from Man in America: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Check the label! READ MORE...

Congress of Vienna, by Jean-Baptiste Isabey, 1815. Source: French Ministry of Culture; with Europe in 1815, by Alexander Altenhof. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Between the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars upset the European social and political order, establishing a French hegemony in Europe. After the French emperor’s first abdication in 1814, his main adversaries—Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain—called for a general assembly to set a new and stable order in Europe. Known as the Congress of Vienna, the meeting had a lasting effect on the history of the continent.   The Napoleonic Wars & the Origins of the Congress of Vienna Napoleon Crossing the Alps by Jacques-Louis David, c. 1801. Source: Belvedere Museum, Vienna   After rising to power with a coup d’état in November 1799, Napoleon Bonaparte launched a series of military campaigns against the European powers. Starting with the defeat of Austria in 1800-1801, the conflicts, known as the Napoleonic Wars, upset the geopolitical balance of Europe, establishing a French hegemony on the continent. Indeed, in the early 19th century, Napoleon I’s strategic abilities led him to win significant victories against Austria, Prussia, and Russia. As a result, most of Europe, with the exception of Great Britain, fell under French control.   Besides the military aspect, the Napoleonic Wars also had a lasting political and cultural effect, spreading the ideas of the French Revolution throughout the continent. As the French emperor introduced his new civil code, educational system, and administration in the conquered countries, the traditional elites began to lose prominence. The erosion of the existing social hierarchies led to the rise of the middle class, whose members started to hold leading government and administrative roles.   French Campaign by Ernest Meissonier, 1814. Source: Birmingham City School of Social Sciences   By 1812, Napoleon had annexed part of western Germany and the Low Countries. He created a series of satellite states in Italy, Poland, Spain, and the rest of Germany. After cementing his hold on the continent with a combination of conquests and alliances, Napoleon I launched an attack against Russia in June 1812. Despite his initial optimism, the campaign did not result in a quick victory. After a slow advance into Russian territory, Napoleon’s troops entered Moscow in September 1812. The Russians, however, refused to negotiate a surrender. Thus, fearing the harsh winter, the French emperor ordered a retreat.   The following year, Austria, Prussia, Great Britain, and Russia formed the so-called Quadruple Alliance to oppose the French hegemony in Europe. In October 1813, at the Battle of Leipzig, a town in Saxony, the allied troops defeated Napoleon, forcing him to retreat behind the Rhine River. On March 31, 1814, the allied armies entered Paris, ending the long period of almost uninterrupted conflict.   The Paris Peace & The Beginning of the Congress of Vienna Entry of Emperor Franz II (I) into Vienna on 16 June 1814 after the Peace of Paris by Johann Peter Krafft. Source: The European Museums Network   The defeat of Leipzig marked the end of the Napoleonic empire. At the beginning of April 1814, the French senate deposed Napoleon and restored the Bourbon rule, asking Louis XVIII, a brother of Louis XVI, to establish a constitutional monarchy. On April 20, the former emperor left France for exile to Elba, an island in the Tyrrhenian Sea.   The following month, each European power that had contributed to the defeat of Napoleon signed a peace treaty with France. The documents, almost identical in their key points, allowed the French to maintain the borders established in 1792 and did not include any demand for an indemnity for the cost of the wars. Article 32 of each treaty stated that the allies would convene in Vienna to “complete the provisions” of the Peace of Paris.   The idea to organize a summit of the principal allies against Napoleon predated the settlements signed in May 1814. Indeed, even before the defeat of the French emperor, the members of the anti-Napoleonic coalition became aware of the need to establish a new geopolitical order in the continent to prevent future hegemonic exploits. As the Napoleonic Wars had drastically altered the previous borders between the European states, the allies also faced the hazardous task of drafting a new map of the continent. In particular, the victorious powers would have to agree on the future configuration of the Italian peninsula, the Polish territories, and the German states.   A Settlement Between Great Powers Prince Klemens Wenzel Lothar von Metternich by Friedrich Johann Gottlieb Lieder, 1822. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York   In September 1814, the representatives of the various countries began to arrive in Vienna. As the plenipotentiaries began to conduct preliminary talks, it became apparent that the great powers (Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain) intended to direct the negotiations, reserving the task of defining the crucial territorial settlements for themselves.   “The conduct of business must practically rest with the leading Powers,” remarked Viscount Castlereagh, the Prime Minister of Great Britain.   The allies’ plan to determine the outcome of the congress was opposed by Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, the French Foreign Minister, who arrived in Vienna toward the end of September. Upon meeting with the other representatives, Talleyrand refused to accept their protocol for the upcoming summit.   “The visible aim of this plan was to make the four powers … absolute masters of all the operations of the Congress,” complained the French representative to King Louis XVIII.   “Talleyrand … soundly berated us for two hours. It was a scene I shall never forget,” commented Friedrich Grentz, an Austrian conservative journalist and the advisor of Klemens von Metternich, the mastermind behind the Congress of Vienna.   Congress of Vienna by Jean-Baptiste Isabey, 1819. Source: Lebendiges Museum Online, Deutsches Historisches Museum   As the four powers and the French could not agree to a common procedure, they opted to postpone the beginning of the official proceedings until November. However, despite the lack of an agreement, the main plenipotentiaries continued the negotiations over the partition of the previously French-controlled territories.   At the end of October, as the representatives met to discuss the protocol to adopt during the congress, they once again failed to reach a consensus. Thus, the official opening of the Congress of Vienna was postponed indefinitely.   The summit “never could exist as a deliberative assembly, with a power of decision by plurality of votes,” commented Viscount Castlereagh. Indeed, the representatives of all the countries present in the Austrian capital never met in an official session. As a result, only the so-called great powers drew the post-Napoleonic map of Europe.   The Congress of Vienna as a Social Event Photomechanical print of the Hofburg Palace in Vienna. Source: Library of Congress   Besides its geopolitical aims, the Congress of Vienna was also a social event. The solemn arrival of the most influential European sovereigns and diplomats, followed by large entourages, emphasized the symbolic aspect of the event. In this sense, the meeting represented a celebration of the end of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era. Full of pomp and theatrical displays, the Congress of Vienna was “a joyous ritual cleansing.”   This exceptional gathering of more than 200 diplomats, monarchs, aristocrats, performers, and intellectuals from numerous countries created a lively social life in Vienna. The Festival Committee, headed by the Prince of Trauttmansdorf, entertained the royal guests of the Habsburg court with almost daily balls, parades, dinners, operas, and hunting parties. The most memorable shows included the reenactment of a medieval jousting tournament, the performance of Beethoven’s Seventh Symphony (conducted by the German composer himself), and numerous tableaux vivants. Among the undisputed protagonists of the social life of the Congress of Vienna were countless ladies and princesses who gathered artists, musicians, and exponents of the cultural elite in their salons.   Liberty Leading the People by Eugène Delacroix, 1830. Source: Rai Ufficio Stampa   The festivities surrounding the negotiations were not mere distractions. They also showcased the wealth and strength of the Habsburg monarchy, emphasizing its role in overthrowing Napoleon’s hegemony in Europe. In October, the Festival of Peace, held in the Prater (a large park in Vienna), celebrated the Battle of Leipzig. Klemens von Metternich organized dinner feasts for hundreds of people at the Chancellery. The most influential guests resided in the Hofburg, the Habsburg imperial palace.   While the almost endless series of balls and parties slowed the proceedings of the summit, it also gave politicians and diplomats ample opportunities to conduct informal meetings and negotiations.   Balance of Power: The Territorial Settlements Map of Europe after the Congress of Vienna. Source: University of Wisconsin   At the Congress of Vienna, the great powers shared the goal of creating a so-called balance of power in Europe that would prevent France or any other state from establishing its hegemony through continental wars. After more than twenty years of armed conflicts, for the representatives gathered in Vienna, the only way to build a stable order was to ensure, as explained by Friedrich Gentz, that “no one among [neighboring states] can injure the independence or the essential rights of another, without meeting with effectual resistance.”   In particular, Castlereagh and Klemens von Metternich were among the most vocal advocates of what the Austrian statesman called a “just equilibrium.” Indeed, the British prime minister believed a durable peace would benefit Great Britain’s economic and commercial interests. On the other hand, Metternich sought to create a buffer zone around the borders of the Austrian empire, fearing the expansionist claims of Russia and Prussia.   Despite the common goal, the often conflicting declinations of the notion of balance of power led to several moments of friction during the Congress of Vienna. In particular, the representatives of the four powers clashed over the settlement of Poland and Saxony and the configuration of the German states. Between 1814 and 1815, the matter of Poland and Saxony resulted in a standoff in the negotiations, threatening the peace between the members of the congress. Ultimately, however, they managed to reach an agreement, allowing the proceedings to continue.   Dawn of Waterloo by Elizabeth Southerden Butler née Thompson, 1895. Source: National Army Museum   The Congress of Vienna did not halt even in March 1815, when Napoleon escaped from Elba and marched on Paris. On June 18, 1815, the allied forces, led by the Duke of Wellington, inflicted on Napoleon a final defeat at Waterloo, a village near Brussels. Napoleon’s brief second reign, the so-called Hundred Days, ended with his exile to the island of St. Helena. By the time the French emperor had been defeated, the participants of the Congress of Vienna had already finished their negotiations and published the Final Act of the summit. Signed on June 9, 1815, the document included all treaties and agreements among the European powers.   