text:
A year ago, a shoulder injury forced Erik Solveson to switch events in swimming, putting him in the backstroke.
He didn't know it would become his best event.
Today, Solveson, a North Thurston junior, is the top seed for the 100-yard backstroke at the 2A District 4 swim meet today and Saturday at Longview.
"We had to pull Erik out of a couple of events last year," North Thurston coach Jak Ayres said. "The backstroke was the only event that didn't hurt his shoulder."
Solveson is one of 22 Rams qualified for district, making them one of the meet favorites, along with Aberdeen. Aberdeen has four No. 1 seeds.
Solveson is North Thurston's only top seed. The Rams have four swimmers seeded second – Cameron Peterson in the 100 butterfly, Tyler Ridgeway in the 50 freestyle, Brady Neeley in the 100 freestyle, and Scott Harn in the 100 breaststroke.
"The 100 back has got to be my favorite stroke," Solveson said. "It was the only stroke I could do last year. That's bound to make you better."
North Thurston's 400 freestyle relay, which is made up of Peterson, Solveson, Neely and Nathan Anderson, is also seeded second.
On paper, Ayres said, it's between North Thurston and Aberdeen for the district title.
"It's too close to call," Ayres said. "One race could make the difference. We're very excited. But we don't have any divers and they have two. So, we could beat them in the pool and still lose."
Solveson's time of 58.7 seconds in the 100 backstroke is nearly two seconds faster than the No. 2 entry. He's seeded third in the 200 individual medley, in 2:13.3.
North Thurston finished the season undefeated in dual meets and beat Aberdeen, 100-79.
"It's not totally surprising," Ayres said about his team's finish. "I saw the enthusiasm they had last season and all summer. But I didn't expect to win all our meets."
Only the winner of each race today gets an automatic entry to state. Others can advance on the basis of having one of the top times in the state in their events.
"We have a lot of depth, a lot of fast swimmers," Peterson said. "Things have gone pretty good for us. I'm kind of surprised."
Ayres, with only one senior on his team, said his swimmers are big-meet performers.
"They can handle the pressure," he said. "They swam their best against Aberdeen, which was our toughest competition.
"They'll be ready."
River Ridge has the two top seeds in diving. Michael Evans is seeded first and Moey Mailhot is second. River Ridge's Justice Dutton is seeded fourth in the 100 breaststroke.
Hockinson's Callum Mackintosh is the top seed in both the 200 freestyle and the 100 butterfly.
The meet starts at 4 p.m. today at Mark Morris High School and resumes tomorrow with the finals starting at 1 p.m.


text:
Monday , July 30, 2018 - 6:15 AM
OGDEN — When Monica Williams was a graduate student searching for a topic for her Ph.D. dissertation, she turned on the TV to see what people were talking about.
"When I was looking for a topic, I was interested in things and issues that people get so worked up about," Williams said.
She would see TV shows that illustrated the anxiety many people feel upon learning about sex offenders living near them.
"Given the outcry didn't seem to match the statistics, I just wanted to know more about that," she said.
Williams said she knew many of the statistics regarding sex offenders. For example, if you analyze types of crime and the people who commit them, sex offenders have the second-lowest rate of reoffending, second only to murder.
"When I found out these sexually violent predator placements, I thought, 'That's a perfect intersection of sex offender anxieties and community dynamics,'" Williams said.
Five years after she was awarded her Ph.D. and moved to Ogden to teach in Weber State's criminal justice department, Williams' book on this very topic is hitting the shelves.
The book furthers her research, and aims to answer a broad, complex question that many areas of the country struggle to answer: What should communities do when violent, convicted sex offenders move into their neighborhoods?
Story continues below the photo.
In "The Sex Offender Housing Dilemma", Williams takes a detailed approach to answer the question.
The introduction of Williams' book acknowledges what many readers may be thinking upon learning the book's subject matter: "This book focuses on the problem of finding housing for sex offenders. The public has little sympathy for these offenders, but a lack of social supports and stable housing can increase the likelihood of reoffending."
Often times offenders have restrictions on where they can and cannot live.
Much of Williams' research was done in California, where she completed her decorate at the University of California-Davis in 2013.
In her research, Williams found that rural areas and places with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to receive these types of offenders once they are released.
Of course, there is always a chance that sexually violent predators reoffend, and communities should be aware of those around them in the community, Williams said.
But Williams argues in her book that the best way to approach this topic is to create a balance between holding government institutions accountable for distributing prior offenders so they aren't isolated to certain areas and having community members engage with one another to ensure their concerns are heard.
The topic of placing offenders after their release from prison is something that particularly impacts Ogden.
The city is home to one of five state-funded parole facilities in the state, and the Northern Utah Community Correctional Center houses around a third of state parolees. It's also the only facility outside of Salt Lake County.
This makes the topic of housing prior offenders an issue that residents of Weber County hold dear.
However, a bill passed during the 2017 legislative session would allow lawmakers to decide whether or not to distribute parolees around the state, as long as law makers set aside funding to build new facilities around the state. The bill also outlines how the number of parolees would correspond with the population of the county.
Story continues below the photo.
In California, the state sends offenders back to the county where they lived prior to their incarceration.
Williams also mentioned the state's Good Landlord Program as an obstacle for prior offenders who want to find affordable housing. The program has been criticized in the past for incentivizing landlords to avoid renting to people with felony convictions.
A 2015 report from the Standard-Examiner profiled a handful of people recently released from prison that struggled to find a place to live due to the Good Landlord Program. A man with prior meth convictions said he was rejected by 46 apartments before finding a place to live in Davis County.
Williams added that often times people are on the sex offender registry for lower-level offenses, like public urination, or people are convicted on charges that may not accurately represent what they did leading up to their conviction.
One example Williams found during her research was the case of a man who was convicted of a crime, but due to the way the California state law was written and titled, it seemed as if the man had assaulted a child. This was not the case, according to Williams.
While many people are not willing to have prior criminals or sexually violent predators near them, Williams says that doing things like intimidation or ostracising them from the community could make things worse and increase their chances to reoffend.
Williams said it's important for community members to educate themselves and be aware of policies in order to hold law makers accountable for taking into account their concerns.
You can find Williams' book online at Amazon and NYU Press' websites. Her book can also be found at Booked on 25th starting next week.
Read the 24-page introduction to Williams' book by clicking here.
Contact reporter Jacob Scholl at firstname.lastname@example.com or follow him on Twitter @Jacob_Scholl.
Sign up for e-mail news updates.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Build Guide by Kulth
Not Updated For Current Season
This guide has not yet been updated for the current season. Please keep this in mind while reading. You can see the most recently updated guides on the browse guides page.
Thank You!
Your votes and comments encourage our guide authors to continue
creating helpful guides for the League of Legends community.
Ezreal Build
Ability Sequence
Not Updated For Current Season
The masteries shown here are not yet updated for the current season, the guide author needs to set up the new masteries. As such, they will be different than the masteries you see in-game.
Ill start off by saying that this is my first build on mobafire and that ezreal is one of the many champions I enjoy playing ( just because sniping someone with your ulti is amazing :D ) but this guide is mainly to show how I play ezreal compared to some of the other AD ezreal guides
So I chose to pick up meki pendant first because I usually take mid and use mystic shot constantly to harass and at level 2 I combine it with arcane shift and an exhaust and generally that gives me first blood.
I go with sword of the ocult next because I personally always get kills and if gives me more mystic shot damage as well as auto attack damage. If your new to ezreal or arnt to good yet mabey pick up a sheen.
Now I choose to go with boots of swiftness because ezreal is a slow champion but you can go with berserkers greaves.
I should of put brutalizer here but im to lazy and I take it because its damage and ARP are very nice to have you may also turn in to ghost blade if you would like.
Now for rageblade that depends on your play style I take it because I like having the extra AP after a fight to finish off anyone who may have gotten low during the fight but you couldnt finish them now with that extra AP your ulti will hit harder giving you an even greater chance for a kill.
Now its time to add to your already great AD if you have been getting blood tribute stacks. Pick up a bloodthirster next and go hit the jungle or empty lane to get up the bloodthirster damage again increasing your already good mystic shot and auto attack damage.
If the game is still going on then I would black cleaver just for more armor reduction but you may find other items that suit you better.
Like I said this was my first guide so im looking forward to seeing the people who enjoy the build and the people who say its "terribad" even though Im 19/3/8 and he is 5/9/3 :D.
If you have any tips let me know and I will try it and possibly change the build. GL and go blow **** up.


