Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

  1. #1
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina



    ContentsThe Battle of Stalingrad by Limskj.
    France on strike by Jom.
    British Humour by rez.
    Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part I by Lord Rahl.
    The Most important feature of Britain’s constitution is Parliamentary Sovereignty by Major Darling.
    Naxalite-Maoist Insurgents by Copperknickers II.
    The marvelous world of Itatiaia by Mr MM.
    Forgotten Battles of World War 2: Operation Husky by Lysimachus.






    From the Editor:

    Greetings all,

    Doesn't time fly? It seems like only last week when I was last writing to you, lamenting about Edinburgh being at a fever pitch due to a certain pontiff's visit and Virgin Media's incompetence at giving me internet. Well, 3 weeks later and the Pope has gone and I actually have the glorious technology which is wireless internet beaming megabits of information to me wherever I happen to be in my flat. Isn't that all marvellous?

    Well... no actually. I'm not sure if I'm the only person to be thinking this but my generation seems to be the one that's really getting shafted. As I discuss in my article below, my generation is the one that will have to bear the brunt of the baby boomers reaching their retirement age and I foresee myself hunched over a desk at 80 working away whilst myriad pieces of my body fall off and collect in a little heap next to my chair until I finally breathe my last and slump forwards, dead as the proverbial flightless creature endemic to Mauritius. With the onset of winter, the relentless march of the financial crisis, and an increasingly heavy workload, I'm afraid I have little to be cheerful about, except for one ray of sunshine which my closer friends will know about. However, even once I've surmounted the avalanche of essays and obtained my degree, there'll be no job to go to; they'll all be occupied by those selfish bastards who keep working and refuse to die, while I'm slowly dying of malnutrition myself as I shovel another can of cold baked beans into my mouth. Then when I do get a job, I'll be lucky to find a place to live as, surprise surprise, the previous generation snapped them all up and now property prices are through the roof. Never mind the young not knowing they're born; it's the old ones who got it all: a proper pension, property, free university. All that remains to be said is: children of tomorrow, good bloody luck!

    Jom




    Limskj
    Limskj is continuing his run of articles about the Eastern Front in World War II with an article about the Battle of Stalingrad, which is amongst one of the bloodiest campaigns in the history of warfare, with casualties approaching the 2 million mark. Stalingrad saw the bitterest fighting of the Second World War with vicious hand-to-hand fighting as the Germans and Russians fought from each other from house to house for control of the city. Hitler had decreed that Stalingrad must fall, and Stalin had decreed that it must not. Thus began a titanic struggle to claim the city.

    The Battle of Stalingrad

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I have, unknowingly started a series on battles on the Russian Front. Over the next few issues, I will talk about some of the big and key battles on the Russian front. Examples include The Stalingrad Airlift (last issue), Kursk, The Siege of Leningrad, Sevastopol (some of the largest German artillery guns were used here) and the air battles over Russia (during the early and late stages of the war). This time, we back-track a little from the Stalingrad airlift to the battle of Stalingrad.

    Stalingrad was a key city on the river Volga. German occupation of this city would have denied the Russians supply of oil from the oilfields. The armies of Hoth and Paulus were assigned to take control of Stalingrad and the oilfields. Paulus was ordered to take the city of Stalingrad. Prior to assault, Stalingrad was subjected to an air raid worse than that of which was given to London just 2 years earlier.

    By this time, the Russians in the city had received a change of command. Marshal Timoshenko along with artillery specialist Voronov, Novikov of the red Air Force and General Zhukov have set up their Headquarters on the east bank of the Volga. Defence of Stalingrad fell on the troops of the Russian 62nd Army commanded by General Chuikov. These men were reinforced by the civilian population of the city. Denied permission to leave by Stalin, they too, prepared for battle. Women and children helped soldiers dig anti-tank trenches and bomb shelters. Anti-German propaganda messages filled the air and further fuelled the soldiers’ will to fight. Stalin’s order that any soldier who stepped back would be shot only fanned the flames of battle.

    Meanwhile, German armour pressed forward down the bridge at Rynok and entered the mining suburb of Yelshanka. The German soldiers, flushed with success, had expected another easy fight. They were in for a rude shock.

    As they advanced into the city, it became rapidly clear that the Russians knew every inch of the city and could set ambush after ambush. The panzers, key to German success in the Russian campaign so far, became a liability in the city streets. All they could do was push forward into range of a target until blasted by liquid fire or have their tracks blown by grenades. The crews who bailed out were shot. Those who remained in the tanks were burned alive. Advance slowed to a crawl. In desperate bid to break the stalemate, German soldiers tried to enter the city via the sewers underneath the city streets. They found out that the Russians had the same idea and fierce fighting broke out in the sewers.

    Fierce battles also raged over the control of Mamayev Kurgan, the highest point in Stalingrad. German control of this hill would have given them a vantage point from which to fire artillery into the landing zones on the western bank of the river Volga. This would block reinforcements and supplies from entering the city. For the Russians, that was unacceptable and they fought tooth and nail to prevent the Germans from controlling the hill.

    Despite this, the German advance gathered pace. By the end of the first day, the Germans had entered the southern part of the city, controlled the main railway station and had the main landing zones on the Volga surrounded and under heavy artillery fire. On 26 September, the Germans declared that they controlled the central and southern parts of the city.