By the terms of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna, Tsar Alexander I of Russia received most of the Duchy of Warsaw. Kraków became a free city. In return, the Russian monarch ceded Galicia to Austria. The remaining parts of the Polish duchy went to Prussia, whose sovereign also received two-fifths of Saxony. The German regional entities were united into a confederation of 39 states placed under the Austrian presidency. The Austrian emperor also annexed Lombardy and Venetia to his territorial possessions. The Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia returned to the House of Savoy, who also gained control of Genoa. In northern Europe, Belgium and the Dutch Republic were united in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The European states also recognized the future neutrality of Switzerland.   The Final Act of the Congress of Vienna also included an agreement on the navigation of international rivers and a joint declaration against the slave trade.   A New Era of Diplomacy The Final Act of the Congress of Vienna. Source: UNESCO   The gathering of thousands of European representatives in Vienna marked a turning point in the history of diplomatic relations. Klemens Metternich referred to the unprecedented situation as “Europe without distance.”   Indeed, the Congress of Vienna was the first international summit organized with the specific aim of securing lasting order and peace between the participants. The idea that the leaders of the most influential countries should guarantee stability and cooperation would become the basis for future peace talks and international organizations, including the League of Nations and the UN.   The impact of the Congress of Vienna on international diplomacy is further exemplified by the Regulation on the Procedure of Diplomatic Agents, a document included in the Final Act of the meeting. In the past, the lack of general rules regarding the issue of diplomatic precedence had caused several incidents, as representatives of the various states competed against each other to champion their honor and the reputations of their sovereigns.   To avoid future frictions, Article 4 of the regulation states that “Diplomatic Characters shall rank … according to the date of the official notification of their arrival.” Article 6 added that “ties of consanguinity, or family alliances between Courts, confer no rank on their diplomatic agents.”   The Concert of Europe & Restoration Era: Aftermath of the Congress of Vienna A tobacco tin commemorating the Holy Alliance. On the lid (from left to right): Kaiser Friedrich William III of Prussia, Emperor Francis II of Austria, and Tsar Alexander I of Russia. Source: Lebendiges Museum Online, Deutsches Historisches Museum   After the Battle of Waterloo, the members of the anti-Napoleonic coalition signed another series of peace treaties with France, collectively known as the Second Peace of Paris. Napoleon’s escape from Elba, however, had revealed the fragility of the geopolitical order the allies sought to establish. Thus, to protect the future stability of Europe, the great powers decided to implement the so-called Congress System, an arrangement based on periodic conferences to avoid future conflicts and upheavals. In September 1815, the Holy Alliance, a partnership proposed by the Russian tsar, cemented the allies’ resolve to safeguard the balance of power.   Over the years following the Congress of Vienna, the Congress System led to a period of cooperation and consensus among the signatories of the Final Act, commonly known as the Concert of Europe. The first meeting of the new diplomatic procedure was held in 1818 at Aix-la-Chapelle. While the great powers eventually ceased to organize regular conferences, the broader outlines of the continental order established at Vienna lasted until the outbreak of World War I.   Italian flag with the motto “God wants a free Italy.” Source: Museo del Risorgimento Lucca   The powers gathered at the Congress of Vienna based their post-Napoleonic order on the principle of legitimacy, which consisted of restoring the previous ruling monarchs to their thrones. On the one hand, the policy of restoration aimed to achieve a lasting balance of power. On the other hand, the legitimist agenda was a means to counteract the impact of the French Revolution.   “The force that cemented the union between the four cabinets [of the congress] was the fear inspired by the Revolution personified by the man of St. Helena,” later remarked Ioannis Kapodistrias, a prominent diplomat of Greek origins who joined the summit as a representative for Russia.   Among the statesmen at the Congress of Vienna, Klemens von Metternich was one of the firmest opponents of “those principles subversive to the social order upon which Buonaparte had based his usurpation.”   While the principle of legitimacy allowed the great powers to build the Concert of Europe, the defense of the status quo led to political and social upheaval, with the liberal forces demanding the recognition of civil liberties and rights. In particular, the order established at the Congress of Vienna was challenged by those populations whose nationalist sentiments were overlooked in the territorial settlements. In the second half of the 19th century, for example, the German and Italian regional states rebelled against foreign control. The subsequent creation of the German Empire and the Kingdom of Italy upset the borders set in Vienna.

