy just like Spain would have been allies againts communism.
-------------------
"we" the USA? yes. while every help is always welcome, the participation of the USA was relatively late and definitely not a game changer… at best, the end of the WWI was somewhat accelerated , but the issue was inevitable and the sanctions over Germany that led to WWII were decided and applied without the USA playing any major role.
--------------------
It depends on what you mean by “stay out”. If you mean they never sent troops to Europe (we would of course send our army to the pacific) then the world would be quite a bit more communist. The British wouldn’t have been able to do d-day on their own, although they might’ve been able to take back North Africa and mayyyybe Sicily. The soviets would have installed communist puppet governments from Poland to France and basically ruled the world. If we never did lend lease then the soviets have a pretty good chance of falling and operation sea lion would have happened eventually.
-------------------
America wouldn’t be as big of a super power as it is today. The war was what brought the US out of the Great Depression, so the economy would’ve taken longer to recover without the war. Germany would’ve have control over a lot of Europe. Great Britain most likely would’ve been invaded. Japan would have control over Manchuria and several islands in the pacific and would have expanded their conquests across Asia and create an imperialistic empire.
--------------------
The Japanese Empire would now extend to the borders of the Middle East, where it would meet the German Empire. South America would have a more fascist leaning than it has even now. The US and Canada would be effectively dependent on both totalitarian countries for the trade, or be totally isolated from the rest of the world even more than we wanted to be between the wars. If the US and Canada did not cooperate into becoming a military fortress, the Germans would have found a way to mount an invasion. With the world under their bootstep time was on their side
--------------------
Also, Hitler declared war on the US a day or two after Pearl Harbor, but by then Americans already gave full support to FDR’s intention to assist Great Britain and the USSR. Considering that the US supplied both those nations with much-needed war-making materials, that both nations were on the brink of economic collapse, that Germany was getting petrol from Romania, and that the invasion of GB would have locked the Eurasian continent up, the US would probably have had to reach an accommodation with Hitler; or make a lot more A-bombs.
-------------------
The USA had no choice. It was attacked. Not attacking. When the Japanese fleet attacked USN base at Pearl Harbor, the USA was at war. Since the Japanese already had declared itself an ally of Germany. It meant that Germany was part of the war enemy’s list.
--------------------
The Allies would have still won and Germany would have been defeated, it would have just taken longer for that to happen. Once the Soviets turned around the German-Soviet war at Stalingrad, it was just a matter of time. Germany had no hope of winning when it attacked the USSR.
-------------
Then the axis power will obviously take over Europe and other Countries. The USA was the reason the Allies won, USA saved Europe, Africa and Asia from The axis power. Without USA stopping Japan, Japan will probably take over the whole Asia and Oceania.
It’s hard to say. USA not entering the war means that Japan wouldn’t have attacked USA. Instead they would focus on stabilizing the territories they annexed in Asia, and possibly attack USSR. In this case, a large number of Soviet troops that arrived to Stalingrad and decided the outcome of the battle, would have stayed in the other side of USSR, fighting the Japanese. So my guess is that the Nazis would have got the much desired oil fields of Caucasus.
--------------------
I think it would have been almost impossible to have not gone to war with Japan, but if Germany and Italy had not declared war on the U.S., and the U.S. had not taken part in the European Theatre, I expect that Great Britain would never had been able to muster the forces needed to invade Nazi-occupied France and the Soviet Forces would have eventually taken control of the entire European mainland.
--------------------
I don’t want to go into detail but a simple reason. During the Bliz which was the bombing of UK,America had a deal in which they supplied UK with food, ammo and weapons. Without those supplies UK would have surrendered leaving all of the German air force being transferred to the fight with Russia and the few Panzer divisions which would also make Soviets surrender and a German victory ( barley tho) then would win Africa companion since no USA or British troops and easily take over Asia with the help of Japan and North and South America !
https://www.quora.com/What-wouldve-happened-had-America-stayed-out-of-WWII
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.