    The Russians however, refused to give up. Russian snipers established themselves in the rubble of the city. Completely undetected, they held up entire units of Germans advancing into the city. After 6 weeks, the Germans still have not gained complete victory. Hitler demanded a decisive, knock-out blow. To deliver this blow, the Germans turned to the industrial heart of Stalingrad, in the northern part of the city. Here, some factories continued to operate. Initially building new tanks, then repairing tanks instead due to the lack of raw materials. Factory workers would drive the tanks out of the factory, straight into the battle outside. But that soon changed when 200 German tanks along with thousands of infantry stormed the factory district. The 5000 Russian commandos who tried to defend the factory district was forced to withdraw after suffering more than 50% casualties.

    Defeat seemed inevitable for the Russians. That is, until 18 November. On that day, Marshal Zhukov unleashed his secret plan. The Russian 1st Guards, 5th Tank and 21st Armies crashed into the German’s northern flank while the Russian 51st, 57th and 64th Armies charged the German southern flank, both forced meeting at the bridge at Kalach. Thus began the Stalingrad Airlift.


    Jom
    I've written a current affairs piece this week on an issue which will affect the current generation, my parent's generation, and indeed the generations that come after me. The issue is that of pension reform and it's having a profound effect on France in particular.

    France on Strike
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    As of this moment, France is paralysed by a massive wave of strikes, with numbers of those who are striking in the millions, with at least 1.2m being the conservative estimate and numbers as high as 2m achieved over the course of the past few weeks. As of Tuesday 12th October, the confederation of French labour unions which are spearheading the protests announced "unlimited" strike action, meaning that a strike could take place at any time and for any duration.

    The problem is one which will affect every Western European country at some point, and that is pension reform. Why do pensions need reforming? After the Second World War, countries involved in the conflict experienced the phenomenon of the "baby boom", as returning soldiers were demobilised and began settling down and starting families. Essentially, anyone who was born after the war during the second half the 40s or the early 50s is part of the baby boom, and these individuals are reaching, or will reach very shortly, their retirement age. In the UK, retirement (i.e. when one can receive a full state pension) is currently set at 60 for women and 65 for men, although the age for women is slowly rising by a few months every so often in order to reach parity with men, and there is a view to raise both ages to 68 by around 2018. In Germany and Denmark one can find similar retirement ages, 67 in fact. France, however, is in a very different situation. In France, the age at which you can draw your full pension is only 65, with a legal retirement age of just 60 for both sexes. This, coupled with the current economic climate, is putting an enormous strain on France's pension system, leading to a deficit of 32€ bn for this year alone. The problem is that there are too many retired people and not enough of working age to continue paying taxes and filling the pension funds, hence the raising of the retirement age.

    As you may or may not know, more or less every time that the French government tries to change something linked to work or pensions, such as the proposed changes to the 35 hour working week a few years ago, the French go on strike. A lot of them. In 1995 the country was paralysed for 3 whole weeks due to almost every worker in the public sector - French public transport is nationalised - going on strike. Already there are fears of a petrol shortage as refinery workers joined the picket lines today. The President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to raise the legal retirement age to 62 and the age at which one can draw upon their full pension from 65 to 67. As you can imagine, this proposal is not at all popular and during the month of September, France witnessed enormous protests against the President's plans. The strikes were throughout France in Le Mans, Marseille, Paris, Lyon, and Nice; only half of Paris' metro was working and the majority of medium- and long-haul train journeys were simply cancelled.

    For France, it really is crunch time. As the law has already passed through the lower house - l'Assemblée Nationale - all that now remains is the vote in the Senate, which is due to take place between the 15th and the 19th of October. The Prime Minister of France, François Fillon, has already declared that there would be no compromise on this pension reform following two slight amendments in favour of those who stopped work to care for their children or needy relatives, and Sarkozy is similarly determined to stand firm. However, this would appear to imply that France has reached an impasse. With the government refusing to budge and the huge confederation of unions - essentially every union in France - refusing to stand down, the only thing that we can do is wait and see who blinks first. It will be a tough wait for the government, though, as more and more protesters take to the streets. This week saw those attending France's lycées (secondary schools for 14-18 year olds) taking to the streets to protest what they saw as the destruction of their own retirement and also something which would aggravate the lack of jobs for first-time employees, as more and more people are compelled to stay in their jobs for later in their life. With more protesters also comes more risk of violence; already the use of flash-balls has been outlawed for use against civilians after a young man suffered a broken cheekbone and a detached retina thanks to one.

    From a British point of view, I cannot really fathom why the French are protesting in such a vehement manner. This problem has been building year upon year and the time to be pragmatic about things is well and truly upon us. There are two ways to deal with the deficit: a higher retirement age or higher taxes, neither of which are likely to enchant the French, or indeed any, populace. I fear for my own future, too; I really do not want to work until I drop.


    rez
    Rez's article this edition is on a subject which is very close to my heart: British humour. I may come across as being slightly biased if I insist that British humour is the finest in the world but I don't care; as far I am concerned, it is. I've even managed to convince many a sceptical French friend of mine of the merits of the Anglo-Saxon way of doing things when it comes to laughter and comedy.

    British Humour
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    'British Humour' is a phrase that gets a great deal of use in a discussion of English Comedy. But what is it? 90% of the time the first and only example that comes to mind is 'Monty Python'. This knee jerk reaction to the mention of British humour often gives rise to the idea that silliness or, to put it more eloquently, surrealism is the defining characterisitic of our comedy. When looking at sketch shows it is all too easy to see the surrealist sketches in 'Monty Python's Flying Circus' as the allfather to past and present English shows using the same principle.