  The history of the World Chess Championship can be traced to the first official match in 1886. Early matches were played at the champion’s discretion before a formalized system was introduced after the Second World War. During the 1970s, chess became a Cold War battleground, with the American Bobby Fischer briefly interrupting the Soviet grip on the world title. Following the clash of Soviet titans Anatoly Karpov and Garry Kasparov in the 1980s, the 21st century has seen the reigns of Vladimir Kramnik, Vishwanathan Anand, and Magnus Carlsen.   Early Champions Photograph of Emanuel Lasker, c. 1920-25. Source: National Library of Israel via Wikimedia Commons   During the 19th century, the term “world chess champion” was used by journalists to describe the strongest chess player in the world at the time. Among these unofficial champions were the Englishman Howard Staunton and the German Adolf Anderssen. When the American Paul Morphy defeated Anderssen 8-3 in an 1858 match, the latter hailed Morphy as the greatest chess player of all time, an assessment which continues to have its adherents to this day.   After Morphy stopped playing actively in 1862, Anderssen was again considered the world’s leading player until an 8-6 defeat to the Austrian Wilhelm Steinitz in 1866. During the 1870s, Steinitz did not play regularly, and his dominance of the chess world was in doubt. In 1886, he agreed to play a match with the British-German master Johannes Zukertort “for the Championship of the World.” Zukertort had registered a string of impressive results in the 1870s and early 1880s, but by 1886, he was past his prime and dying of cancer. While Zukertort raced to a 4-1 lead, Steinitz won nine of the next 15 games in the first-to-10 match to become the first official World Chess Champion.   After defending his title twice against Russian master Mikhail Chigorin (1850-1908), Steinitz lost his crown to German mathematician Emanuel Lasker in 1894 and was defeated in a rematch two years later. Lasker went on to have the longest reign in World Chess Championship history, often defending his title convincingly against his challengers, with the exception of a drawn match against the Austrian Carl Schlecter in 1910, when Lasker won the final game from a losing position.   Photograph of Alexander Alekhine, c. 1924. Source: Wikimedia Commons (cropped photo from Library of Congress original)   During the 1910s, negotiations for Lasker to play title matches against rising stars José Raul Capablanca and Akiba Rubenstein were underway when the First World War intervened,  and it was only in 1921 that Lasker and Capablanca played their match. After an even start, the Cuban challenger began to pick up victories, winning four of the first 14 games while remaining undefeated, prompting the champion to resign the match.   Capablanca was known for his accurate play and rarely made mistakes, but his reign as world champion would only last six years. Despite winning a strong tournament in New York in the spring of 1927, Capablanca was unexpectedly defeated by the Russian emigré Alexander Alekhine in an epic match later that year. The two men played 34 games over the course of two and a half months before Alekhine’s aggressive style secured him the six wins required to claim the title against Capablanca’s three.   Prolonged negotiations for a rematch between Alekhine and Capablanca fell through, souring the relationship between the two men. After defending his title on two occasions against his compatriot Efim Bogoljubow, Alekhine was unexpectedly defeated by Dutch mathematician and amateur chess player Max Euwe in 1935 in a match that saw Euwe win nine games to Alekhine’s eight.   FIDE Takes Over Photograph of Mikhail Botvinnik by F. N. Broers, 1963. Source: Dutch National Archives via Soviet Chess History blog   Alekhine regained the title after defeating Euwe convincingly in their 1937 rematch and was in negotiations to play the young Estonian Paul Keres when the Second World War broke out. Following the end of the war, the heavy-drinking Alekhine died in Lisbon at the age of 53 during negotiations for a title match with Soviet master Mikhail Botvinnik.   For the first and only time in World Chess Championship history, the title was vacant. To choose a new champion, the World Chess Federation or FIDE (Fédération Internationale des Échecs) organized a five-player tournament in 1948 featuring three Soviet players (Botvinnik, Keres, and Vasily Smyslov), the American Samuel Reshevsky, and former champion Max Euwe. Botvinnik won with 14 points out of 20, with Keres in a distant second with 11.5.   Following Botvinnik’s victory, FIDE held candidate tournaments every three years to determine the next challenger for the title. David Bronstein, winner of the 1950 Candidates tournament, duly challenged Botvinnik in the 1951 match. Both men won five games each, and the match was tied 12-12, allowing the incumbent to retain his title. Bronstein, a cousin of Leon Trotsky, later claimed that Soviet officials had pressured him to lose the match.   In 1956, FIDE gave Botvinnik the right to an automatic rematch in the event of losing his title, and he used this privilege to reclaim the crown after defeats to younger rivals Vasily Smyslov in 1957 and the aggressive Latvian tactician Mikhail Tal in 1959.   Cold War Rivalries Photograph of the Fischer-Spassky match, 1972. Source: Chess24   In 1963, Botvinnik was defeated by Armenian grandmaster Tigran Petrosian, who won five games to the defending champion’s two. When FIDE proceeded to change the rules to deprive Botvinnik of an automatic rematch, the latter refused to participate in the next World Championship cycle. After narrowly defending his title 12.5-11.5 against Boris Spassky in 1966, Petrosian was defeated when the two played their second title match three years later.   In 1958, US chess champion Bobby Fischer became the youngest grandmaster to date at the age of 15, and by the mid-1960s, he had established himself as the leading non-Soviet chess player and a potential world title challenger. After a mediocre performance in the 1962 Candidates Tournament, Fischer accused Soviet players of collusion to guarantee the emergence of a Soviet challenger and refused to participate in the World Championship cycle.   