text:
Search keywords
Adult Services
Programs and Services
Outreach and Support Programs
Located in Kensington, Adult Services' Community Outreach Services consists of 5 separate programs. These programs work with people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
MELBOURNE Streets to Home Program (Ms2H)
A partnership between The Salvation Army, HomeGround and Royal District Nursing Services – Homeless Persons Program, this program combines long-term housing and intensive support services to target and permanently end homelessness for Melbourne's most vulnerable long-term rough sleepers.
It is an exciting, new, innovative project developed internationally that is being adapted to the Australian context.
Streets to Home uses a Housing First approach, which offers people a pathway into a home directly from the street, without having to move through crisis and transitional housing. Support works within an assertive outreach framework.
We exist to alleviate the disadvantage and marginalisation experienced by people who are homeless, and to empower each person to achieve meaningful participation in the community.
An outreach support initiative, works with single adults and couples who are living in 'at risk' situations, such as squats, privately operated boarding and rooming houses, caravan parks or sleeping rough. A worker regularly visits places where people may be in need of assistance to locate more appropriate accommodation and/or support.
Young Adults Program
Provides outreach transitional support to homeless young single adults and couples generally aged between 18 and 35.
Women's Accommodation and Support Service (WASS)
Provides intensive crisis support and accommodation to single women over 25 from the western region of Melbourne. The program has nomination rights to a number of transitional housing properties. It assists women who are homeless and in crisis to find appropriate long term housing and support options.
Intensive case management initiative
Provides intensive outreach assistance to clients who have high and complex needs and to enhance the capacity of homelessness assistance services to provide creative and flexible intensive case management. The model focuses on shared case management between ICMI and the services within COS to stabilize the client and meet their increasing support needs for that period of engagement.
Based in West Melbourne, Adult Services' Mental Health Services consists of 3 separate programs providing support to people with mental health issues.
Provides intensive support to homeless men and women who have, for the most part, been excluded from the mainstream and homeless service system. The program gives priority to people who have histories of long term homelessness and limited, if any, other options for accommodation and support.
Provides intensive support to men from Flagstaff who exhibit extreme and challenging behaviour and who have support needs far in excess of what the crisis worker can provide. Participants on this program generally present with a mix of complex issues, including mental health, drug and alcohol, legal and disability.
Located on site with Flagstaff Crisis Accommodation, this group of services is designed to provide accommodation and related support pathways to people from the crisis service.
Homelessness and Drug Dependency Program (HDDP)
The HDDP was established to develop innovative approaches to address the needs of individuals experiencing co-occurring homelessness and problematic substance use issues. The program operates a flexible case management model, and also receives Mental Health funding in recognition of the large number of people with dual diagnosis.
Flagstaff Outreach
Provides accommodation pathways and case management support to address underlying issues contributing to homelessness. The program assists men exiting Flagstaff Crisis Accommodation into more secure housing.
Housing Pathways
This program provides Initial Assessment & Planning (IAP) assistance and support in accessing and/or maintaining accommodation, to men incarcerated at Port Phillip Prison, Melbourne Assessment Prison and Metropolitan Remand Centre. It also provides IAP and case management support to people with forensic mental health issues who are released from Thomas Embling Hospital. A recent addition to the program, Transit, is funded through Corrections Victoria's Pip Wisdom Grant scheme to provide transitional case management support to men with cognitive impairment exiting incarceration.
Community Reintegration Program
Based in Abbotsford, CRP is part of The Homelessness and Drug Dependency Program, a joint initiative of The Salvation Army, VincentCare, and Hanover Welfare Services. The work of CRP complements and extends AOD case management goals, focusing on facilitating community connection, return to work strategies, education and training, and empowering people to negotiate systems and pathways by building confidence and skills.


text:
Known for encouraging step-by-step problem solving and for connecting techniques to real-world scenarios, David AmmonsaBAD:rsquo; Tools for Decision Making covers a wide range of local government practicesaBAD:mdash;from the foundational to the advanced. Brief and readable, each chapter opens with a problem in a hypothetical city and then introduces a tool to address it. Thoroughly updated with new local government examples, the second edition also incorporates chapters devoted to such additional techniques as sampling analysis, sensitivity analysis, financial condition analysis, and forecasting via trend analysis. Numerous tables, figures, exhibits, equations, and worksheets walk readers through the application of tools, and boxed features throughout each chapter present other uses for techniques, helpful online resources, and common errors. A handy guide for students and an invaluable resource and reference for practitioners.Students can visit college.cqpress.com/TDM for more opportunities to put these tools to use. Instructors can register for access to the solutions.Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2003. Eppen, G. D., F. J. Gould, C. P. Schmidt, Jeffrey H. Moore, and Larry R. Weatherford. Introductory Management ... Goldenkoff, Robert . aquot;Using Focus Groups.aquot; In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation, 2d ed., edited by Joseph S. Wholey, Harry P. Hatry, and Kathryn E. Newcomer, 340-362.
|Tools For Decision Making: A Practical Guide For Local Government, 2nd Edition
|David N Ammons
|CQ Press - 2008-10-21
You must register with us as either a Registered User before you can Download this Book. You'll be greeted by a simple sign-up page.
Once you have finished the sign-up process, you will be redirected to your download Book page.How it works:


text:
Would your pet make a great nurse?
The Humor Department at Scrubs HQ finally has an answer to the nursing shortage: Recruit our pets! Leaving no whiskered rock unturned, we're scouring our files of adorable pets for signs of nursing potential.
The following may just be "funny videos" on YouTube, but at Scrubs they're audition tapes for future (furry) nurses!
See below and decide for yourself if these adorable dogs and cats have what it takes.
Meet the Future (Furry) Nurses:
HIPAA All-Star Dog
Irish Sett-ing Sail for Nursing School
Compassion Fatigue? Nary Larry
Great Dane, Greater Pediatrics Nurse
Tissue Retriever
HIPAA All-Star Dog
This dog would have no problem following HIPAA laws. He's all about keeping nosy people out!
Next up: Irish Sett-ing Sail for Nursing School
Fun & Humor
The Scrubs Staff would love to hear your ideas for stories! Please submit your articles or story ideas to us here.
By Scrubs
Post a Comment
2 Responses to Would your pet make a great nurse?
I love these! I'm an animal person so there really isn't much you could put up with pets that I wouldn't love. Along the lines of that Great Dane and the baby, animals (dogs in particular) are used at our pediatric facility all the time for the kids. There is a program called Happy Tails that accepts well-trained, well-socialized dogs to come to the hospital and make rounds visiting patients and families for comfort. Also, at our sister hospital, there is a Golden Retriever that is used for comfort measures for children across the hospital during IV sticks, invasive procedures, scans and anything else that may be frightening for a child. The dog has been known to actually get up on exam tables and lay next to scared children. Great, entertaining videos!
I don't have a dog and my cat really does not do tricks. But after a long day at work, there is nothing like loud, roaring purr and a good kitty cuddle to take away the stress. He is ALWAYS there for me. I would not trade him for anything.


text:
Product Benefits and Features
On the occasion of your company's Anniversary, take the time to recognize the people who have made a significant contribution to your success. This handsome Rosewood Bantam Captain's Clock is the perfect choice.
- Additional charges may apply
- Quick Production Time! 5 Business Days
- Comes Ready to Use! Battery included
- Custom Gift Packaging! Each clock is individually gift boxed.
- Quality Materials: Each piece is made of a naturally occurring material, slight variations may be present
- Made to Last! Housed in a beautiful rosewood case is a precision quartz clock with gold plated trim.


text:
Causes Of The Cold War Summary And Analysis History Essay
Disclaimer: This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. You can view samples of our professional work here.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
The Big Picture: Who, What, When, Where & (Especially) Why. In 1945, the United States and Soviet Union were allies, jointly triumphant in World War II, which ended with total victory for Soviet and American forces over Adolf Hitler's Nazi empire in Europe. Within just a few years, however, wartime allies became mortal enemies, locked in a global struggle-military, political, economic, ideological-to prevail in a new "Cold War."
How did wartime friends so quickly turn into Cold War foes?
Who started the Cold War?
Was it the Soviets, who reneged on their agreements to allow the people of Eastern Europe to determine their own fates by imposing totalitarian rule on territories unlucky enough to fall behind the "Iron Curtain?"
Or was it the Americans, who ignored the Soviets' legitimate security concerns, sought to intimidate the world with the atomic bomb, and pushed relentlessly to expand their own international influence and market dominance?
The tensions that would later grow into Cold War became evident as early as 1943, when the "Big Three" allied leaders-American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet Premier Josef Stalin-met in Tehran to coordinate strategy. Poland, which sits in an unfortunate position on the map, squeezed between frequent enemies Russia and Germany, became a topic for heated debate. The Poles, then under German occupation, had not one but two governments-in-exile-one Communist, one anticommunist-hoping to take over the country upon its liberation from the Nazis. Unsurprisingly, the Big Three disagreed over which Polish faction should be allowed to take control after the war, with Stalin backing the Polish Communists while Churchill and Roosevelt insisted the Polish people ought to have the right to choose their own form of government. For Stalin, the Polish question was a matter of the Soviet Union's vital security interests; Germany had invaded Russia through Poland twice since 1914, and more than 20 million Soviet citizens died in World War II. (The Soviets suffered nearly sixty times as many casualties in the war as the Americans did.) Stalin was determined to make sure that such an invasion could never happen again, and insisted that only a Communist Poland, friendly to (and dominated by) the Soviet Union, could serve as a buffer against future aggression from the west. Stalin's security concerns ran smack into Anglo-American values of self-determination, which held that the Poles ought to be allowed to make their own decision over whether or not to become a Soviet satellite.
At Tehran, and at the next major conference of the Big Three at Yalta in 1945, the leaders of the US, UK, and USSR were able to reach a number of important agreements-settling border disputes, creating the United Nations, organizing the postwar occupations of Germany and Japan. But Poland remained a vexing problem. At Yalta, Stalin-insisting that "Poland is a question of life or death for Russia"-was able to win Churchill's and Roosevelt's reluctant acceptance of a Communist-dominated provisional government for Poland. In exchange, Stalin signed on to a vague and toothless "Declaration of Liberated Europe," pledging to assist "the peoples liberated from the dominion of Nazi Germany and the peoples of the former Axis satellite states of Europe to solve by democratic means their pressing political and economic problems." The agreements allowed Churchill and Roosevelt to claim they had defended the principle of self-determination, even though both knew that Poland had effectively been consigned to the Soviet sphere of interest. The provisional Communist government in Poland later held rigged elections (which it, not surprisingly, won), nominally complying with the Declaration of Liberated Europe even though no alternative to Communist rule ever really had a chance in the country.
In the end, the Yalta agreements were not so much a true compromise as a useful (in the short term) misunderstanding among the three leaders. Stalin left happy he had won Anglo-American acceptance of de facto Soviet control of Eastern Europe; Roosevelt and Churchill left happy they had won Stalin's acceptance of the principle of self-determination. But the two parts of the agreement were mutually exclusive; what would happen if the Eastern Europeans sought to self-determine themselves out of the Soviet orbit? Future disputes over the problematic Yalta agreements were not just likely; they were virtually inevitable.
And the likelihood of future conflict only heightened on 12 April 1945, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt unexpectedly died of a brain hemorrhage. Vice President Harry S. Truman-a former Missouri senator with only a high-school education, who had served just 82 days as vice president and had not been part of FDR's inner circle-suddenly became the President of the United States. Truman, who may not have ever known just how much Roosevelt had actually conceded to Stalin at Yalta, viewed the Soviets' later interventions in Eastern Europe as a simple violation of the Yalta agreements, as proof that Stalin was a liar who could never be trusted. Truman quickly staked out a hard-line position, resolving to counter Stalin's apparently insatiable drive for power by blocking any further expansion of the Soviet sphere of influence, anywhere in the world. Under Truman, containment of Communism soon came to dominate American foreign policy. The Cold War was on.
So who started the Cold War?
In the early days of the Cold War itself, American historians would have answered, nearly unanimously, that the Soviets started the Cold War. Josef Stalin was an evil dictator, propelled by an evil Communist ideology to attempt world domination. Appeasement hadn't worked against Hitler, and appeasement wouldn't work against Stalin either. An innocent America had only reluctantly joined the Cold War to defend the Free World from otherwise inevitable totalitarian conquest.
In the 1960s, a new generation of revisionist historians-disillusioned by the Vietnam War and appalled by seemingly endemic government dishonesty-offered a startingly different interpretation. In this revisionist view, Stalin may have been a Machiavellian despot but he was an essentially conservative one; he was more interested in protecting the Soviet Union (and his own power within it) than in dominating the world. Americans erroneously interpreted Stalin's legitimate insistence upon a security buffer in Poland to indicate a desire for global conquest; Americans' subsequent aggressive efforts to contain Soviet influence, to intimidate the Soviets with the atomic bomb, and to pursue American economic interests around the globe were primarily responsible for starting the Cold War.
More recently, a school of historians led by Yale professor John Lewis Gaddis have promoted what they call a "post-revisionist synthesis," incorporating many aspects of the revisionist critique while still insisting that Stalin, as a uniquely powerful and uniquely malevolent historical actor, must bear the greatest responsibility for the Cold War.
In the end, it may be that "Who started the Cold War?" is simply the wrong question to ask. World War II destroyed all other major rivals to American and Soviet power; the US and USSR emerged from the conflict as the only two nations on earth that could hope to propagate their social and political systems on a global scale. Each commanded powerful military forces; each espoused globally expansive ideologies; each feared and distrusted the other. In the end, it may have been more shocking if the two superpowers had not become great rivals and Cold War enemies.
What was the Cold War
The Cold War is the name given to the relationship that developed primarily between the USA and the USSR after World War Two. The Cold War was to dominate international affairs for decades and many major crises occurred - the Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, Hungary and the Berlin Wall being just some. For many the growth in weapons of mass destruction was the most worrying issue.
Do note that USSR in 1945 was Russia post-1917 and included all the various countries that now exist individually (Ukraine, Georgia etc) but after the war they were part of this huge country up until the collapse of the Soviet Union (the other name for the USSR).
Logic would dictate that as the USA and the USSR fought as allies during World War Two, their relationship after the war would be firm and friendly. This never happened and any appearance that these two powers were friendly during the war is illusory.
Before the war, America had depicted the Soviet Union as almost the devil-incarnate. The Soviet Union had depicted America likewise so their 'friendship' during the war was simply the result of having a mutual enemy - Nazi Germany. In fact, one of America's leading generals, Patton, stated that he felt that the Allied army should unite with what was left of the Wehrmacht in 1945, utilise the military genius that existed within it (such as the V2's etc.) and fight the oncoming Soviet Red Army. Churchill himself was furious that Eisenhower, as supreme head of Allied command, had agreed that the Red Army should be allowed to get to Berlin first ahead of the Allied army. His anger was shared by Montgomery, Britain's senior military figure.
So the extreme distrust that existed during the war, was certainly present before the end of the war……..and this was between Allies. The Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, was also distrustful of the Americans after Truman only told him of a new terrifying weapon that he was going to use against the Japanese. The first Stalin knew of what this weapon could do was when reports on Hiroshima got back to Moscow.
So this was the scene after the war ended in 1945. Both sides distrusted the other. One had a vast army in the field (the Soviet Union with its Red Army supremely lead by Zhukov) while the other, the Americans had the most powerful weapon in the world, the A-bomb and the Soviets had no way on knowing how many America had.
So what exactly was the Cold War?
In diplomatic terms there are three types of war.
In diplomatic terms there are three types of war.
Hot War : this is actual warfare. All talks have failed and the armies are fighting.
Warm War : this is where talks are still going on and there would always be a chance of a peaceful outcome but armies, navies etc. are being fully mobilised and war plans are being put into operation ready for the command to fight.
Cold War : this term is used to describe the relationship between America and the Soviet Union 1945 to 1980. Neither side ever fought the other - the consequences would be too appalling - but they did 'fight' for their beliefs using client states who fought for their beliefs on their behalf e.g. South Vietnam was anticommunist and was supplied by America during the war while North Vietnam was pro-Communist and fought the south (and the Americans) using weapons from communist Russia or communist China. In Afghanistan, the Americans supplied the rebel Afghans after the Soviet Union invaded in 1979 while they never physically involved themselves thus avoiding a direct clash with the Soviet Union.
The one time this process nearly broke down was the Cuban Missile Crisis.
So why were these two super powers so distrustful of the other?
Soviet Union
Free elections
No elections or fixed
Autocratic / Dictatorship
'Survival of the fittest'
Everybody helps everybody
Richest world power
Poor economic base
Personal freedom
Society controlled by the NKVD (secret police)
Freedom of the media
Total censorship
This lack of mutually understanding an alien culture, would lead the world down a very dangerous path - it led to the development of weapons of awesome destructive capability and the creation of some intriguing policies such as MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.
Cold War chronology
1945 : 'A'-Bomb dropped on Hiroshima + Nagasaki. USA ahead in the arms race.
1947 : Marshall Aid to the west of Europe. Stalin of USSR refused it for Eastern Europe.
1948 : start of the Berlin Blockade - ended in 1949
1949 : NATO established; USSR exploded her first 'A'-bomb; China becomes communist
1950 : Korean War started.
1952 : USA exploded her first hyrogen bomb.
1953 : Korean War ended. USSR exploded her first hydrogen bomb. Stalin died.
1955 : Warsaw Pact created. 'Peaceful coexistence' called for.
1956 : Hungary revolts against USSR. Suez Crisis.
1957 : Sputnik launched.
1959 : Cuba becomes a communist state.
1961 : Military aid sent to Vietnam by USA for the first time. Berlin Wall built.
1962 : Cuban Missile Crisis.
1963 : Huge increase of American aid to Vietnam.
1965 : USA openly involved in Vietnam.
1967 : Six-Day War in Middle East.
1968 : USSR invades Czechoslovakia.
1973 : Yom Kippur War.
1979 : USSR invaded Afghanistan.
1986 : Meeting in Iceland between USSR (Gorbachev) and USA (Reagan).
1987 : INF Treaty signed.
The Iron Curtain
On March 5th 1946, Winston Churchill made his 'iron curtain' speech at Fulton, Missouri, USA. The speech was officially entitled "The Sinews of Peace" but became better known as the "Iron Curtain" speech. It set the tone for the early years of the Cold War. Some saw it as unnecessary warmongering while others believed it was another example of how well Churchill was able to grasp an international situation.
"I am glad to come to Westminster College this afternoon, and am complimented that you should give me a degree. The name "Westminster" is somehow familiar to me. I seem to have heard of it before. Indeed, it was at Westminster that I received a very large part of my education in politics, dialectic, rhetoric, and one or two other things. In fact we have both been educated at the same, or similar, or, at any rate, kindred establishments.
It is also an honour, perhaps almost unique, for a private visitor to be introduced to an academic audience by the President of the United States. Amid his heavy burdens, duties, and responsibilities - unsought but not recoiled from - the President has travelled a thousand miles to dignify and magnify our meeting here to-day and to give me an opportunity of addressing this kindred nation, as well as my own countrymen across the ocean, and perhaps some other countries too. The President has told you that it is his wish, as I am sure it is yours, that I should have full liberty to give my true and faithful counsel in these anxious and baffling times. I shall certainly avail myself of this freedom, and feel the more right to do so because any private ambitions I may have cherished in my younger days have been satisfied beyond my wildest dreams. Let me, however, make it clear that I have no official mission or status of any kind, and that I speak only for myself. There is nothing here but what you see.
I can therefore allow my mind, with the experience of a lifetime, to play over the problems which beset us on the morrow of our absolute victory in arms, and to try to make sure with what strength I have that what has been gained with so much sacrifice and suffering shall be preserved for the future glory and safety of mankind.
The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American Democracy. For with primacy in power is also joined an awe-inspiring accountability to the future. If you look around you, you must feel not only the sense of duty done but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall below the level of achievement. Opportunity is here now, clear and shining for both our countries. To reject it or ignore it or fritter it away will bring upon us all the long reproaches of the after-time. It is necessary that constancy of mind, persistency of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision shall guide and rule the conduct of the English-speaking peoples in peace as they did in war. We must, and I believe we shall, prove ourselves equal to this severe requirement.
When American military men approach some serious situation they are wont to write at the head of their directive the words "over-all strategic concept." There is wisdom in this, as it leads to clarity of thought. What then is the over-all strategic concept which we should inscribe today? It is nothing less than the safety and welfare, the freedom and progress, of all the homes and families of all the men and women in all the lands. And here I speak particularly of the myriad cottage or apartment homes where the wage-earner strives amid the accidents and difficulties of life to guard his wife and children from privation and bring the family up in the fear of the Lord, or upon ethical conceptions which often play their potent part.
To give security to these countless homes, they must be shielded from the two giant marauders, war and tyranny. We all know the frightful disturbances in which the ordinary family is plunged when the curse of war swoops down upon the bread-winner and those for whom he works and contrives. The awful ruin of Europe, with all its vanished glories, and of large parts of Asia glares us in the eyes. When the designs of wicked men or the aggressive urge of mighty States dissolve over large areas the frame of civilised society, humble folk are confronted with difficulties with which they cannot cope. For them all is distorted, all is broken, even ground to pulp.
When I stand here this quiet afternoon I shudder to visualise what is actually happening to millions now and what is going to happen in this period when famine stalks the earth. None can compute what has been called "the unestimated sum of human pain." Our supreme task and duty is to guard the homes of the common people from the horrors and miseries of another war. We are all agreed on that.
Our American military colleagues, after having proclaimed their "over-all strategic concept" and computed available resources, always proceed to the next step - namely, the method. Here again there is widespread agreement. A world organisation has already been erected for the prime purpose of preventing war, UNO, the successor of the League of Nations, with the decisive addition of the United States and all that that means, is already at work. We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon the rock. Anyone can see with his eyes open that our path will be difficult and also long, but if we persevere together as we did in the two world wars - though not, alas, in the interval between them - I cannot doubt that we shall achieve our common purpose in the end.
I have, however, a definite and practical proposal to make for action. Courts and magistrates may be set up but they cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations Organisation must immediately begin to be equipped with an international armed force. In such a matter we can only go step by step, but we must begin now. I propose that each of the Powers and States should be invited to delegate a certain number of air squadrons to the service of the world organisation. These squadrons would be trained and prepared in their own countries, but would move around in rotation from one country to another. They would wear the uniform of their own countries but with different badges. They would not be required to act against their own nation, but in other respects they would be directed by the world organisation. This might be started on a modest scale and would grow as confidence grew. I wished to see this done after the first world war, and I devoutly trust it may be done forthwith.
It would nevertheless be wrong and imprudent to entrust the secret knowledge or experience of the atomic bomb, which the United States, Great Britain, and Canada now share, to the world organisation, while it is still in its infancy. It would be criminal madness to cast it adrift in this still agitated and un-united world. No one in any country has slept less well in their beds because this knowledge and the method and the raw materials to apply it, are at present largely retained in American hands. I do not believe we should all have slept so soundly had the positions been reversed and if some Communist or neo-Fascist State monopolised for the time being these dread agencies. The fear of them alone might easily have been used to enforce totalitarian systems upon the free democratic world, with consequences appalling to human imagination. God has willed that this shall not be and we have at least a breathing space to set our house in order before this peril has to be encountered: and even then, if no effort is spared, we should still possess so formidable a superiority as to impose effective deterrents upon its employment, or threat of employment, by others. Ultimately, when the essential brotherhood of man is truly embodied and expressed in a world organisation with all the necessary practical safeguards to make it effective, these powers would naturally be confided to that world organisation.
Now I come to the second danger of these two marauders which threatens the cottage, the home, and the ordinary people - namely, tyranny. We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful. In these States control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing police governments. The power of the State is exercised without restraint, either by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police. It is not our duty at this time when difficulties are so numerous to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries which we have not conquered in war. But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.
All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practise - let us practise what we preach.
I have now stated the two great dangers which menace the homes of the people: War and Tyranny. I have not yet spoken of poverty and privation which are in many cases the prevailing anxiety. But if the dangers of war and tyranny are removed, there is no doubt that science and co-operation can bring in the next few years to the world, certainly in the next few decades newly taught in the sharpening school of war, an expansion of material well-being beyond anything that has yet occurred in human experience. Now, at this sad and breathless moment, we are plunged in the hunger and distress which are the aftermath of our stupendous struggle; but this will pass and may pass quickly, and there is no reason except human folly of sub-human crime which should deny to all the nations the inauguration and enjoyment of an age of plenty. I have often used words which I learned fifty years ago from a great Irish-American orator, a friend of mine, Mr. Bourke Cockran. "There is enough for all. The earth is a generous mother; she will provide in plentiful abundance food for all her children if they will but cultivate her soil in justice and in peace." So far I feel that we are in full agreement.
Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. This is no time for generalities, and I will venture to be precise. Fraternal association requires not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relationship between our military advisers, leading to common study of potential dangers, the similarity of weapons and manuals of instructions, and to the interchange of officers and cadets at technical colleges. It should carry with it the continuance of the present facilities for mutual security by the joint use of all Naval and Air Force bases in the possession of either country all over the world. This would perhaps double the mobility of the American Navy and Air Force. It would greatly expand that of the British Empire Forces and it might well lead, if and as the world calms down, to important financial savings. Already we use together a large number of islands; more may well be entrusted to our joint care in the near future.
The United States has already a Permanent Defence Agreement with the Dominion of Canada, which is so devotedly attached to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This Agreement is more effective than many of those which have often been made under formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all British Commonwealths with full reciprocity. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come - I feel eventually there will come - the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.
There is however an important question we must ask ourselves. Would a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth be inconsistent with our over-riding loyalties to the World Organisation? I reply that, on the contrary, it is probably the only means by which that organisation will achieve its full stature and strength. There are already the special United States relations with Canada which I have just mentioned, and there are the special relations between the United States and the South American Republics. We British have our twenty years Treaty of Collaboration and Mutual Assistance with Soviet Russia. I agree with Mr. Bevin, the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, that it might well be a fifty years Treaty so far as we are concerned. We aim at nothing but mutual assistance and collaboration. The British have an alliance with Portugal unbroken since 1384, and which produced fruitful results at critical moments in the late war. None of these clash with the general interest of a world agreement, or a world organisation; on the contrary they help it. "In my father's house are many mansions." Special associations between members of the United Nations which have no aggressive point against any other country, which harbour no design incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, far from being harmful, are beneficial and, as I believe, indispensable.
I spoke earlier of the Temple of Peace. Workmen from all countries must build that temple. If two of the workmen know each other particularly well and are old friends, if their families are inter-mingled, and if they have "faith in each other's purpose, hope in each other's future and charity towards each other's shortcomings" - to quote some good words I read here the other day - why cannot they work together at the common task as friends and partners? Why cannot they share their tools and thus increase each other's working powers? Indeed they must do so or else the temple may not be built, or, being built, it may collapse, and we shall all be proved again unteachable and have to go and try to learn again for a third time in a school of war, incomparably more rigorous than that from which we have just been released. The dark ages may return, the Stone Age may return on the gleaming wings of science, and what might now shower immeasurable material blessings upon mankind, may even bring about its total destruction. Beware, I say; time may be short. Do not let us take the course of allowing events to drift along until it is too late. If there is to be a fraternal association of the kind I have described, with all the extra strength and security which both our countries can derive from it, let us make sure that that great fact is known to the world, and that it plays its part in steadying and stabilising the foundations of peace. There is the path of wisdom. Prevention is better than cure.
A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organisation intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytising tendencies. I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin. There is deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain - and I doubt not here also - towards the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing lasting friendships. We understand the Russian need to be secure on her western frontiers by the removal of all possibility of German aggression. We welcome Russia to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world. We welcome her flag upon the seas. Above all, we welcome constant, frequent and growing contacts between the Russian people and our own people on both sides of the Atlantic. It is my duty however, for I am sure you would wish me to state the facts as I see them to you, to place before you certain facts about the present position in Europe.
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow. Athens alone - Greece with its immortal glories - is free to decide its future at an election under British, American and French observation. The Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed-of are now taking place. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy.
Turkey and Persia are both profoundly alarmed and disturbed at the claims which are being made upon them and at the pressure being exerted by the Moscow Government. An attempt is being made by the Russians in Berlin to build up a quasi-Communist party in their zone of Occupied Germany by showing special favours to groups of left-wing German leaders. At the end of the fighting last June, the American and British Armies withdrew westwards, in accordance with an earlier agreement, to a depth at some points of 150 miles upon a front of nearly four hundred miles, in order to allow our Russian allies to occupy this vast expanse of territory which the Western Democracies had conquered.
If now the Soviet Government tries, by separate action, to build up a pro-Communist Germany in their areas, this will cause new serious difficulties in the British and American zones, and will give the defeated Germans the power of putting themselves up to auction between the Soviets and the Western Democracies. Whatever conclusions may be drawn from these facts - and facts they are - this is certainly not the Liberated Europe we fought to build up. Nor is it one which contains the essentials of permanent peace.
The safety of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast. It is from the quarrels of the strong parent races in Europe that the world wars we have witnessed, or which occurred in former times, have sprung. Twice in our own lifetime we have seen the United States, against their wishes and their traditions, against arguments, the force of which it is impossible not to comprehend, drawn by irresistible forces, into these wars in time to secure the victory of the good cause, but only after frightful slaughter and devastation had occurred. Twice the United States has had to send several millions of its young men across the Atlantic to find the war; but now war can find any nation, wherever it may dwell between dusk and dawn. Surely we should work with conscious purpose for a grand pacification of Europe, within the structure of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. That I feel is an open cause of policy of very great importance.
In front of the iron curtain which lies across Europe are other causes for anxiety. In Italy the Communist Party is seriously hampered by having to support the Communist-trained Marshal Tito's claims to former Italian territory at the head of the Adriatic. Nevertheless the future of Italy hangs in the balance. Again one cannot imagine a regenerated Europe without a strong France. All my public life I have worked for a strong France and I never lost faith in her destiny, even in the darkest hours. I will not lose faith now. However, in a great number of countries, far from the Russian frontiers and throughout the world, Communist fifth columns are established and work in complete unity and absolute obedience to the directions they receive from the Communist centre. Except in the British Commonwealth and in the United States where Communism is in its infancy, the Communist parties or fifth columns constitute a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilisation. These are sombre facts for anyone to have to recite on the morrow of a victory gained by so much splendid comradeship in arms and in the cause of freedom and democracy; but we should be most unwise not to face them squarely while time remains.
The outlook is also anxious in the Far East and especially in Manchuria. The Agreement which was made at Yalta, to which I was a party, was extremely favourable to Soviet Russia, but it was made at a time when no one could say that the German war might not extend all through the summer and autumn of 1945 and when the Japanese war was expected to last for a further 18 months from the end of the German war. In this country you are all so well-informed about the Far East, and such devoted friends of China, that I do not need to expatiate on the situation there.
I have felt bound to portray the shadow which, alike in the west and in the east, falls upon the world. I was a high minister at the time of the Versailles Treaty and a close friend of Mr. Lloyd-George, who was the head of the British delegation at Versailles. I did not myself agree with many things that were done, but I have a very strong impression in my mind of that situation, and I find it painful to contrast it with that which prevails now. In those days there were high hopes and unbounded confidence that the wars were over, and that the League of Nations would become all-powerful. I do not see or feel that same confidence or even the same hopes in the haggard world at the present time.
On the other hand I repulse the idea that a new war is inevitable; still more that it is imminent. It is because I am sure that our fortunes are still in our own hands and that we hold the power to save the future, that I feel the duty to speak out now that I have the occasion and the opportunity to do so. I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here to-day while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; nor will they be removed by a policy of appeasement. What is needed is a settlement, and the longer this is delayed, the more difficult it will be and the greater our dangers will become.
From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness. For that reason the old doctrine of a balance of power is unsound. We cannot afford, if we can help it, to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial of strength. If the Western Democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, their influence for furthering those principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If however they become divided or falter in their duty and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all.
Last time I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honoured to-day; but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again. This can only be achieved by reaching now, in 1946, a good understanding on all points with Russia under the general authority of the United Nations Organisation and by the maintenance of that good understanding through many peaceful years, by the world instrument, supported by the whole strength of the English-speaking world and all its connections. There is the solution which I respectfully offer to you in this Address to which I have given the title "The Sinews of Peace."
Let no man underrate the abiding power of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Because you see the 46 millions in our island harassed about their food supply, of which they only grow one half, even in war-time, or because we have difficulty in restarting our industries and export trade after six years of passionate war effort, do not suppose that we shall not come through these dark years of privation as we have come through the glorious years of agony, or that half a century from now, you will not see 70 or 80 millions of Britons spread about the world and united in defence of our traditions, our way of life, and of the world causes which you and we espouse. If the population of the English-speaking Commonwealths be added to that of the United States with all that such co-operation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe and in science and in industry, and in moral force, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure. On the contrary, there will be an overwhelming assurance of security. If we adhere faithfully to the Charter of the United Nations and walk forward in sedate and sober strength seeking no one's land or treasure, seeking to lay no arbitrary control upon the thoughts of men; if all British moral and material forces and convictions are joined with your own in fraternal association, the high-roads of the future will be clear, not only for us but for all, not only for our time, but for a century to come."
The Truman Doctrine
The Truman Doctrine was the name given to a policy announced by US President Harry Truman on March 12th, 1947. The Truman Doctrine was a very simple warning clearly made to the USSR - though the country was not mentioned by name - that the USA would intervene to support any nation that was being threatened by a takeover by an armed minority.
The Truman Doctrine has to be assessed against the background of what had happened in Europe at the end of World War Two and in the immediate aftermath.
During the war conferences, Stalin had made it clear (as far as Roosevelt and Churchill were concerned) that he would allow free elections in the east European countries previously occupied by Nazi forces and that had been liberated by the Red Army in its drive to Berlin. To Roosevelt, his successor Truman and Churchill this seeming promise meant that anyone could stand for election, anyone over a certain age could freely vote and that voting would be done in secret - effectively a carbon copy of what the west took for granted when it came to elections. Stalin clearly had other ideas. He wanted to put what Churchill was to call an "Iron Curtain" around the USSR and that meant each eastern European country that was near to the Soviet border had to have a loyal communist government in power with leaders who would do what Stalin wished. Therefore, elections were never going to be fair. Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania all ended up with communist governments and had leaders who looked to Moscow for advice as opposed to the people of the country they governed. The only oddity for Stalin was Yugoslavia led by Tito. He was communist but Tito was not prepared to simply see the Nazis replaced by the influence of Soviet communists.
Then in 1946 communists in Greece attempted a takeover. They were in the minority in the country but received moral support from the USSR in their efforts to overthrow the monarchy and actual material support from Yugoslavia.
Greece was in a highly sensitive position militarily and Truman, while not wanting to involve America in any military action, wanted to give the Greek government as much support as he could during the Greek Civil War. The USSR's Black Sea Fleet was effectively bottled up in the Black Sea. It had to use the narrow waterway through Turkey - the Dardanelles - to get into the Mediterranean Sea. All its movements were easy to monitor - even submarines, as listening devices had been placed on the seabed that easily picked up the noise of a submarine's engines. If the USSR could get an ally physically in the Mediterranean Sea, then such a hindrance would not exist as a naval base could be built in a Soviet-friendly state.
So Truman's stated policy - the Truman Doctrine - was not just about supporting the rights of a majority against the armed might of a minority, it also had a strategic bearing to it.
Truman stated that it would be "the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures."
Congress agreed to send $400 million in military and economic aid to support the government of Greece. There was a shared view that if Greece fell to the communists, Turkey would be next and that the Soviet Union was slowly creeping towards the oil fields of the Middle East. However, there was no support to send US military forces into Greece.
The Truman Doctrine was to set the tone for US foreign policy throughout the world post-March 1947. Greece and Turkey became members of NATO - a clear message to Moscow that an attack on either would be deemed by other members of NATO to be an attack on all of them.
Europe in 1945
Europe by the summer of 1945 was very different to the Europe that had started out on war in September 1939. The Allies (USA, Britain and France) had started to fall out with Stalin's Russia during the war itself. Stalin had wanted the Allies to start a second front in 1943. This, the Allies claimed, was not possible. Stalin got it into his mind that the Allies were deliberately allowing Russia to take on the might of two-thirds of the Wehrmacht in eastern Europe. Such a military campaign, he believed, would leave the USSR so weakened once the war was over that the Allies would have major military superiority over Russia almost immediately hostilities ceased.
This distrust also came out in the meetings that were held during the war. At Casablanca, Yalta and Potsdam, the one thing that clearly united the Allies and Russia was a common enemy - Nazi Germany. Little else did unite them. In fact, Stalin was not invited to Casablanca which increased his belief that the Allies were planning things behind his back. The Casablanca meeting only concerned the western front, so there was no need to invite Stalin. However, Stalin interpreted this differently.
The three war leaders - Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin - did meet at Yalta in February 1945. They agreed on the following:
The people freed from Nazi rule in Europe should be allowed to set up their own democratic and independent governments. Germany should be divided into four zones at the end of the war. USA, USSR, GB and France would occupy one zone each. Berlin would also be divided into four sections for the Allies. Half the $20 billions that would be collected from Germany as reparations would go to Russia. The eastern part of Poland would go to Russia so that Russia could build up her defences. Land would be taken from eastern Germany and given to Poland in compensation. Russian forces would be used against Japan in the Far East. A United Nations would be set up to promote world peace.
A key issue at Yalta was how to treat those nations that had been under Nazi occupation. It became clear to the Allies, that Stalin's idea of free and democratic governments was different to theirs. In Stalin's mind a free and democratic government should be subordinate to Moscow and have pro-Russian people in power so that those nations should do as Moscow wished. There was little that the Allies could do as the huge Red Army advanced west across eastern Europe towards Berlin. By 1945, the Red Army was a well equipped and well lead army and getting very used to victory.
By May 1945, the month of Nazi Germany's surrender, the Red Army and therefore Moscow, effectively controlled the bulk of eastern Europe. Initially, the people of Roumania, Bulgaria and Hungary saw the Red Army as their liberators. But the murder of anti-Moscow politicians soon tainted their new found freedom. The death of Roosevelt lead to Harry Truman becoming American president. He was far less sympathetic to Russia than Roosevelt had been. He was also president of a country armed with a new and fearsome weapon - the atomic bomb.
After the Nazi surrender, the Allies and Russia met at Potsdam, a suburb of Berlin. They discussed what to do with the newly surrendered Germany. Half-way through the conference, Winston Churchill was replaced with the new British prime minister Clement Atlee, the leader of the Labour Party. Despite the celebrations of victory, a number of issues were not fully addressed at Potsdam. There was a failure to re-confirm the promise made at Yalta - of free and independent elections in eastern Europe. The new border between Poland and Germany was also missed out.
Stalin was also told at Potsdam about America's new weapon. However, very little information was given to him. When the atomic bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it became clear to Stalin that Russia was years behind America in terms of modern weaponry. Though the Red Army was huge, its tanks some of the most modern in the world and its air force as good as any, this new weapon made all this conventional power of less value.
By the end of 1945, the seeds of the Cold War had been well and truly sown. Both sides were no longer linked by a common enemy. One side had massive conventional forces while the other had an unknown number of atomic bombs which could be used against Moscow - as Stalin knew.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was created in 1949. NATO was seen as being a viable military deterrent against the military might of the Soviet Union. In response to NATO admitting the membership of West Germany, the Soviet Union was to gather all its client states in Eastern Europe into the Warsaw Pact in May 1955. The heart of NATO beat around the military and financial muscle of the United States. However, because the post-war Soviet threat was perceived to be against Western Europe, the headquarters of NATO was based in Brussels, Belgium.
The original members of NATO were USA, UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, France, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Greece and Turkey joined in 1952.
The principal part of NATO membership states:
"The parties of NATO agree that an armed attack against one of more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against all of them. Consequently, they agree that if such an armed attack occurs, each of them in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the party or parties being attacked, individually and in concert with other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
This agreement did not tie a member state down to a military response but a response as "deemed necessary" was expected.
In 1952 at the Lisbon Conference, member states discussed expanding NATO to 96 divisions - this was in response to the perceived threat of communism after the North Korean invasion of South Korea and the subsequent Korean War. However, in 1953, it was agreed to limit NATO to 35 divisions but with a greater reliability on nuclear weapons.
For many years, only America provided the nuclear weaponry for NATO, though both the United Kingdom and France were eventually to produce their own nuclear capability.
France, angered by what they saw as the dominance of America in NATO, effectively withdrew in 1959 and developed her own independent nuclear force. Charles de Gaulle made it clear that only the French government would determine when and if such weaponry would be used. He ordered the withdrawal of the French Mediterranean Naval Fleet from NATO command and in the same year banned all foreign nuclear weapons from French soil. In 1966 all French military forces were withdrawn from NATO's command. France remained a member of NATO but had its armed forces under the control of the French government. However, in secret talks, plans were made to put French forces back under NATO command in the event of an invasion of Western Europe by Warsaw Pact states.
In the immediate aftermath of World War Two, Western Europe relied on American support and power to defend itself against the Soviet threat. However, as Western Europe found its feet after World War Two, a more independent streak was identified that deemed America to be too dominant in NATO and West European affairs - hence the move by France to make herself an independent nuclear state. In the UK something similar occurred - though the UK was less openly critical of America's dominance of NATO - and an independent nuclear capability was developed based around the V Force (Vulcan, Victor and Valiant bombers) and the Blue Streak missile development. Both France and the UK developed an independent nuclear submarine capability as well - though the UK purchased US missiles, thus empathising America's importance to Western Europe and NATO.
To defend the heart of Europe, NATO based a huge land and air force in West Germany. This was a clear response to the Soviet Army that dominated the Warsaw Pact. In 1979, in response to a build-up of Warsaw Pact military strength, NATO agreed to deploy American Cruise and Pershing II missiles in Western Europe. In 1983-84, when the Warsaw Pact deployed SS-20 missiles in Eastern Europe, NATO responded by deploying more modern Pershing missiles. Combined with her nuclear capability, NATO could also call on a formidable conventional force.
In 1983, NATO claimed to have within Western Europe:
1,986,000 ground force troops
90 divisions
20,722 main battle tanks
2,080 anti-tank guided weapon launchers
182 submarines
385 anti-submarine submarines
314 capital ships (carriers, cruisers etc)
821 Other naval craft
4,338 fighter aircraft
6869 anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles.
With such a military capacity, NATO and Western governments were in a strong position to negotiate with Moscow an arms reduction. It was generally considered that the USSR had major financial troubles and could not compete with NATO in the modernisation of its weaponry. This dual approach - reducing weapons while at the same time maintaining a very strong military force - reaped dividends in the era of Gorbachev and Reagan and helped to end the Cold War.
The Korean War
The Korean War lasted from 1950-1953. What happened in Korea pushed the boundaries of the Cold War towards 'Warm War'. Though America and Russia did not officially clash, client states did in that Communist China fought and was armed and encouraged by Russia.
The peninsula was divided after World War Two into a Russian-backed north (The People's Democratic Republic) and the American-backed south (the Republic of Korea). Each claimed the right to the other half in an effort to unify both. The division was the result of the occupation of Korea by the communists after the end of the war with the country eventually being divided at the 38th parallel.
In June 1950, the North Koreans launched a surprise attack against the south and the capital Seoul fell in just three days.
The United Nations Security Council (which was being boycotted by Russia at this time) asked for UN states to send troops to the region under a UN flag. The huge bulk of the troops sent were American (15 nations sent troops) and command of them was given to Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
By the end of August 1950 only Pusan in the south-east corner of South Korea had not fallen to the North.
In September, MacArthur took the huge risk of launching an amphibious landing at Inchon 200 miles behind enemy lines and from here he launched an attack against the North Koreans at Pusan.
The North Koreans had no choice but to retreat as they faced being cut in two.
MacArthur chose to ignore his orders and advanced north towards the Chinese border at the Yalu River. This provoked the Chinese to launch a massive attack against the UN forces and South Korea. A Chinese army of 180,000 men supported by 100,000 reserves forced the UN troops to retreat and Seoul fell once again in January 1951 and the Chinese forces were halted only 60 miles from the 38th Parallel. Between January 1951 and June 1951 a stalemate took place though the UN forces managed to stabilise themselves near the 38th Parallel.
The war became one of static warfare as both sides entrenched their positions. Peace talks started at Panmunjom and lasted for 2 years. Two occurrences helped to move the peace talks - the death of Stalin in 1953 and the replacement of Truman with Eisenhower as US president
An armistice was signed in 1953.
Casualties from the war were very high : USA - 142,000 killed
Other UN states - 17,000 killed
Between 3.5 and 4 million civilians were killed.
Once again a political belief had been fought for - the halting of communist expansion in south-east Asia - but the superpowers had avoided any direct conflict -a classic occurrence in the Cold War.
Casualties : dead and wounded : 1.3 million South Korean military;
520,000 North Korean military;
Over 3 million civilian casualties. Much industry destroyed, agriculture ruined, millions of refugees
Gained respect by taking prompt and direct action. Used combined force to stop aggression. Achieved joint action by members.
17,000 casualties; conduct of war almost entirely by USA and UN could have been seen as a USA puppet.
Saved South Korea from communism. Containment policy seen to work against Asian communism
142,000 casualties. Defence spending went up from 12 to 60 billion dollars and failed to liberate North Korea.
Achieved closer friendship with China. Conflict between China and USA was to Russia's advantage.
Forced into an expensive arms race with America.
Gained the respect of Asian communism. Saved North Korea from America. Kept a crucial buffer state on the eastern frontier. Achieved closer friendship with Russia
900,000 casualties.
Cost of the war was immense for a poor country. Failed to win South Korea for communism. Increased American protection for Taiwan (Formosa). Isolated by America in trade and politics.
The Warsaw Pact
The Warsaw Pact was the Soviet Union's response to West Germany joining NATO and came into being in May 1955. The Warsaw Pact, named after the meeting to create it was held in Warsaw, was based throughout the Soviet Bloc and troops in it were used in the ending of the 1968 Czech Revolt.
The Warsaw Pact, officially the 'Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance', was obviously very much dominated by the Soviet Union. Soviet made tanks, aircraft and guns were used throughout the Warsaw Pact and the military command was dominated by decisions made in Moscow.
Like NATO, the Warsaw Pact had a political Consultative Committee with a civilian Secretary-General. It also, like NATO, had a commander-in-chief who was the most senior military figure in it. Each member of the Warsaw Pact had to pledge to defend other members if they were attacked.
Whereas the military in NATO was primarily made up of professionals (except for the years when member nations had conscription), the Warsaw Pact very much depended on conscription, whereby young men and women had to serve in their respective country's military. This reliance on enforcement almost certainly undermined the professional capability of the Warsaw Pact - though its overall military capability was never challenged by NATO as neither side ever fought the other. In the west, the Warsaw Pact was demonised as a massive military monster waiting its chance to attack Western Europe. While this served a useful propaganda purpose, figures acquired by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) tend to undermine this as the Warsaw Pact had fewer of everything when compared to NATO except fighter aircraft and battle tanks.
IISS claimed that in 1983, the Warsaw Pact had:
1,714,000 ground forces
85 divisions
25,490 main battle tanks
1,787 anti-tank guided weapon launchers
190 submarines
183 anti-submarine submarines
206 capital ships (carriers, cruisers etc)
607 Other naval craft
8,512 fighter aircraft
6,737 anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles.
NATO, on the other hand, had in 1983:
1,986,000 ground forces
90 divisions
20,722 main battle tanks
2,080 anti-tank guided weapon launchers
182 submarines
385 anti-submarine submarines
314 capital ships (carriers, cruisers etc)
821 Other naval craft
4,338 fighter aircraft
6869 anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missiles.
One of the fears NATO had was that the Warsaw Pact probably recognised that her weaponry was more dated than NATO's and that Moscow, if required to, would fall back on the use of nuclear weapons. A 1984 report by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences estimated that if the Warsaw Pact had attacked NATO bases in West Germany in a 'limited' nuclear attack, 10 million West Germans would have been killed and another 10 million would have been injured with most medical facilities put out of operation. These figures were based on an attack involving 200 kilotons of ground burst bombs - considered a "relatively small attack". Papers released by the Polish government after the fall of the Warsaw Pact, showed that plans were in place for such an attack if a swift land based attacked failed. By the late 1980's 250 nuclear missiles were based in Poland alone.
With the collapse of the Cold War at the end of the 1980's the Warsaw Pact became both unnecessary and unwanted. It ceased to exist on July 1st 1991. Most former member states of the Warsaw Pact have now joined NATO - the one state that has
Cite This Essay
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:


text:
NC Science Museum of Natural Sciences
11 West Jones St
Raleigh, NC 27601
Science Cafe: Adventurous Math for the Playground Crowd
Thursday, July 11, 2013
7:00pm (Discussion Begins at 7pm followed by Q&A)
Nature Research Center – The Daily Planet Cafe
Mathematics education is a big source of worries — and hopes, and dreams — for parents, teachers and communities. What can you do to help students learn the advanced math that is required in so much of today's industries and technologies? What helpful insights come from cognitive science, comparative anthropology, and educational psychology? In this Café, you will learn about the Moebius Noodles Project, which seeks answers in the modern-day Terra Incognita of mathematics education: the very first years of a child's life. Join educators Maria Droujkova and Yelena McManaman for a look at playful ways parents and children can have big adventures with deep mathematical ideas.
Dr. Maria Droujkova is a curriculum developer and mathematics education researcher. Maria brings together leaders in mathematics education, developers, parents and teachers for projects and discussions of family mathematics, early algebra, individualized learning, math games and math clubs. Yelena McManaman is a blogger, education consultant and developer, focusing on young children. Yelena homeschools her son and organizes classes and events for kids. Online, Yelena helps other parents collaborate around advanced math for young children. Yelena and Maria co-authored a Creative Commons, crowdfunded book "Moebius Noodles: Adventurous Math for the Playground Crowd" that came out this Spring.
Please confirm events with the venue before attending.


text:
Here's a little detail that I've known for years – but keep forgetting until I embarrass myself by rediscovering it (usually in front of a client). I'll start with a demonstration of a useful little feature of mandatory columns:
drop table t1 purge; create table t1 as select * from all_objects where rownum <= 10000 ; execute dbms_stats.gather_table_stats(user,'t1') create index t1_i1 on t1(object_name); set autotrace traceonly explain select count(*) from t1; /* -------------------------------------------------------------------- | Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Cost (%CPU)| Time -------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 13 (0)| 00:00:0 | 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | | | 2 | INDEX FAST FULL SCAN| T1_I1 | 10000 | 13 (0)| 00:00:0 -------------------------------------------------------------------- */
Oracle can use the index on column object_name to count the number of rows in the table because the column has been declared NOT NULL, so every row in the table also has to appear in the index. Let's just demonstrate that by changing the column definition:
alter table t1 modify object_name null; select count(*) from t1; /* ------------------------------------------------------------------- | Id | Operation | Name | Rows | Cost (%CPU)| Time | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | 40 (0)| 00:00:01 | | 1 | SORT AGGREGATE | | 1 | | | | 2 | TABLE ACCESS FULL| T1 | 10000 | 40 (0)| 00:00:01 | ------------------------------------------------------------------- */
Now let's make the column mandatory again – by adding a constraint:
alter table t1 add constraint t1_ck_on_nn check(object_name is not null); select count(*) from t1;
What do you think the execution path is going to be ?
Oracle uses a full table scan – even if you supply the optimizer with an index hint.
The special NOT NULL optimisation only applies if the column is declared not null – an ordinary constraint isn't just good enough.
You may remember a short note I wrote a few days ago about adding a not null constraint to a table with 200 million rows without causing the system to stop for a few minutes. I did it with the intent of giving the optimizer a few extra options for exection plans – but now I need to go back and see whether or not the constraint has any effect at all on any of the plans we generate.
Update 6th Sept 2010
Some of the early comments have highlighted the importance of being very careful with language when describing a problem. In this case I haven't made the distinction between an "ordinary constraint" and a "not null declaration" clear enough. To ensure that a column does not allow nulls you can add a check constraint, or you can declare it "not null" – which, in effect, is a special type of constraint. When you declare a column to be not null Oracle will create a check constraint for that column, but also set the null$ column in sys.col$ to be non-zero.
A quick cut and paste job to show the differences (in 11.1)
SQL> alter table t1 modify n1 not null; Table altered. SQL> desc t1 Name Null? Type ----------------------- -------- ---------------- N1 NOT NULL NUMBER N2 NUMBER V1 VARCHAR2(180) SQL> alter table t1 modify n1 null; Table altered. SQL> alter table t1 add constraint t1_ck_n1_nn check(n1 is not null); Table altered. SQL> desc t1 Name Null? Type ----------------------- -------- ---------------- N1 NUMBER N2 NUMBER V1 VARCHAR2(180) SQL> alter table t1 drop constraint t1_ck_n1_nn; Table altered. SQL> alter table t1 modify n1 not null enable novalidate; Table altered. SQL> desc t1 Name Null? Type ----------------------- -------- ---------------- N1 NUMBER N2 NUMBER V1 VARCHAR2(180) SQL
I haven't queried user_constraints to show it but in all these cases there will be a check constraint with the search_condition: "N1" IS NOT NULL. As you can see, though, the only time that the describe command shows the column as NOT NULL (and col$.null$ becomes non-zero) is when you use the not null declaration with the implicit attributes of enable, validate.
It's only this declaration/setting of null$ that allows the optimizer to do its special optimisation. You might have thought that the optimizer could be programmed to read the constraint information to look for a "check column is not null" constraint to do the same trick but (at present) it simply doesn't work that way.


text:
Here's a little something we came across this morning on US Airways, good for travel on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, through May 20th. Fares include:
- Atlanta to Syracuse $118 round-trip
- Hartford to Chattanooga $126 round-trip
- Burlington VT to Fayetteville $118 round-trip
- Buffalo to Newport News $128 round-trip
- Chattanooga to Ft Lauderdale $128 round-trip
- Charleston SC to Columbus OH $118 round-trip
- Dayton to Long Island $118 round-trip
- Newark to Greensboro SC $118 round-trip
- Greensboro to Chicago $118 round-trip
- New York to Newport News $98 round-trip
- Manchester to Sarasota $126 round-trip
- West Palm Beach to Syracuse $120 round-trip
- Providence to Sarasota $98 round-trip
- Raleigh/Durham to Syracuse $118 round-trip
- Richmond to Ft Myers $118 round-trip
All purchases require a 10-day advance purchase and no minimum stay. East coast folks should check their city page for more fares from this sale, which - by the way - probably won't stick around for long, so get a move on!
More from Airfarewatchdog:


text:
All items > Knives > Folding Knives > Spyderco (Folding) > Spyderco Efficient
- Overall Length:7.04"
- Blade Length:3.00"
- Blade Thickness:0.12"
- Blade Material:8Cr13MoV
- Blade Style:Drop Point
- Blade Grind:Flat
- Finish:Satin
- Edge Type:Plain
- Handle Length:4.04"
- Handle Thickness:0.46"
- Handle Material:G-10
- Color:Black
- Frame/Liner:Stainless Steel
- Weight:4.10 oz.
- User:Right Hand
- Pocket Clip:Tip-Up
- Knife Type:Manual
- Opener:Thumb Hole
- Lock Type:Liner Lock
- Brand:Spyderco
- Model:Efficient
- Model Number:C216GP
- Country of Origin:China
- Best Use:Everyday Carry
- Product Type:Knife
The Efficient is a great addition to Spyderco's Value Folder family of affordably priced knives. It features a compact, ergonomic design centered around a full-flat ground drop point blade made from 8Cr13MoV stainless steel. Textured black G-10 scales offer a secure grip during everyday use. Includes a reversible hourglass clip configured for tip-up carry.
Customers Also Bought
Customer ReviewsWrite a review for this item
Sean Z.
Lockup is great 100% good ergos centered great I really like this knife 4 stars because mine had some slight scratches near the spydy hole
Affordable Spyderco
Jake Y.
Good price, good steel, and really comfortable! I was really impressed with the fit and finish. The lockup is close to 100% without having to wrist flick it! Very smooth and sturdy build.
3 outta 5
Brock L.
WARNING,,, whenever closing the blade it rests on the back spacer which folded my edge so be careful when closing the knife


text:
Do you dread going to or hosting meetings?
Do your employees prefer to suffer from untimely, terrible illnesses rather than come to one of your meetings?
Meetings that are scheduled and strategized poorly hurt company productivity in a big way. A few simple changes can transform your meetings from negative to positive experiences.
Jason Fried gave an inspiring TEDx talk about how managers and meetings can actually hurt productivity more than they help. In it, he mentions how workplaces should be places where people can accomplish big things, not the place where employees need to escape to get things done.
Here are some easy ways to make your meetings better, faster, and stronger than ever before.
1. Be considerate of employees' workflows.
When selecting a time for a meeting, consider what each person would be doing at that time.
A meeting disrupts whatever each person was doing prior to the meeting. Depending on their work, interrupting that flow can force them all the way back to the beginning of the process.
Don't schedule a meeting directly in the middle of productive time. If employees arrive at 8:00 and most take lunch at noon, a 10:00 meeting ensures no one can be productive for more than two hours at a time, and that's assuming there are no other distractions.
Know your team's work patterns, and schedule necessary meetings that allow employees as much uninterrupted work time as possible. Also try incorporating meeting-free days to allow maximum employee focus.
2. Decide whose attendance is absolutely necessary
Unnecessary attendees kill productivity and morale.
An unnecessary attendee can't get work done while in the meeting, and the lack of productivity extends to the time he or she spends frustrated about wasting time in said meeting.
Only invite the people who will take action with the meeting's content. Information can be disseminated in other ways that are less time-consuming.
3. Stop giving presentations and calling them meetings
LinkedIn has stopped giving presentations during meetings and found that meeting length has drastically reduced.
Give attendees the meat of the meeting's content prior to the starting time and utilize the time together to actually talk about it, which should be noticeably shorter in length.
It's a much better use of everyone's time to analyze and apply information instead of presenting information that could be consumed individually.
4. Stop using paper handouts
It wastes trees! But more importantly, people tune out as soon as they're presented with pages of text.
They will either stop listening in order to read or refuse to read because they're listening. Even worse, they may refuse to read or listen. Go paperless and make the necessary content digital and interactive.
Use a tool like Meetings powered by Spruce to create a private app for the meeting and load it up with resources like spreadsheets, photo galleries and videos. Distribute it before the meeting to let people get familiar with the content. Attendees bring their iPhones or iPads instead of a big packet.
5. Find alternatives to meetings
Often what needs to be accomplished in a meeting can be achieved through brief, casual conversations in email or instant message.
Emails and instant messages allow employees to reply in their own time instead of being forced into a conversation right now. Instant messages can resolve quick questions and issues without waiting for them to pile up for a meeting.
Just be sure to remain professional, even via instant messaging.
Here's to more productive workplaces and time wellspent!
About Meetings powered by Spruce
Meetings is designed to make managing and editing digital marketing material easy for teams, clients or board meetings
Using any browser, you can upload videos, images, and PDFs to customize a meeting presentation.
With our native iPhone and iPad apps you can privately send the presentations straight to your mobile devices. You can create multiple meeting presentations and share them with anyone through private passcodes.


text:
Halftone 3
Created by: Env1ro
Description: Here is the third set of half tone brushes created by Env1ro at DeviantArt.com. This is a super useful set of Photoshop brushes. I just added them to my personal collection.
Photoshop version: Photoshop PS7 and above
Number brushes in set: 11
License: Refer to Env1ro's site on DeviantArt.com.
Brush sizes: 2500 x 2500 pixels
Both comments and pings are currently closed because Spammers have ruined it for everyone.
Comments are closed.


text:
Product details
With the new Org 14 Cart Bag, you will get the ultimate in organisation from a trolley bag. This is all wrapped up on a minimally branded lightweight design 5.6 lbs. With 14 full length dividers (including an oversized putter well), you can be assured that your clubs will remain organised and safe throughout your game. Numerous pockets makes storage exceptionally easy, this includes magnetic rangefinder and valuables pockets, 2 insulated beverage pockets, custom logo ball pocket, and an individual phone sleeve. The bag also comes with a tee holder, mesh netting and easy grab handles for easier manoeuvrability.
The Org 14 Cart Bag Features:
- Numerous Storage Pockets
- 14-Way Full Length Dividers
- Strap Pass-through Channel
- Weight: 5.6 lbs
You may also like
Delivery options
Home Delivery
Order now and have it delivered to your door
- Free Delivery on all UK orders over £50
- Next Day, Saturday & Sunday Delivery Available
- Track Your Delivery in Real-Time
Store Collection
Order online and collect from a store near you
- Reserve Online and Collect In-Store in 2 hours
- No Need to Wait in for Delivery
- Buy Now and Deliver to Store for Collection in 2 Days


text:
I loved her suddenly. Like I could have held her in my arms. I felt just so unbalanced and I wanted to slam the door or have us all sit down on the floor, like when children camp out underneath the dining table. Fleeing to London from America after the collapse of her family, Tanya buys a house, builds a business and finally begins to conquer her addiction to sex. Then the gorgeous, chaotic and vulnerable Eleanor enters her life. Perhaps all El needs from Tanya is a safe haven, but in Sandra Newman's rollercoaster world, nowhere is safe, least of all home...I stopped on the way to have a cappuccino standing up, near Smithfielda#39;s in a swanky cobbled micro-street. It kind of rained, making craters in the cappuccino foam. You felt ... I could do what I liked, you didna#39;t have to make good decisions.
|Sandra Newman
|Random House - 2010-12-07
You must register with us as either a Registered User before you can Download this Book. You'll be greeted by a simple sign-up page.
Once you have finished the sign-up process, you will be redirected to your download Book page.How it works:


text: The 11th presentation of the Big Sur Half Marathon on Monterey Bay to be held November 18, 2013! Please join us for a run or walk along the "Edge of the Western World." Come for the run and then take some time to enjoy the many pleasures of the world-renowned Monterey Peninsula.