    The principle of which I speak actually a very simple and standard template of having at least one character with an out of the ordinary perspective on something but who is also oblivious to their position as the oddball. This character is then matched up against one or more 'straight men' whose job it is to comment on and react to the surreal perspective of the oddball. We can see this featured prominently throughout not only the 'Flying Circus' but also the Monty Python films. Further still we see this repeatedly in modern British sketch shows like 'That Mitchell and Webb Look' and a little further back in time with 'Goodness Gracious Me'. But this template, whilst brilliantly prominent throughout English comedy, is not restricted to the U.K. This same template is used over and over again in American shows like 'South Park,' 'Family Guy' and the delightful 'Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia'. What does this mean? Does this indicate that American comedy contains elements of British humour? Or does it mean that surrealism was never confined to British humour and that it is a universal comedy principle. One could make a case either way on this question but personally I fall in the second category as I hope to explain that British humour is humour founded on universal principles that happen to highlight certain apsects more than others.

    If surrealism, whilst prevalent in British humour, is not the unique characteristic of the comedy then what is? A strong contender for the post is the idea of relentless and unresolved humiliation or failure. A golden oldy in this regard is of course 'Fawlty Towers'. The show didn't exactly pioneer the principle but some would say it crystallised the notion. Now humilation and defeat are common comedic features all over the world. The very catchphrase for this style, 'schaudenfraude', is German. I can't speak with much authority on European comedy and for that I apologise, but the defining difference between U.S. and U.K. schaudenfraude is the resolution of the humiliation. In U.S. comedy the majority of instances will see either a happy resolution to the prior embarassment or the character(s) will be oblivious to the disastrous outcome. The instances where this doesn't occur usually involve minor characters or minor elements of the plot wheras in the U.K. the driving element of the plot will often be based around a series of escalating disasters that culminate in a particularly embarassing event at the end that goes unresolved. In fact the lack of resolution as we view the disappointment or humiliation on the protagonist's face before the credits roll is often a punchline in itself. From 'Fawlty Towers' to 'The Inbetweeners' and 'Peep Show' this has long been a prominent feature of British humour. A particularly good example of this difference can be found in the endings of 'Its Always Sunny In Philadelphia' where more often than not the cast has done something terrible to someone or had some evil visited upon themselves but they merrily ignore or disregard the consequences of their actions.

    Another emblematic element of British humour is the common extension of the surrealist principle into the real world. Americans will already be familiar with 'Borat' and 'Bruno' and in some cuts 'Jackass' follows the same idea. But Britain has a long history with this type of humour coming from shows such as 'Trigger Happy TV', 'Fonejacker', 'Ali G In Da House' and 'Brass Eye' to name a few. All of which were almost entirely founded on the principle of surrealism extended into the real world by having the unsuspecting public play the role of the straight guy. Now this like the other principles I have highlighted are by no means exclusive to British humour but what makes English comedies distinctively British is the prominence of these principles. Now it is also paramount to state that there are many comedies made in England which do not conform to the ideals of the usual British humour. 'Spaced' isn't exactly referenced based in the way that 'Family Guy' is but its humour often derives from cult and pop culture themes the audience is expected to have known about before hand. Its important to remember shows like this because when someone says they don't like British humour they are often unwittingly lumping in comedies from England that do not follow the traditional templates.

    As always there is more to be said on the topic and the genre has many more nuances to find but I hope you enjoyed my overview and opinion on the humour we call British.


    Lord Rahl
    As many of you will know, Lord Rahl is quite the fan of Star Trek. One need only cast an eye over his avatar, signature, and even custom user title, to recognise this fact. We all need something to be passionate about, and one of Rahl's somethings is definitely the iconic science fiction series which has been on our television screens in one form or another for the past 40 years. Here, he explores its relationship with Star Wars, what some would call its great rival.

    Star Wars vs Star Trek or: How Much I Love Star Trek Part I
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    In the 1960s, Gene Roddenberry created a television show that was pitched as a sort of “Western in space.” Over three seasons “Star Trek” gained a loyal, loving, and captivated following by mixing the mystery, danger, and adventure of space with tantalizing technology, interesting characters, and outlandish performances. But the most important and lasting aspect of the show was Roddenberry’s view of a future of humanity where racism, sexism, religious conflict, and many other human failings were of the past. The crew of the Enterprise was multi-cultural as can be, even multi-species, and the stories of Star Trek constantly broke boundaries, such as having television’s first interracial kiss. Roddenberry’s vision of the future showed his optimistic belief in humanity. We have our countless differences but Gene saw that Man continues to live on and prosper because of cooperation. What has also remained over the decades from Star Trek: The Original Series is the show’s memorable characters. There is hardly person who doesn’t know of Mr. Spock or Captain Kirk. They are as timeless characters as there are. The relationship between Spock, Kirk, and Doctor “Bones” McCoy was true genius of TOS. Spock represented logic of an argument while Kirk represented the spirit of humans, and Bones represented ethics. This triumvirate of sorts of characters always played an integral role in the show. Captain Kirk rarely made a decision without consulting Spock or McCoy (and sometimes he didn’t even ask of any from the good doctor).