Despite FIDE adopting a knockout format for the Candidates in response, Fischer took a couple of extended breaks from the game and did not participate in a full World Championship cycle until 1970-71. In the quarter-finals of the 1971 Candidates, Fischer whitewashed Soviet grandmaster Mark Taimanov 6-0 before repeating the feat against Danish grandmaster Bent Larsen in the semi-finals. Fischer initially faced greater resistance in the final against former champion Petrosian before winning four games in a row to win the match 6.5-2.5.   Photograph of the Karpov-Korchnoi match in Baguio City, The Philippines, 1978. Source: Screenbound   Fischer’s triumph in the 1971 Candidates set up a showdown with Spassky in 1972 in Reykjavik, which the international press labeled “the Match of the Century” during the height of the Cold War. Fischer began poorly after blundering during the first game and forfeiting the second game due to complaints about the playing conditions. The gentlemanly Spassky agreed to play Fischer backstage for Game 3 before the match returned to the main stage for the rest of the contest.   Fischer would go on to win seven games to clinch the title 12.5-8.5, but the mercurial champion stopped playing competitive chess. After his terms for the 1975 title match were rejected by FIDE, Fischer resigned the title, and his Soviet challenger Anatoly Karpov, winner of the 1974 Candidates Tournament, became champion by default.   A master of positional chess, Karpov dominated the chess world for a decade. His greatest rival was Viktor Korchnoi, a Soviet-born grandmaster who had defected to the West in 1976 during a tournament in Amsterdam. The Cold War therefore remained a factor in the Karpov-Korchnoi rivalry, and their first World Championship match in 1978 in The Philippines saw the two men employing hypnotherapists and yoga masters to gain a psychological edge over the other.   The Great Yogurt Controversy blew up after Game 2 when Korchnoi’s team lodged an official protest claiming that Karpov’s team had sent him a coded message by giving him a blueberry yogurt in the middle of the game.   With the match tied at five wins each, Karpov defended his title by winning Game 32. Korchnoi once again emerged as the challenger in the 1981 match, a one-sided affair with Karpov winning six games to two with ten draws.   King Garry Photograph of the first Kasparov-Karpov match, November 1984, Moscow. Source: Chessbase   In 1984, 21-year-old Garry Kasparov defeated 63-year-old former World Champion Vasily Smyslov in the final of the Candidates tournament. Although Kasparov himself was from the Soviet Union, he knew he would have a tough time challenging the reigning champion, who enjoyed the support of the Soviet authorities.   Under the terms of the championship match, which began in September, the first player to six wins would be crowned champion. Karpov began well and quickly won four victories against his young challenger, but Kasparov steadied the ship with a series of draws. A victory for Karpov in Game 27 left him needing one more win to defend his title, but the momentum began to shift in Kasparov’s direction when the latter won Game 32. In February 1985, with the match having gone on for over five months, Kasparov won games 47 and 48 to reduce the deficit to 5-3. At this point, FIDE President Florencio Campomanes made a controversial intervention to terminate the match and start from scratch a few months later.   Kasparov claimed that the Soviets had instructed Campomanes not to allow Karpov to lose the title, but in a best-of-24 contest in Moscow later in the year, he won the final game to dethrone Karpov. Kasparov and Karpov would play three more world championship matches between 1986 and 1990, with the former defending his title by a slim margin on each occasion. Across their five world championship matches, Kasparov won 21 games, Karpov 19, with 104 draws.   Photograph of the Kramnik-Kasparov match, 2000, London. Source: Chessbase   In 1993, British grandmaster Nigel Short defeated Karpov and Dutch grandmaster Jan Timman to win the right to challenge Kasparov for the world title. Kasparov’s relations with FIDE had been strained for several years, and when the prize fund for the World Championship match proved much lower than expected, Kasparov and Short split from FIDE and formed the Professional Chess Association (PCA) to organize a well-sponsored match in London in September. Kasparov easily defended his title 12.5-7.5, while FIDE held its own championship match between Timman and Karpov, which was won by the latter.   Karpov won two more championship matches to retain the FIDE title until 1999 when FIDE decided to overhaul the format of the World Championship by making it an annual knockout tournament. In the meantime, Kasparov defended the PCA title after defeating Indian grandmaster Vishwanathan Anand in a match at New York’s World Trade Center in 1995.   In 2000, Kasparov held negotiations for a title match with several players, including Anand and Latvian grandmaster Alexei Shirov, before eventually agreeing to play Vladimir Kramnik in London. At a time when elite chess players were increasingly turning to computers to help them prepare opening ideas, Kramnik employed the Berlin Defense with the black pieces and was undefeated. A couple of wins with white enabled Kramnik to clinch the title in an upset after a draw in Game 15 of a best-of-16 match.   Reunification Photograph of Viswanathan Anand at the London Chess Classic, 2016. Source: Wikimedia Commons   After negotiations between Kramnik and Kasparov for a rematch fell through, Kasparov decided to retire from chess in 2004 while still ranked World No. 1. Kramnik played a 14-game World Championship match against Hungarian grandmaster Peter Leko, winning the final game to tie the match 7-7 and retain the title by virtue of being the incumbent champion.   