    Even though TOS was cancelled after a mere three seasons, the franchise did not stop. Several movies with TOS cast were made with some of the movies becoming legendary themselves, like Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. But with a new generation of television viewers came Star Trek: The Next Generation. TNG was created in the late 80s with an all new cast, an all new Enterprise starship, as well as being set further in the future than TOS. TNG’s cast was even more diverse, its stories more epic, and the Roddenberry optimistic vision of humanity’s future was even more plain to see. Morals and ethics were much more of a focus for TNG, especially with Captain Picard. Not only did TNG last for seven seasons, it also had three movies featuring the cast. But Star Trek did not stop there. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager lasted seven seasons with the latest series Star Trek: Enterprise ending after four. That was the end of 18 consecutive years of a Star Trek show being on television.

    After the disappointments of the last two TNG movies and the ending of Star Trek: Enterprise, Star Trek fans around the world were uncertain and fearful of the franchise’s future existence. After all, how can a show die after surviving and growing for over forty years? The franchise remained in a state of irritable stagnation for years until it was learned that a new movie was going to be made. In 2009, the brand new Star Trek movie was released. It proved to be a much-loved film, became a box-office hit, and has reinvigorated the franchise with constant rumors of a new television series and the confirmation of a sequel to the 2009 film coming in 2012.

    But Star Trek is not the most widely known or commercially successful of science-fiction entertainment. That honor goes to the Star Wars franchise. In 1977, director George Lucas introduced Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope upon the world to critical acclaim and massive financial success. No one had seen a sci-fi fantasy epic like Star Wars before, nor had they seen special effects like the movie showed. Like Star Trek: The Original Series, Star Wars was a Western in space. The movie’s mythology of “the Force” appealed to everyone with its portrayal of good and evil, Jedi and Sith. The evil and all-powerful Empire was a great antagonist, especially with Darth Vader, arguably the best villain to ever in film. The concept of destiny with the young and ambitious Luke Skywalker and his relationship with the warrior monk-like elder Obi Wan Kenobi appealed to all, as did the space cowboy Han Solo, his hairy companion Chewbacca, the tough and beautiful Princess Leia, as well as the comedic robots R2-D2 and C-3P0. The first Star Wars movie was already an instant international phenomenon and the subsequent two movies, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, only further since the franchise’s significance in stone.

    In the early 1990s movies were beginning to rely on advanced and realistic CGI to complete their presentation. George Lucas began to realize that he could make a prequel trilogy based on ideas for films that he believed he could not make in the 70s. From 1999 to 2005 three prequel Star Wars movies were released with extraordinary amounts of CGI. While the movies were highly anticipated, became box office successes, and introduced the franchise to a new generation of fans, they were generally panned by the original trilogy faithful and critics alike. Still, the success of the franchise is ridiculous and its impact on cinema and science fiction is incontestable.

    We have the relative stories of both of these monsters in science fiction but what has not been told is the long-lasting rivalry these franchises and their fans have. For years Star Wars fans and Trekkies have argued which franchise is better, what starship is cooler, which villain is better, etc. Personally, I’ve had many arguments that fall under the subject “Star Wars vs Star Trek.” Such arguments are inevitable if Star Wars fans and Trekkies are allowed to be in close quarters with each other for an extended amount of time. It should be well known to TWC members that have seen enough of me that I am an avid Star Trek fan. I don’t like Star Trek. I love Star Trek. I’m a fan of Star Wars as well but Star Trek is what I have a special place in my heart for. The majority of my Star Wars vs Star Trek arguments occurred during high school, when my friends considered me liking Star Trek as nerdy and not cool, and when I was student teaching in a high school where the young students knew almost nothing about Star Trek, what they thought to be everything about Star Wars, and thought Star Trek to be nerdy as well. I’ve come to a general conclusion that most people who argue against Star Trek are the ill-informed about the franchise. They have seen the Star Wars movies multiple times but haven’t seen any significant amount of Star Trek. In the next edition of the Helios I wish to clear up some of the misconceptions or unknowns about Star Trek in order to have my side of the argument be better understood. I don’t know if I’d consider it to be a Star Wars vs Star Trek editorial of sorts…but I will definitely be comparing the two franchises in order to make some points. Consider it to be more about why I love Star Trek but since the two franchises are so often compared to each other I will include such arguments.

    I was going to write an entire article about my love for Star Trek but life has been limiting my ability to do so. Sorry! But rest assured the next Helios will have a lengthy rant from yours truly about the greatness of Star Trek! In the meantime you should check out the Star Trek Thread in the forum. It has been actively used for over four years!!! Live long and prosper!



    Major Darling
    Rejoining us for this edition is Helios regular Major Darling who has been getting his hands dirty by putting in a lot of work over at the ES and also the Wiki. Major Darling's article is about the role which Parliament plays in British governance and its pre-eminent position as the sovereign body for law-making.

    The Most important feature of Britain’s constitution is Parliamentary Sovereignty
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The United Kingdom has an unwritten constitution, it is comprised of acts of Parliament, case law and other elements. Some say that parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of Britain’s constitution. I agree with this and shall discuss why within this essay.

    Parliamentary sovereignty means that Parliament is regarded as the supreme law-making institution. This is a doctrine which is comprised of three sections.

    · Parliament can legislate on any subject which it chooses
    · Acts of Parliament cannot be overturned by any authority
    · No Parliament can bind its successors, this means that any piece of current legislation may be repealed by a future Parliament. [1]

    This means that the constitution of the UK is in fact decided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This sovereignty makes the UK the most powerful legislating body in the United Kingdom, even with devolved assemblies, their laws can be removed by Parliament at Westminster. You could say that Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important principle of the UK’s constitution. Courts must work with laws set by parliament, they cannot remove them, therefore Parliament acts as sovereign over those institutions such as the courts and devolved assemblies.

    Through parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament can simply change the Constitution through laws. Unlike America, where the constitution is written down and codified, the British constitution is unwritten and uncodified, this symbolises Parliament’s full control over it. Parliament could be regarded as Britain’s final and supreme source of law. A.V. Dicey said in his “Introduction to the study of the law of the Constitution” that, “The principle of Parliamentary sovereignty mean neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake an law whatever: and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament.” [2]

    This shows that even in 1885 when Dicey’s book was written that Parliament has the right to unmake any law and further that no person, not even the Monarch, can really have a right to disregard an act of law. Even until after the Civil War did the King had full authority over the laws, and indeed if Parliament was to do something that he did not like, he could overturn it. It was with the ascension of William and Mary to the throne, and the change in the Coronation Oath, that Parliament was then regarded as the supreme lawmaking authority in the now United Kingdom. The Coronation Oath Act reads that laws would not emanate just from the King/Queen but also from Parliament. It is not until Queen Victoria’s reign that we see the transformation from the Monarch being the supreme and absolute law making body to the power being transferred to Parliament and then later, to the House of Commons.

    Parliamentary Sovereignty, since then can be said to have been undermined in several different ways. This is due to several changes in both the UK’s constitution but also due to outside problems (EU) and also devolved assemblies (Post-1997). Parliamentary Sovereignty was initially meant to mean all of the Parliament (House of Commons and House of Lords) but the Parliament Act in 1911, changed that. For instance, Dicey writes in the 8th Edition to his earlier mentioned book that, “But that while the reality was now Cabinet and political party were supreme, in law parliament was still sovereign albeit that "the share of sovereignty" of the Commons had increased.” [3]
    This shows that through the Parliament Act and other changes, the power of Parliamentary Sovereignty was not spread throughout Parliament but in fact concentrated on the House of Commons. This was again made even more so through the reform of the House of Lords in the New Labour government in 1997-2010.

    The legal status of Parliament sovereignty of the courts is also challenged in Scotland with the verdict in trials of, “Not Proven” from 1728 [4]. This shows that the jury judges through its conscience and may if necessary release a ‘Perverse Verdict’ which goes against the law prescribed by Parliament.

    Through the devolved assemblies created by the Labour Government in the late 1990s, local parliamentary sovereignty was granted to a Scottish parliament, a Welsh assembly and a Northern Irish Assembly. Although the Parliament in Westminster can legally dissolve these local assemblies or block a law made by any of them, it would prove difficult and cause large dissatisfaction if done. However, these assemblies remain devolved and are not federal, therefore their power does in fact stem from the Parliament in Westminster.

    One of the most major challenges to the UK’s parliamentary sovereignty is the entrance of the United Kingdom into the European Community, later European Union. Through such laws as the Lisbon Treaty and the Maastricht Treaty, the power of Britain over some of it’s affairs was reduced. The EU ruled that, “New legal order of international law for the benefit of which the [Member] States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields”. [5]

    Through the European Union, the Human Rights Act (1998) in convention with the European Union’s Human right act, the British court system has the ability to issue a “Declaration of Incompatibility”. This is used when the courts believe a certain act of Parliament is in fact in contravention of the Human Rights Act.
    “So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.” [6]

    This does not remove the sovereignty of the law which is in contravention but merely alerts Parliament that they should perhaps consider changing the law. Overall through the European Union, it can be said that Parliamentary Sovereignty is still supreme in Britain.

    In conclusion, I believe that even though the Parliament in Westminster retains a modicum of Parliamentary Sovereignty, it can also be said that due to all of the above mentioned issues including the EU, Devolved Assemblies and changes in the legal system that the Parliamentary Sovereignty of the British parliament is no longer entirely sovereign.

    [1] Exploring British Politics (Pg. 116), Mark Garnett and Philip Lynch

    [2] Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, 1st Edition, A.V. Dicey

    [3] Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constituon, 8th Edition, A. V. Dicey

    [4] Trial of Carnegie of Finhaven, 1728

    [5] Van Gend en loos, 1963, European Court of Justice]

    [6]Human Rights Act, 1998, Section 4


    Copperknickers II
    Continuing the theme of terrorist organisations/freedom movements, Copperknickers II has penned an article on the problem posed by Maoist insurgents in India including their origins, aims, and numbers. Before reading his article I knew nothing on the subject and was much more enlightened by the time I had finished.

    Naxalite-Maoist Insurgents
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    India, the second most populous country in the world with 1.18 billion people, six thousand years of civilisation, and a global influence among the top ten in the world. TWC is an international community, so the South Asians among you will probably know better than me the nuances of the problems facing this massive country with massive potential. However, among westerners there is one obstacle for India's rise to global significance which is often overlooked. That is a problem which even now threatens to destabilise the world's largest democracy and give a very new persona to the democratic powerhouse of Asia on par with its northern cousin China: the Naxalite-Maoist Insurgency.

    The insurgency began in 1967 in northern West Bengal, in an area called Naxalbari (hence the name). On 25 May 1967 in Naxalbari, the police opened fire on a group of protesting farmers who wanted the right to harvest the crops on a certain piece of land. This small incident quickly led to a regional revolt. Although it was quelled by the police, the Communist sympathies of the peasants were awakened and the Maoist movement had begun. It was a slow process at first, but as India's economy grew and a middle class began to emerge, the movement gradually began to pick up momentum. In 1980, the People's War Group, a Communist political party was founded. The 1990s saw more protests and killings, and the rebels started to become more and more militarised. The Maoists have now asserted control over much of rural eastern India, establishing a so-called "red corridor" where their influence is strongest, which consists of much of West Bengal down along the coast through Orissa and Bihar into the southern areas of Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka.