In 2006, Kramnik played a match against FIDE World Champion Veselin Topalov of Bulgaria to unify the championship title. The Kramnik-Topalov match proved as fraught as the 1978 Karpov-Korchnoi match and was dominated by the Toiletgate scandal after Topalov’s team complained that Kramnik had been taking frequent bathroom breaks, insinuating that he was cheating. Kramnik forfeited Game 5 in protest when FIDE changed the rules governing bathroom breaks but agreed to play the rest of the match when the original rules were reinstated. After the Classical games ended in a 6-6 tie, Kramnik won the unified title on tie-breaks.   In 2007, FIDE organized an eight-player double round-robin World Championship tournament won by Anand, who had previously held the FIDE title between 2000 and 2002. Anand went on to defend his undisputed title on three occasions against Kramnik in 2008, Topalov in 2010, and Israeli grandmaster Boris Gelfand in 2012 before facing Norwegian World No. 1 Magnus Carlsen in 2013.   Magnus the Great Photograph of Magnus Carlsen at the 2021 World Chess Championship. Source: Eteri Kublashvili, ruchess.ru via Wikimedia Commons   A prodigy from a young age, Carlsen became the youngest player to be ranked World No. 1 in 2010 at the age of 19 and won the 2013 Candidates tournament from Kramnik to challenge Anand for the world crown in a match in Chennai. Carlsen won three games and remained undefeated to claim the world title with a score of 6.5-3.5 with two games left to go in the match. Anand managed to win the Candidates the following year for a rematch with Carlsen but lost 6.5-4.5.   After defending his title in tiebreaks against Russian grandmaster Sergey Karjakin in 2016 and American grandmaster Fabiano Caruana in 2018, Carlsen played Russian grandmaster Ian Nepomniachtchi in the 2021 championship match, which was postponed after the 2020 Candidates tournament had been stopped halfway through due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The two players were closely matched in the first five games, all of which were drawn before Carlsen won a wild Game 6 that lasted 136 moves, the longest in World Chess Championship history. With the momentum behind him, the Norwegian went on to win three more games in his most convincing title defense.   After winning his fifth World Championship match, Carlsen announced that he might not defend his title in 2023 unless his challenger was the young Iranian prodigy Alireza Firouzja. When Nepomniachtchi won his second Candidates in a row in 2022 in a dominant performance, all eyes were on the closely fought contest for second place.   The New Champion Ding Liren and Ian Nepomniachtchi during the pivotal Game 12 of the 2023 World Championship match, photograph by Stev Bonhage, FIDE, 2023. Source: Chess24   Despite a slow start, Ding Liren from China defeated American Hikaru Nakamura in the final round to finish clear second in the 2022 Candidates tournament in Madrid. The Chinese grandmaster had not initially qualified and owed his place to the disqualification of Sergey Karjakin, who was banned by FIDE for violating the organization’s ethics code after making several public statements supporting Vladimir Putin and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.   The replacement would be the highest-rated player not already qualified. Though Ding was World No. 2, China’s pandemic restrictions meant that in the previous 12 months, he had only played four of the 30 games to qualify under FIDE regulations, prompting the Chinese Chess Association to organize three tournaments in a month to allow Ding to meet the requirement.   On July 20, 2022, shortly after the conclusion of the Candidates tournament, Carlsen officially announced that he would not be defending his title, resulting in a championship match between Nepomniachtchi and Ding in 2023.   The 2023 World Chess Championship match was held in Astana, Kazakhstan, in April and proved to be a volatile affair. After the Russian won Game 2 and held a draw in Game 3, the two players traded blows in a series of four decisive games until drawing Game 8. With Ding running out of time to level the 14-game match, the Chinese grandmaster snatched victory from a losing position in Game 12. Ding went on to win the final game of a four-game rapid tiebreak to become the first Chinese grandmaster to win the Classical World Chess Championship.

  Kantai Kessen found its start in an unexpected person: American Alfred Mahan, the famous 19th-century naval strategist. His influential book, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History 1660-1783, and its sequel advocated attaining sea power by creating the largest and most powerful fleet. These theories resonated worldwide, particularly with the Imperial Navy. In the book, Mahan used Great Britain’s naval dominance as an example. Like Britain, Japan was an island power with many similarities. The Japanese tweaked Mahan’s theories to meet their own needs.   Decisive Battle Doctrine Japanese Navy Fighting, 1904 Source: St. Louis Public Library   Kantai Kessen developed from Japan looking at potential opponents. After the Great War, only two of them could be opponents: America and Great Britain. Japan reckoned with America possessing fleets in two oceans; a fleet of eight battleships and eight battle cruisers was enough. This policy was known as the Eight-Eight Fleet. Also, after 1918, Japan took over ex-German Pacific colonies, creating a perimeter far from the Home Islands. The doctrine’s goal aimed to stay close to these colonies, letting the U.S. Navy cross the Pacific for battle. During the crossing, submarines and small warships would fight, wearing down the enemy.    Once near a specified spot, the Imperial Navy’s smaller force, with better guns, armor, and training, would fight. In this one “decisive” clash, Japan hoped to smash the American Navy, thus forcing a truce to be negotiated. Negotiations would occur because of their demolished fleet and a reluctance to fight, preserving Japan’s empire.   To win that battle, Japan needed a technological and qualitative edge. In 1940, two super battleships were launched: the IJN Yamato and Musashi. Both ships weighed 63,000 tons and bore nine 18-inch (460 mm), the largest ever on a battleship. These leviathans emerged as Kantai Kessen’s cornerstone, providing the hammer to wreck the Americans. The doctrine would adapt but not really change throughout World War II.   