    In the past decade, the movement has grown into a major revolutionary organisation, with Prime Minister of India Manmohan Singh calling it "India's greatest internal security challenge". Its aim is simple: to overthrow the government and turn India into a Communist state in which the corrupt officials are removed from power, and resources and land are shared out equally and fairly to the peasants. And indeed, when you look at it from the point of view of the peasants, you can see their reasons: India enjoys a booming economy and a burgeoning middle class, but the vast majority of its people are simple agricultural workers who live in poverty. There have been attempts to improve these peoples' standards of living, but the New Deal for Rural Indians campaign by Singh to try and bring these people out of the cracks they have fallen through has so far produced negligible results. In the eyes of the labouring classes, they are kept in their situation by a system of corrupt self-serving feudal slave drivers, whose only interest in them is their exploitation. As such, people flock to the cause and the leaders are thought to control over 15,000 armed militants, and the numbers are growing. According to the Times of India, a "clear 58% majority of those polled in Maoist-dominant areas of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bengal and Orissa said Naxalism had actually been good for their area."

    This threat is increasing every day, and the government's tactics have been, to say the least, poorly enacted. The Indian state is at war with the Naxalites, and the figures certainly seem more reminiscent of invading a country rather than internal security enforcement - nearly 50,000 federal troops and tens of thousands of policemen are taking part in the operation to crush resistance wherever it surfaces, but still nearly every day there is a raid on an unsuspecting army patrol or police station. In April, 75 military servicemen were killed in a devastating ambush in the dense jungle of Chhattisgarh state. The Naxalites have vowed to oppose this crackdown until none of them are left, and the the Indian government shows no sign of relenting either. A high up member of the government, Pranam Mukherjee, defends these measures: "they think that they can overthrow the present establishment by virtue of guns, and what people must realise is that by supporting their barbaric and undemocratic actions they are taking this issue into romanticism. This is very dangerous." He may be right, but the fact is that India is losing the hearts and minds of its people, even those who do not support the Maoists condemn the iron-fisted merciless methods used against them, and it needs to adopt new ways of reversing the chronic neglect of the peasants if it wants to win them back, and until it does the number of casualties (currently 6000) will continue to grow.


    Mr MM
    Mr MM seems to have become our resident travel writer here at The Helios. Taking time off from slaving away at the Wiki, he has written about the beautiful mountain paradise of Itatiaia.

    The marvelous world of Itatiaia
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I welcome thee to the marvelous world of Itatiaia, this fantastic montain range has a not so pretty history of its own.

    It all started with the coming of some people in a not so lighthearted mood to some colony in this new land that they thought was the paradise on earth, people like to be wrong. I correctly have to say, in a more forceful mood, not that the lands that they came didn't have the forceful mood that brought then here, but, oh well, at least they weren't white.

    Now that we have established that some people came here in the lands that would be known quite a while later as Brazil, they found good work, they were fed, and they were kindly treated, the level of the treatment was so good that they in a much more lighthearted way decided to give the option of that pleasure to some other that came from almost or the same place that they came. And so we know have the workings of a quilombo.

    The quilombo is a demarked place in land that fugitive slaves would and come a forge a community from the leftovers of their humanity. But, and there is always a remarkable but, this time they didn't choose the right spot, the location is in one of the highest places that Brazil can offer, not that its high by any mediocre standards, but the place is freaking cold. And so they died a wholy unremarkable death. Some still see they to this day, me include others, openly make fun of this, and the legendary tales, say they usually get what they deserve, in the form of some kind beating, the white man's burden is always the problem.

    Now aside that, I'm not going to bore you all with the morph geological explanations of how things have come to be considered mountains in there, or why americans like mountain dew, those are things that must be left unaswered and uninvestigated, since they are part of the mistyc fabric of the universe. But do believe in me on this one, when I say that the place is cold in the winter, again per Brazilian and Madagascar standards.

    The hiking is the sport de facto that has installed in there. The usual ones range from 6 to up to 14 hours, military maneuvers and training are not to be counted. Some like me enjoy the beauty of the sensation that permeates the lower part of your body, including some very exotic areas for most, with that gorgeous feeling in mind we like to take a swim in one of the numerous waterfalls, rivers and lakes that we have there.

    Although it must be said that the best part of the ride, is to go to the light cliff. The terrible name derivates basically from the nuisance flying lights that rover around the chasm in great speed and great variety of colors, I do prefer the yellow ones, they seen more sympathetic.






    Lysimachus
    Making his writing début for The Helios, Lysimachus has also chosen a Second World War topic, albeit one which is much less mainstream and much more obscure than that of the Battle of Stalingrad. Lysimachus' article covers the Allies' efforts to capture the Italian peninsula and knock Italy out of the war. He starts with the battle for Sicily.

    Forgotten Battles of World War 2
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Section 1: The Italian Campaign[/FONT]


    Part 1: Operation Husky




    Seventy or so years on after the war, we are still reminded of it and the destruction inflicted across the world as a consequence, and yet despite this, it's been completely glamourised by Hollywood and gaming companies. War has been made out to be a complete walk in the park like in the Call of Duty series of games which pretty much involve just shooting your way through maps of enemies and of course with your character always surviving bullet hits, shrapnel and all other kinds of carnage on the battlefield which in reality would have completely decapitated you, let alone the fact that they don't even fully represent war such as conveniently ignoring the use of minefields.


    "Perhaps the decisive one on the way to defeat, a road along which other milestones had been Stalingrad and Tunis" - Johannes Steinhoff (Luftwaffe fighter group commander)


    To start this series off, I introduce Operation Husky, the amphibious landing of Sicily which would be a stepping stone to the indomitable D-Day landings. On July 10, 1943 a combined Allied force of five infantry divisions along with elements of 82nd and 1st Airborne Division initiated the invasion by landing at the south between Syracuse and Gela. There had been bombing and naval bombardment too which softened up the positions at the coast and the men landed on the beaches without a hitch, with Italian troops, mostly demoralised and unwilling to fight surrendered to the Allies and some even helped them unload their ships. Unlike in Operation Overlord however, Axis troops on the island reacted quickly and counterattacks were launched in the American sector, though by July 12 the Allies had a firm bridgehead. The race to Messina between Patton and Montgomery soon began in earnest, with Patton frustrated at his secondary role craving the publicity the conquest would bring. On 23 July, Palermo would fall to the American troops who would be greeted as liberators by the war weary Italians, though Montgomery was held just north of Syracuse by a skillful defence by a mixture of German Parachute, Panzer, and Panzer Grenadier formations who would only gradually be pushed back as their flanks became untenable from the American advance in their more lightly held sector which had been taken up by the Italian troops.

    To break the deadlock, Montgomery decided to push his forces along the road at Enna (which was located right in the middle of the island with many roads connecting to it) to outflank the defenders at Catania, though thanks to the infamiliarity of the Allies with the concept of invasion meant that throughout the campaign they would advance up the island methodically and predictably rather than trying to cause an encirclement of the German troops on the island. Vastly outnumbered (~55,000 German troops against ~450,000 of the Allies) over 7-1, OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, the German High Command) acknowleding there was no way for them to win the battle initiated a fighting withdrawal from the island, retreating gradually towards Messina and then finally escaping fully intact. In a campaign that had taken the Allied thirty-eight days, although they had succeeded in taking the island, the Germans were able to end up withdrawing 53,545 men, 9,185 vehicles and 11,855 tons of stores which they would then make full use of in making the Allied advance up Italy agonisingly slow, painful and paved in destruction.

    Despite this however, there were a number of positives. The Allies had gained valuable experience in conducting invasions and that maybe a more imaginative plan was required to produce more results, and it had tested the mettle of the Anglo-American commanders as well as forcing them to work together to bring the campaign to an end as quick as possible. Along with this, German troops from other fronts had to be moved rapidly to Italy after their surrender to hold off the Allied onslaught, and with the Kursk offensive coinciding with the Allied invasion of Sicily it meant they had to defend another theatre of war with troops that could have been put to much better use on the Eastern Front, and although the Italian campaign wasn't particularly the "wildcat" Churchill was intending to hurl ashore, it definititely required the full attention of the Germans and would stretch their logistics across the mountain ranges which had eluded invaders for centuries (Hannibal as we know wanted to bypass them so badly he crossed the Alps to invade from the north instead!).

    That concludes part one and after covering two more operations of the Italian campaign I'll be moving on to a new battle entirely!


    That’s all from The Helios for this edition. As always, I have my entired team of excellent writers to thank for putting the time aside to come up, once more, with a publication of the highest quality. Not only is their writing excellent, but we have a hell of a lot of articles in this week's edition. 8 overall. I think that's just amazing and my team deserve special recognition for their herculean effort.

    After reading this edition, now would be an excellent time to pay a visit to one of the other TWC publications, which can be done by clicking on either of the images below.
    Last edited by Jom; October 27, 2010 at 04:17 AM.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  2. #2
    Legio's Avatar EMPRESS OF ALL THINGS
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Chlοëtopia
    Posts
    43,774

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    I'm still in the process of reading it, but it looks excellent so far. I am currently feasting myself on Jom's piece about France.

  3. #3
    karamazovmm's Avatar スマトラ警備隊
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil, São Paulo
    Posts
    9,639

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    I even read it this time!

    The very ugly forgive, but beauty is essential - Vinicius de Moraes

  4. #4

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    I think that essay on British Politics is awesome

    I loved Jom's French thing.. Bloody Frogs And also Rez's thing

  5. #5
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    Because of our contributions, as Mel Gibson would express that, *ahem*, WE DESERVE TO BE BLOWN!!!

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

  6. #6

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    Im going to burn this house down!

  7. #7
    Jom's Avatar A Place of Greater Safety
    Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,495

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    The Helios: now with fancy double fieldset contents box.

    "For what it’s worth: it’s never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you’re proud of, and if you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

  8. #8

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    Oh.. Um... Wow... How?

  9. #9
    ♔Goodguy1066♔'s Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kokhav Ya'ir, Israel / Jewhannesburg
    Posts
    9,043

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    By far the best issue yet, I hope you all know you are brilliant writers and overall geniuses...
    A member of the Most Ancient, Puissant and Honourable Society of Silly Old Duffers
    Secret Sig Content Box!

    Both male and female walruses have tusks and have been observed using these overgrown teeth to help pull themselves out of the water.