A Compromise Struck IJN Yamamoto plans Source: Naval History and Heritage Command   A new technology advanced quickly in the 1930s to threaten the battlewagons: the carrier. These floating airfields provided over-the-horizon attacks well beyond the reach of any guns. The decisive battle could take place further away from Japan, but such a change angered the conservative old guard. They couldn’t fathom being in only a support role; big guns were the doctrine.   But Japan’s brightest admirals, like Yamamoto, knew carriers to be the future. Yamato got his way as carriers took over Kantai Kessen’s primary offensive role. Future battles showed his logic: battleships would be vulnerable to aircraft, lessening their value in the ongoing sea battles.   Put To the Test Under IJN Soryu Flight Deck Source: U.S. Navy Heritage Command   Japan’s December 7, 1941, attack against Pearl Harbor demonstrated Kantai Kessen’s evolution. The planes swooped out of the sky, looking for American carriers, but only found battleships. They sank these, but Kantai Kessen failed – no knockout blow happened. The Americans pulled back to the West Coast but only to make preparations.    The next big test came at the 1942 Battle of Midway, which stopped Japan’s expansion. The Americans cracked Japanese codes and knew Midway would be targeted. During the battle, Japan lost four carriers and hundreds of skilled pilots for one U.S. carrier. Again, the decisive battle eluded the Japanese.    In two more Kantai Kessen attempts, the 1944 Battles of the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf failed, too. The Imperial Navy lost more carriers, hundreds of remaining or newly trained aviators, and the super battleship Musashi to American planes. These two battles abruptly ended the Imperial Navy’s effectiveness.   The Last Hurrah U.S.S. St Lo Hit by A Kamikaze Leyte Gulf Source: United States Navy   By early 1945, Imperial Japan’s navy barely existed due to losses or docked in the harbor because of fuel shortages. The merchant fleet had been decimated by American submarines and aircraft, so little fuel or raw materials reached the Home Islands. In April 1945, the Americans invaded Okinawa, right on Japan’s doorstep.   Sunk Japanese Battleship 1945 Source: Wikimedia Commons   The Yamato sortied with several other ships in a last sortie to draw off the U.S. Navy. Its goal was to hit the Americans hard and then beach itself to use its guns. Supply ships would then resupply Okinawa. The Yamato trick worked as hundreds of American planes attacked, sinking her but not the supply ships. Kantai Kessen only worked if Japanese assumptions held up. The belief that one “decisive battle” had worked in 1904. But the Americans kept coming, not negotiating a surrender yet Japan never gave up on that goal.

“This is the hardest thing ever for a father to have to face." Continue reading…

This fan ain't getting that phone back. Continue reading…

The Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left smear factory on the frontlines of demonizing conservatives in American public discourse, is unwittingly revealing just how absurd the idea of unionizing nonprofits truly is. Last month, the SPLC reportedly terminated about a quarter of its staff and reorganized many departments. The massive shift would inevitably ruffle some feathers, but the news would have been far less painful for the nonprofit had it not certified a contract with a labor union in 2022. Yes, a nonprofit organization—where employees ostensibly work in order to benefit society—unionized, creating an adversarial relationship between workers and the nonprofit’s leadership. What could go wrong? Quite a lot, it turns out. First, the SPLC Union went public with the news before the Southern Poverty Law Center could craft its own messaging strategy. The union painted the layoffs in the worst possible light, highlighting the SPLC’s “F” rating from CharityWatch and suggesting the SPLC was engaging in “union busting.” Today, @splcenter – an organization with nearly a billion dollars in reserves, given an F rating by CharityWatch for “hoarding” donations – gutted its staff by a quarter.— SPLC Union (@SPLCUnion) June 12, 2024 “This is designed to punish union activists and intimidate employees just as we saw when Mercedes-Benz fired union organizers in Vance, Alabama,” the SPLC Union posted on X. “Management’s goals here are clear, but they will not win. Our union is strong.” The union went on to release screenshots of a discussion between SPLC board members and SPLC President Margaret Huang, in which they complained about “hostile” questions from staff during a question-and-answer session in March 2024. The union went on to claim that “only 44% of the staff have confidence” in Huang’s leadership and “only 33% of staff believe senior leadership cares about them.” Were @splcenter's layoffs retaliation? President and CEO Margaret Huang might be all smiles in front of the camera, but behind what she thought were closed doors, here’s how she talks about her staff. pic.twitter.com/p8SdGVeCu9— SPLC Union (@SPLCUnion) June 25, 2024 The SPLC Union launched a petition demanding that the Southern Poverty Law Center reverse the layoffs. As of Tuesday, the petition had gathered more than 9,000 signatures. Why Does SPLC Have a Union? As I wrote in my book “Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center,” the SPLC fired its co-founder and its president stepped down in 2019 amid a racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal. Amid that fallout, a former employee called the SPLC’s premier product—a “hate map” that plots mainstream conservative and Christian groups alongside Ku Klux Klan chapters—a “highly profitable scam,” and employees gathered to form a union. The National Labor Relations Board certified the union in December 2019 after employees voted 145-42 to unionize under the Baltimore-Washington News Guild. The new union and the SPLC signed a collective bargaining agreement in July 2022. The Problems With Unions Today The Left has recently attempted to revive the image of labor unions, which once provided real value by securing basic expectations for employment. Limiting the workweek to 40 hours and securing vacation, sick leave, and other benefits helped workers in concrete ways that reverberate today. However, labor unions have long overplayed their hand, becoming corrupt organs of the Democratic Party. Today, workers rights advocates have to fight to give workers the right to opt out of union representation. In many sectors of the economy, workers are expected to join unions, which take a cut out of every paycheck without providing much in the way of concrete services to employees. Worse, unions direct large amounts of cash to political causes many members disagree with. The 2018 Supreme Court case Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees is instructive. In that case, Illinois child support staffer Mark Janus refused to join the local union, AFSCME Council 31. Despite not being a member of the union, Janus still had to pay “agency fees,” on the theory that since he benefits from the union’s bargaining, he should chip in to support the union. These agency fees could not be used for political causes, but AFSCME Council 31 dedicated $268,855 of the fees to promoting Democrat Hillary Clinton for president at the union’s 2016 convention. Janus objected, saying he was “forced to support a government union as a condition of employment.” He called this “a gross violation of my First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association.” The Supreme Court agreed, 5-4. “States and public-sector unions may no longer exact agency fees from nonconsenting employees,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “Forcing free and independent individuals to endorse ideas they find objectionable is always demeaning. Compelling a person to subsidize the speech of other private speakers raises similar First Amendment concerns.” Janus-v-AFSCMEDownload Although the high court rightly struck down mandatory “agency fees,” unions still use complicated opt-out systems to trap employees into paying. For example, an Ohio teacher’s assistant sued her former union and her school district because the district withheld union dues from her paycheck after she left the union and formally asked it to cease taking her money. The union claimed her request came outside of a 10-day opt-out window. Many unions direct large amounts of cash to Democratic candidates and left-wing causes, often redirecting the dues of employees who might object, for example, to funding Planned Parenthood. Unions lost ground in the 1980s onward, with large losses in the private sector. The right-to-work movement helps prevent unions from forcing employees to support causes they disagree with, and it grew in the 2010s after making significant gains in the 1980s. In February, Michigan repealed its right-to-work law, which initially passed in 2012. Public Sector Unions Unions lost ground in the private sector but held on in the public, or government, sector. Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the president who largely created the modern administrative state in his “New Deal,” initially opposed public-sector unions as inherently problematic. “The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations,” Roosevelt wrote. “The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.” Any negotiation with a public employee union would constitute a loss of the people’s authority, the founder of the New Deal said. Roosevelt considered strikes by public unions “unthinkable and intolerable” because they cause “the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it.” SPLC’s Nonprofit Union The idea of nonprofit unions suffers from a similar inherent tension. As in the case of the government, the ultimate employer of a nonprofit employee is the donor who contributes to the organization, not the organization’s management. Nonprofits must honor donor intent, and workers can’t bargain with donors to demand that they contribute more to charity. Nonprofits exist for charitable purposes, not to earn money for shareholders. If a union publicly complains about “management,” it may undermine the nonprofit’s ability to honor donor intent and advocate the causes it exists to promote. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s layoffs highlight the leftist group’s internal divisions. The SPLC Union noted that questions in the March question-and-answer session involved “support for Palestine,” a divisive issue at the SPLC. After Hamas’ terrorist attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, the SPLC declined to publicly comment, only speaking out three weeks later, on Oct. 29. When the SPLC did deign to comment, it falsely blamed Israel for having “targeted” Palestinian civilians in Gaza, including children. Before the SPLC spoke out, the union released an aggressive statement condemning Israel’s response to the Hamas attacks as “the violent imperialist desecration of a people—the beginnings of a genocide.” On the same day the SPLC Union released its statement, an SPLC lawyer’s name appeared in an online chat organizing an anti-Israel sit-in at a congressional office building. The SPLC seems caught between a rock and a Hamas place—straddling the gulf between young, anti-Israel activists on staff and old-style Democratic donors, who likely support Israel. No wonder Huang felt flustered when questioned about the Israel-Hamas war. Whatever turmoil the SPLC is facing, the union is making it far worse. Hopefully, this latest scandal will further delegitimize an organization that routinely defames mainstream conservatives and Christians. It couldn’t happen to nicer people. The post What Could Go Wrong? SPLC’s Latest Scandal Exposes the Insanity of Unionizing a Nonprofit appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In light of President Joe Biden's abysmal showing at the first presidential debate of 2024, many within his own party have called for the octogenarian to step down as a candidate, so a more capable person may run. Unfortunately for Democrats, the potential intraparty succession promises to be anything but...

A Tennessee woman who was fired from her job for refusing her company’s un-American COVID-19 vaccine mandate two years ago is getting the last laugh after a federal court awarded her a major cash payout last week. When the country’s big businesses, corporate media, cretins in science and tech and...