    The mustached and long-tusked walrus is most often found near the Arctic Circle, lying on the ice with hundreds of companions. These marine mammals are extremely sociable, prone to loudly bellowing and snorting at one another, but are aggressive during mating season. With wrinkled brown and pink hides, walruses are distinguished by their long white tusks, grizzly whiskers, flat flipper, and bodies full of blubber.
    Walruses use their iconic long tusks for a variety of reasons, each of which makes their lives in the Arctic a bit easier. They use them to haul their enormous bodies out of frigid waters, thus their "tooth-walking" label, and to break breathing holes into ice from below. Their tusks, which are found on both males and females, can extend to about three feet (one meter), and are, in fact, large canine teeth, which grow throughout their lives. Male walruses, or bulls, also employ their tusks aggressively to maintain territory and, during mating season, to protect their harems of females, or cows.
    The walrus' other characteristic features are equally useful. As their favorite meals, particularly shellfish, are found near the dark ocean floor, walruses use their extremely sensitive whiskers, called mustacial vibrissae, as detection devices. Their blubbery bodies allow them to live comfortably in the Arctic region—walruses are capable of slowing their heartbeats in order to withstand the polar temperatures of the surrounding waters.
    The two subspecies of walrus are divided geographically. Atlantic walruses inhabit coastal areas from northeastern Canada to Greenland, while Pacific walruses inhabit the northern seas off Russia and Alaska, migrating seasonally from their southern range in the Bering Sea—where they are found on the pack ice in winter—to the Chukchi Sea. Female Pacific walruses give birth to calves during the spring migration north.
    Only Native Americans are currently allowed to hunt walruses, as the species' survival was threatened by past overhunting. Their tusks, oil, skin, and meat were so sought after in the 18th and 19th centuries that the walrus was hunted to extinction in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and around Sable Island, off the coast of Nova Scotia.

  10. #10

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    Seeing all those 5000+ posts users debating with passion makes me think about my own misery. Depressing but how inspiring! My brain is blooming in this intellectual atmosphere

    Quote Originally Posted by ♔Goodguy1066♔ View Post
    I hope you all know you are brilliant writers and overall geniuses...
    I'm sure that they have reached this level of self-consciousness long time ago.
    -------------------

    Just let me humbly repeat after more worthy one:

    Oh.. Um... Wow... How?
    This expresses it all...

  11. #11
    Oldgamer's Avatar My President ...
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Illinois, and I DID obtain my concealed carry permit! I'm packin'!
    Posts
    7,520

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    I started with Star Trek, because I've spent a lot of time in the thread. I really don't see anything to disagree with Rahl on ... and I don't like disagreeing with him, anyway! Kirk was my favorite charcter in the entire franchise, and I'm eagerly awaiting a sequel to the latest movie.

    My only problem with Star Wars ... and I love that series, also ... is how much all the space craft miss with their beam/blaster weapons. Star Trek was more realistic, in that they developed shielding, because you can bet your bottom dollar that the enemy IS going to hit your ship, and armor won't be enough.

    I've also read the story on Stalingrad. Recently, I've acquired a Mosin-Nagant Model 91/30, and the rifle had to be a nightmare for German officers. It is extremely accurate, and very hard-hitting. I can attest to the fact that I wouldn't want to go into an area teeming with Russian snipers, armed with this puppy!

    I will finish all the other articles, soon. Very good job, gentlemen!

  12. #12
    Lord Rahl's Avatar Behold the Beard
    Content Emeritus

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright!
    Posts
    13,779

    Default Re: Helios 54 - Deus Ex Machina

    Of course you don't want to disagree with me!

    I have a hard time picking out a Star Trek character that I truly think is my favorite. It seems like episode to episode I change my mind. I guess Riker is who I consider to be my favorite. It's just too bad they didn't feature him as much as other characters such as Data or Worf, and of course Picard. You really can't beat Kirk though. He's the epitome of the Hornblower-esque Trek captain. And because he was always more willing to take the fight to the enemy I like him more than Picard.

    Speaking of the Star Trek (2009) sequel, the script is officially being written and the list of potential villains has been given - I should post this stuff in the Star Trek Thread soon. Khan will not be in the sequel but a know TOS villain will be. The list includes these baddies:



    Most people think it will be the Talosians because then Pike would be in the sequel too.

    Star Wars space combat is like WWII in the Pacific but in space. No one has shields and fire is inaccurate. It's huge carrier-type vessels with massive guns against each other but most of the combat, at least in the original trilogy, was fighter against fighter. In the prequels we did see capital ship against capital ship. In Star Trek it's more like...destroyer-type vessels (with shields) going against each other. Each ship is large, but not too massive (with a few exceptions like the Borg cube, the Scimitar, and of course Nero's Narada that is over 9km in length!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ), has fairly-to-very accurate fire, is fairly maneuverable (much more maneuverable compared to SW capital ships), and has multiple armaments instead of just "lasers" of varying sizes and colors. I'll most likely talk about that in the next Helios.

    Patron of: Ó Cathasaigh, Major. Stupidity, Kscott, Major König, Nationalist_Cause, Kleos, Rush Limbaugh, General_Curtis_LeMay, and NIKO_TWOW.RU | Patronized by: MadBurgerMaker
    Opifex, Civitate, ex-CdeC, Ex-Urbanis Legio, Ex-Quaestor, Ex-Helios Editor, Sig God, Skin Creator & Badge Forger
    I may be back... | @BeardedRiker

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •