Morphology and diversity.

Lice are divided into two groups: sucking lice, which obtain their nourishment from feeding on the sebaceous secretions and body fluids of their host; and chewing lice, which are scavengers, feeding on skin, fragments of feathers or hair, and debris found on the host's body. Many lice are specific to a single species of host and have co-evolved with it. In some cases, they live on only a particular part of the body. Some animals are known to host up to fifteen different species, although one to three is typical for mammals, and two to six for birds. Lice generally cannot survive for long if removed from their host. If their host dies, lice can opportunistically use phoresis to hitch a ride on a fly and attempt to find a new host.  Sucking lice range in length from. They have narrow heads and oval, flattened bodies. They have no ocelli, and their compound eyes are reduced in size or absent. Their antennae are short with three to five segments, and their mouth parts, which are retractable into their head, are adapted for piercing and sucking. There is a cibarial pump at the start of the gut; it is powered by muscles attached to the inside of the cuticle of the head. The mouthparts consist of a proboscis which is toothed, and a set of stylets arranged in a cylinder inside the proboscis, containing a salivary canal (ventrally) and a food canal (dorsally). The thoracic segments are fused, the abdominal segments are separate, and there is a single large claw at the tip of each of the six legs.  Chewing lice are also flattened and can be slightly larger than sucking lice, ranging in length from. They are similar to sucking lice in form but the head is wider than the thorax and all species have compound eyes. There are no ocelli and the mouthparts are adapted for chewing. The antennae have three to five segments and are slender in the suborder Ischnocera, but club-shaped in the suborder Amblycera. The legs are short and robust, and terminated by one or two claws. Some species of chewing lice house symbiotic bacteria in bacteriocytes in their bodies. These may assist in digestion because if the insect is deprived of them, it will die.  Lice are usually cryptically coloured to match the fur or feathers of the host. A louse's color varies from pale beige to dark gray; however, if feeding on blood, it may become considerably darker.  Female lice are usually more common than males, and some species are parthenogenetic, with young developing from unfertilized eggs. A louse's egg is commonly called a nit. Many lice attach their eggs to their hosts' hair with specialized saliva; the saliva/hair bond is very difficult to sever without specialized products. Lice inhabiting birds, however, may simply leave their eggs in parts of the body inaccessible to preening, such as the interior of feather shafts. Living louse eggs tend to be pale whitish, whereas dead louse eggs are yellower. Lice are exopterygotes, being born as miniature versions of the adult, known as nymphs. The young moult three times before reaching the final adult form, usually within a month after hatching.  Humans host three different kinds of lice: head lice, body lice, and pubic lice. Head lice and body lice are subspecies of "Pediculus humanus", and pubic lice are a separate species, "Pthirus pubis". Lice infestations can be controlled with lice combs, and medicated shampoos or washes.

Ecology.

The average number of lice per host tends to be higher in large-bodied bird species than in small ones. Lice have an aggregated distribution across bird individuals, i.e. most lice live on a few birds, while most birds are relatively free of lice. This pattern is more pronounced in territorial than in colonial—more social—bird species. Host organisms that dive under water to feed on aquatic prey harbor fewer taxa of lice. Bird taxa that are capable of exerting stronger antiparasitic defense—such as stronger T cell immune response or larger uropygial glands—harbor more taxa of Amblyceran lice than others. Reductions in the size of host populations may cause a long-lasting reduction of louse taxonomic richness, for example, birds introduced into New Zealand host fewer species of lice there than in Europe. Louse sex ratios are more balanced in more social hosts and more female-biased in less social hosts, presumably due to the stronger isolation among louse subpopulations (living on separate birds) in the latter case. The extinction of a species results in the extinction of its host-specific lice. Host-switching is a random event that would seem very rarely likely to be successful, but speciation has occurred over evolutionary time-scales so it must be successfully accomplished sometimes.  Lice may reduce host life expectancy if the infestation is heavy, but most seem to have little effect on their host. The habit of dust bathing in domestic hens is probably an attempt by the birds to rid themselves of lice. Lice may transmit microbial diseases and helminth parasites, but most individuals spend their whole life cycle on a single host and are only able to transfer to a new host opportunistically. Ischnoceran lice may reduce the thermoregulation effect of the plumage; thus heavily infested birds lose more heat than others. Lice infestation is a disadvantage in the context of sexual rivalry.

Evolution.

Classification.

The order Phthiraptera is clearly a monophyletic grouping, united as the members are by a number of derived features including their parasitism on warm-blooded vertebrates and the combination of their metathoracic ganglia with their abdominal ganglia to form a single ventral nerve junction. The order has traditionally been divided into two suborders, the sucking lice (Anoplura) and the chewing lice (Mallophaga); however, recent classifications suggest that the Mallophaga are paraphyletic and four suborders are now recognized:  Nearly 5,000 species of louse have been identified, about 4,000 being parasitic on birds and 800 on mammals. Lice are present on every continent in all the habitats that their host animals and birds occupy. They are found even in the Antarctic, where penguins carry 15 species of lice (in the genera "Austrogonoides" and "Nesiotinus"). The oldest known record of the group is "Megamenopon rasnitsyni" from the Eocene of Germany, but it is essentially a modern form, belonging to Amblycera, so the group as a whole likely has an origin in the Mesozoic.

Phylogeny.

Lice have been the subject of significant DNA research in the 2000s that led to discoveries on human evolution. The three species of sucking lice that parasitize human beings belong to two genera, "Pediculus" and "Pthirus": head lice ("Pediculus humanus capitis"), body lice ("Pediculus humanus humanus"), and pubic lice ("Pthirus pubis"). Human head and body lice (genus "Pediculus") share a common ancestor with chimpanzee lice, while pubic lice (genus "Pthirus") share a common ancestor with gorilla lice. Using phylogenetic and cophylogenetic analysis, Reed et al. hypothesized that "Pediculus" and "Pthirus" are sister taxa and monophyletic. In other words, the two genera descended from the same common ancestor. The age of divergence between "Pediculus" and its common ancestor is estimated to be 6-7 million years ago, which matches the age predicted by chimpanzee-hominid divergence. Because parasites rely on their hosts, hostparasite cospeciation events are likely.  Genetic evidence suggests that our human ancestors acquired pubic lice from gorillas approximately 3-4 million years ago. Unlike the genus "Pediculus", the divergence in "Pthirus" does not match the age of host divergence that likely occurred 7 million years ago. Reed et al. propose a "Pthirus" species host-switch around 3-4 million years ago. While it is difficult to determine if a parasitehost switch occurred in evolutionary history, this explanation is the most parsimonious (containing the fewest evolutionary changes).  Additionally, the DNA differences between head lice and body lice provide corroborating evidence that humans used clothing between 80,000 and 170,000 years ago, before leaving Africa. Human head and body lice occupy distinct ecological zones: head lice live and feed on the scalp, while body lice live on clothing and feed on the body. Because body lice require clothing to survive, the divergence of head and body lice from their common ancestor provides an estimate of the date of introduction of clothing in human evolutionary history.  The mitochondrial genome of the human species of the body louse ("Pediculus humanus humanus"), the head louse ("Pediculus humanus capitis") and the pubic louse ("Pthirus pubis") fragmented into a number of minichromosomes, at least seven million years ago. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA in human body and hair lice reveals that greater genetic diversity existed in African than in non-African lice. Human lice can also shed light on human migratory patterns in prehistory. The dominating theory of anthropologists regarding human migration is the Out of Africa Hypothesis. Genetic diversity accumulates over time, and mutations occur at a relatively constant rate. Because there is more genetic diversity in African lice, the lice and their human hosts must have existed in Africa before anywhere else.  The phylogeny of the Phthiraptera is shown, not yet fully resolved, in the cladogram:

In human culture.

In social history.

Lice have been intimately associated with human society throughout history. In the Middle Ages, they were essentially ubiquitous. At the death of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury in 1170, it was recorded that "The vermin boiled over like water in a simmering cauldron, and the onlookers burst into alternate weeping and laughing". A mediaeval treatment for lice was an ointment made from pork grease, incense, lead, and aloe.  Robert Hooke's 1667 book, "Micrographia: or some physiological descriptions of minute bodies made by magnifying glasses with observations and Inquiries thereupon", illustrated a human louse, drawn as seen down an early microscope.  Margaret Cavendish's satirical "The Description of a New World, Called The Blazing-World" (1668) has "Lice-men" as "mathematicians", investigating nature by trying to weigh the air like the real scientist Robert Boyle.  In 1935 the Harvard medical researcher Hans Zinsser wrote the book "Rats, Lice and History", alleging that both body and head lice transmit typhus between humans. Despite this, the modern view is that only the body louse can transmit the disease.  Soldiers in the trenches of the First World War suffered severely from lice, and the typhus they carried. The Germans boasted that they had lice under effective control, but themselves suffered badly from lice in the Second World War on the Eastern Front, especially in the Battle of Stalingrad. "Delousing" became a euphemism for the extermination of Jews in concentration camps such as Auschwitz under the Nazi regime.  In the psychiatric disorder delusional parasitosis, patients express a persistent irrational fear of animals such as lice and mites, imagining that they are continually infested and complaining of itching, with "an unshakable false belief that live organisms are present in the skin".

In science.

The human body louse "Pediculus humanus humanus" has (2010) the smallest insect genome known. This louse can transmit certain diseases while the human head louse ("P. h. capitis"), to which it is closely related, cannot. With their simple life history and small genomes, the pair make ideal model organisms to study the molecular mechanisms behind the transmission of pathogens and vector competence.

In literature and folklore.

James Joyce's 1939 book "Finnegans Wake" has the character Shem the Penman infested with "foxtrotting fleas, the lieabed lice,... bats in his belfry".  Clifford E. Trafzer's "A Chemehuevi Song: The Resilience of a Southern Paiute Tribe" retells the story of Sinawavi (Coyote)'s love for Poowavi (Louse). Her eggs are sealed in a basket woven by her mother, who gives it to Coyote, instructing him not to open it before he reaches home. Hearing voices coming from it, however, Coyote opens the basket and the people, the world's first human beings, pour out of it in all directions.  The Irish songwriter John Lyons (b. 1934) wrote the popular song "The Kilkenny Louse House". The song contains the lines "Well we went up the stairs and we put out the light, Sure in less than five minutes, I had to show fight. For the fleas and the bugs they collected to march, And over me stomach they formed a great arch". It has been recorded by Christie Purcell (1952), Mary Delaney on "From Puck to Appleby" (2003), and the Dubliners on "Double Dubliners" (1972) among others.  Robert Burns dedicated a poem to the louse, inspired by witnessing one on a lady's bonnet in church: "Ye ugly, creepin, blastid wonner, Detested, shunn'd, by saint and sinner, How dare ye set your fit upon her, sae fine lady! Gae somewhere else, and seek your dinner on some poor body." John Milton in "Paradise Lost" mentioned the biblical plague of lice visited upon pharaoh: "Frogs, lice, and flies must all his palace fill with loathed intrusion, and filled all the land." John Ray recorded a Scottish proverb, "Gie a beggar a bed and he'll repay you with a Louse." In Shakespeare's "Troilus and Cressida", Thersites compares Menelaus, brother of Agamemnon, to a louse: "Ask me not what I would be, if I were not Thersites; for I care not to be the louse of a lazar, so I were not Menelaus."

Louse (plural: lice) is the common name for members of the order Phthiraptera, which contains nearly 5,000 species of wingless insect. Lice are obligate parasites, living externally on warm-blooded hosts which include every species of bird and mammal, except for monotremes, pangolins, and bats. Lice are vectors of diseases such as typhus.

虱毛目(学名:)是原虱目和食毛目的合称,通称虱或虱子(英语:louse)。全世界约有3,000种。虱寄生于人体、其他哺乳动物(除了单孔目和蝙蝠外)和鸟类的身上。以人类为宿主的虱有三种:人头虱、人体虱和阴虱(又称耻阴虱)。其中,人头虱和人体虱属于人虱科(Pediculus humanus),阴虱属于阴虱科(Pthirus pubis)。


Terminology.

The term "syndicalism" has French origins. In French, a "syndicat" is a trade union, usually a local union. The corresponding words in Spanish and Portuguese, "sindicato", and Italian, "sindacato", are similar. By extension, the French "syndicalisme" refers to trade unionism in general. The concept "syndicalisme révolutionnaire" or "revolutionary syndicalism" emerged in French socialist journals in 1903 and the French General Confederation of Labor ("Confédération générale du travail", CGT) came to use the term to describe its brand of unionism. "Revolutionary syndicalism", or more commonly "syndicalism" with the "revolutionary" implied, was then adapted to a number of languages by unionists following the French model.  Many scholars, including Ralph Darlington, Marcel van der Linden, and Wayne Thorpe, apply the term "syndicalism" to a number of organizations or currents within the labor movement that did not identify as "syndicalist". They apply the label

Emergence.

Rise.

Syndicalism originated in France and spread from there. The French CGT was the model and inspiration for syndicalist groups throughout Europe and the world. Revolutionary industrial unionism, part of syndicalism in the broader sense, originated with the IWW in the United States and then caught on in other countries. In a number of countries, however, certain syndicalist practices and ideas predate the coining of the term in France or the founding of the IWW. In Bert Altena's view, a number of movements in Europe can be called syndicalist, even before 1900. According to the English social historian E.P. Thompson and the anarcho-syndicalist theorist Rudolf Rocker, there were syndicalist tendencies in Britain's labor movement as early as the 1830s. Syndicalists saw themselves as the heirs of the First International, the international socialist organization formed in 1864, particularly its anti-authoritarian wing led by Mikhail Bakunin. Bakunin and his followers advocated the general strike, rejected electoral politics, and anticipated workers' organizations replacing rule by the state. According to Lucien van der Walt, the Spanish section of the First International, formed in 1870, was in fact syndicalist. Kenyon

Reasons.

Scholars have given several explanations for the emergence of syndicalism. Werner Sombart, a German economist and sociologist, commenting in 1905, ascribes the rise of syndicalism to the Italian and particularly the French mentality. He writes: "The only people who could possibly act up to such a system of teaching are Frenchmen and Italians. They are generally men who do things impulsively [...], who are seized upon by a sudden passionate enthusiasm [...], but they have little application, perseverance, calm or steadiness."  There was a significant uptick in workers' radicalism in most developed capitalist countries from 1911 to 1922, though it relented during World War I. Strikes increased in frequency, numbers of workers involved, and duration. According to van der Linden and Thorpe, syndicalism was only one way this radicalization expressed itself. In the United Kingdom, for example, the period from 1910 to 1914 became known as the Great Labour Unrest. Many historians see syndicalism as a consequence of this unrest, but Elie Halévy and the politician Lord Robert Cecil claim it was its cause. Employers in France likewise blamed an upsurge in workers' militancy in the same

Principles.

Syndicalism was not informed by theory or a systematically elaborated ideology the same way socialism was by Marxism. Émile Pouget, a CGT leader, maintained that: "What sets syndicalism apart from the various schools of socialism and makes it superior is its doctrinal sobriety. Inside the unions, there is little philosophising. They do better than that: they act!" Similarly, Andreu Nin of the Spanish CNT proclaimed in 1919: "I am a fanatic of action, of revolution. I believe in actions more than in remote ideologies and abstract questions." Though workers' education was important at least to committed activists, syndicalists distrusted bourgeois intellectuals, wanting to maintain workers' control over the movement. Syndicalist thinking was elaborated in pamphlets, leaflets, speeches, and articles and in the movement's own newspapers. These writings consisted mainly in calls to action and discussions of tactics in class struggle. The philosopher Georges Sorel's "Reflections on Violence" introduced syndicalist ideas to a broader audience. Sorel fancied himself the premier theorist of syndicalism and was frequently thought of as such, but he was not a part of the movement and his influence on syndicalism was insignificant, except in Italy and Poland.  The extent to which syndicalist positions reflected merely the views of leaders and to what extent those positions were shared by syndicalist organizations' rank-and-file is a matter of dispute. The historian Peter Stearns, commenting on French syndicalism, concludes that most workers did not identify with syndicalism's long-range goals and that syndicalist hegemony accounts for the relatively slow growth of the French labor movement as a whole. Workers who joined the syndicalist movement, he claims, were on the whole indifferent to doctrinal questions, their membership in syndicalist organizations was partly accidental and leaders were unable to convert workers to syndicalist ideas. Frederick Ridley, a political scientist, is more equivocal. According to him, leaders were very influential in the drafting of syndicalist ideas, but syndicalism was more than a mere tool of a few leaders, but a genuine product of the French labor movement. Darlington adds that in the Irish ITGWU most members were won over by the union's philosophy of direct action. Bert Altena argues that, though evidence of ordinary workers' convictions is scant, it indicates that they were aware of doctrinal differences between various currents in the labor movement and able to defend their own views. He points out that they likely understood syndicalist newspapers and debated political issues.  "Syndicalism" is used by some interchangeably with "anarcho-syndicalism". This term was first used in 1907, by socialists criticizing the political neutrality of the CGT, although it was rarely used until the early 1920s when communists used it disparagingly. Only from 1922 was it used by self-avowed anarcho-syndicalists. Syndicalism has traditionally been seen as a current within anarchism, but in some countries it was dominated by Marxists rather than anarchists. This was the case in Italy and much of the Anglophone world, including Ireland where anarchists had no significant influence on syndicalism. The extent to which syndicalist doctrine was a product of anarchism is debated. The anarchist Iain McKay argues that "syndicalism" is but a new name for ideas and tactics developed by Bakunin and the anarchist wing of the First International, while it is wholly inconsistent with positions Marx and Engels took. According to him, the fact that many Marxists embraced syndicalism merely indicates that they abandoned Marx's views and converted to Bakunin's. Altena too views syndicalism as part of the broader anarchist movement, but concedes there was a tension between this and the fact that it was also a labor movement. He also sees Marxist ideas reflected in the movement, as leading syndicalists such as F. Domela Nieuwenhuis and Christiaan Cornelissen as well as much of the Australian syndicalist movement were influenced by them, as well as older socialist notions. According to Darlington, anarchism, Marxism, and revolutionary trade unionism equally contributed to syndicalism, in addition to various influences in specific countries, including Blanquism, anti-clericalism, republicanism, and agrarian radicalism.

Heyday.

Before World War I.

Syndicalists were involved in a number strikes, labor disputes, and other struggles. In the United States, the IWW was involved in at least 150 strikes including miners' strikes in Goldfield, Nevada in 1906–1907, a steel workers' strike in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania in 1909, a textile workers' strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, timber workers' strikes in Louisiana and Arkansas in 1912–1913, and a silk workers' strike in Paterson, New Jersey. The most prominent was the struggle in Lawrence. Wobblie leaders brought together 23,000 mostly immigrant workers, many of whom did not speak English. They arranged for workers' children to be sent to live with sympathetic families outside of Lawrence for the duration of the strike so their parents could focus on the struggle. Unlike most IWW-led strikes, the struggle was successful. In Mexico, syndicalism first emerged in 1906

World War I.

Syndicalists had long opposed nationalism and militarism. Haywood held that "it is better to be a traitor to your country than to your class". French syndicalists viewed the Army as the primary defender of the capitalist order. In 1901, the CGT published a manual for soldiers encouraging desertion. Similarly, in 1911 British syndicalists distributed an "Open Letter to British Soldiers" imploring them not to shoot on striking workers, but to join the working class's struggle against capital. Patriotism, syndicalists argued, was a means of integrating workers into capitalist society by distracting them from their true class interest. In 1908, the CGT's congress invoked the slogan of the First International, proclaiming that the "workers have no fatherland". When World War I broke out in July 1914, socialist parties and trade unions both in neutral and belligerent countries supported their respective nations' war efforts or national defense, despite previous pledges to do the opposite. Socialists agreed to put aside class conflict and vote for war credits. German socialists argued that war was necessary to defend against Russia's barbaric Tsarism, while their French counterparts pointed to the need to defend against Prussian militarism and the German "instinct of domination and of discipline". This collaboration between the socialist movement and the state was known as the "union sacrée" in France, the "Burgfrieden" in Germany, and "godsvrede" in the Netherlands. Moreover, a number of anarchists led by Peter Kropotkin, including the influential syndicalist Christiaan Cornelissen, issued the Manifesto of the Sixteen, supporting the Allied cause in the war. Most syndicalists, however, remained true to their internationalist and

Russian Revolution and post-war turmoil.

Disaffection with the war condensed in the post-World War I revolutions that began with the 1917 Russian Revolution. In February 1917, strikes, riots, and troop mutinies broke out in Petrograd, forcing the Russian Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate on March 2 in favor of a provisional government. Immediately, anarchist groups emerged. Russian syndicalists organized around the journal "Golos Truda" ("The Voice of Labor"), which had a circulation of around 25,000, and the Union of Anarcho-Syndicalist Propaganda. Anarchists found themselves agreeing with the Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Lenin, who returned to Russia in April, as both sought to bring down the provisional government. Lenin abandoned the idea that capitalism is a necessary stage on Russia's path to communism; dismissed the establishment of a parliament, favoring that power be taken by soviets; and called for the abolition of the police, the army, the bureaucracy, and finally the state all sentiments syndicalists shared. Although the syndicalists also welcomed the soviets, they were most enthusiastic about the factory committees and workers' councils that had emerged in all industrial centers in the course of strikes and demonstrations in the February Revolution. The committees fought for higher wages and shorter hours, but above all for workers' control over production, which both the syndicalists and Bolsheviks supported. The syndicalists viewed the factory committees as the true form of syndicalist organization, not unions. Because they were better organized, the Bolsheviks were able to gain more traction in the committees with six times as many delegates in a typical factory. Despite the goals they had in common, syndicalists became anxious about the Bolsheviks' growing influence, especially after they won majorities in the Petrograd and Moscow soviets in September.  The Petrograd Soviet established the 66-member Military Revolutionary Committee, which included four anarchists, among them

International Workers' Association.

Though the Bolsheviks suppressed syndicalism in Russia, they courted syndicalists abroad as part of their international strategy. In March 1919, the Comintern or Third International was founded at a conference in Moscow. The Bolsheviks acknowledged syndicalism's opposition to socialist reformism and saw them as part of the revolutionary wing of the labor movement. No syndicalists attended the founding convention, mainly because the blockade of Russia by the Allies powers made travel to Moscow near impossible. After long discussions, the CNT opted to

Decline.

From the early 1920s, syndicalist movements in most countries began to wane. State repression played a significant role, but movements that were not suppressed also declined. Faced with this decline, syndicalist organizations had three choices: They could stay true to their revolutionary principles and be marginalized. They could give up those principles in order to adapt to new conditions. Finally, they could disband or merge into non-syndicalist organizations. The IWW is an example of the first case. The French CGT, which according to van der Linden and Thorpe was no longer syndicalist after 1914, went the second route. By the end of the 1930s, meaningful legal syndicalist organizations existed only in Bolivia, Chile, Sweden and Uruguay.

Fascism.

Georges Sorel played a role in shaping the views of Benito Mussolini and by extension the wider Italian fascist movement. In March 1921, Sorel wrote that Mussolini was "a man no less extraordinary than Lenin". After Sorel's death in 1922, Agostino Lanzillo, a one-time syndicalist leader who had become a fascist, wrote in the Italian fascist review "Gerarchia", which was edited by Mussolini: "Perhaps fascism may have the good fortune to fulfill a mission that is the implicit aspiration of the whole oeuvre of the master of syndicalism: to tear away the proletariat from the domination of the Socialist

Spanish Civil War.

The anarcho-syndicalist revolution during the Spanish Civil War resulted in the widespread implementation of anarchist and more broadly socialist organisational principles throughout various portions of the country for two to three years, primarily Catalonia, Aragon, Andalusia and parts of the Levante, with the main organisation being the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo. Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control—in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was

Reasons.

Syndicalism's decline was the result of a number of factors. In Russia, Italy, Portugal, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands, syndicalist movements were suppressed by authoritarian governments. The IWW in the United States and the Mexican House of the World Worker were weakened considerably by state repression. Syndicalist movements that were not suppressed also declined. According to van der Linden and Thorpe, this was primarily the result of the integration of the working class into capitalist relations. Proletarian families became units of individualized consumption as standards of living increased. This was partly the result

Legacy.

The Nationalist victory in the Spanish Civil War put an end to syndicalism as a mass movement. Immediately after World War II, there were attempts to rekindle anarcho-syndicalism in Germany, but they were thwarted by Cold War anti-communism, Stalinism, and a failure to attract newer younger activists. Syndicalists maintained some influence in Latin American labor movements into the 1970s. The protest movements of the late 1960s saw renewed interest in syndicalism by activists in Germany, the US, and Britain. During its Hot Autumn of 1969, Italy experienced labor actions reminiscent of syndicalism, but syndicalists did not actually exert any influence, according to Carl Levy. In the 1980s, in communist Poland, the trade union Solidarity ("Solidarność"), though not strictly syndicalist, attracted masses of dissident workers by reviving many syndicalist ideas and practices.  The IWA exists to this day, but with very little influence. At most, it is a "flicker of history, the custodian of doctrine" according to Wayne Thorpe. Among its member organizations is the British Solidarity Federation, which was formed in 1994, but has roots going back to 1950. The German Free Workers' Union ("Freie Arbeiterinnen- und Arbeiter-Union", FAU) was formed to carry on the FAUD's tradition in 1977, but has a membership of just 350 as of 2011. It left the IWA in 2018 to form the International Confederation of Labor (ICL). Spain has several syndicalist federations, including the CNT, which has around 50,000 members as of 2018. It, too, was a member of the IWA until 2018, when it joined the FAU in forming the ICT. After being defeated in the Civil War, tens of thousands of CNT militants went into exile, mostly in France. In exile, the organization atrophied, with just 5,000 mostly older members by 1960. During Spain's transition to democracy, the CNT was revived with a peak membership of over 300,000 in 1978. However, it was soon weakened, first by accusations of having been involved in the bombing of a nightclub, then by a schism. Members who favored participation in state-sponsored union elections left and formed an organization they would eventually name the General Confederation of Labor ("Confederación General del Trabajo", CGT). Despite these concessions, the CGT still views itself as an anarcho-syndicalist organization and has around 100,000 members as of 2018.  According to Darlington, syndicalism left a legacy that was widely admired by labor and political activists in a number of countries. For example, the IWW song "Solidarity Forever" became part of the American labor movement's canon. The strike wave, including the recruitment of unskilled and foreign-born workers by the Congress of Industrial Organizations, that swept the United States in the 1930s followed in the IWW's footsteps. The tactic of the sit-down strike, made famous by the United Auto Workers in the Flint sit-down strike, was pioneered by Wobblies in 1906.  In his study of French syndicalism, Stearns concludes that it was a dismal failure. The radicalism of syndicalist labor leaders, he claims, shocked French workers and the government and thereby weakened the labor movement as a whole. Syndicalism was most popular among workers not yet fully integrated into modern capitalist industry, but most French workers had adapted to this system and accepted it. Therefore, syndicalism was not able to seriously challenge prevailing conditions or even scare politicians and employers.

Syndicalism is a radical current in the labor movement that was most active in the early 20th century. Its main idea is the establishment of local worker-based organizations and the advancement of the demands and rights of workers through strikes. According to the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, it was predominant in the revolutionary left in the decade which preceded the outbreak of World War I because Marxism was mostly reformist at that time.

工团主义(英语:Syndicalism),又称工联主义、辛迪加主义,是一种以劳工运动为主导的社会主义,旨在工人阶级团结起来组织工会,通过纯粹的工人组织以及罢工来推翻资本主义和国家,以使企业由资本家主导变成由工人主导。


Geography and political subdivisions.

Leitrim is the 26th largest of the 32 counties by area and the smallest by population on the island. It is the smallest of Connacht's five counties in both size and population. Leitrim is bordered by the counties of Donegal to the north, Fermanagh to the north-east, Cavan to the east, Longford to the south, Roscommon to the south-west and Sligo to the west. Fermanagh is in Northern Ireland while all the other neighbouring counties are within the Republic of Ireland.

Baronies.

There are five historic baronies in the county. While baronies continue to be officially defined units, they are no longer used for many administrative purposes. Their official status is illustrated by Placenames Orders made since 2003, where official Irish names of baronies are listed under "Administrative units". They are Carrigallen, Drumahaire, Leitrim, Mohill and Rosclogher.

Largest Towns in County Leitrim.

As of the 2016 census:

Geography.

Leitrim has a hilly and mountainous landscape in its north-west and is relatively flat in the south-east, each separated from the other by Lough Allen in the middle of the county. Leitrim has the shortest length of coastline of any Irish county that touches the sea. At Tullaghan, the coastline is only long. The Shannon is linked to the Erne via the Shannon–Erne Waterway. Notable lakes include:

History.

In ancient times Leitrim formed the western half of the Kingdom of Breifne. This region was long influenced by the O'Rourke family of Dromahair, whose heraldic lion occupies the official county shield to this day. Close ties initially existed with the O'Reilly clan in the eastern half of the kingdom, however a split occurred in the 13th century and the kingdom was divided into East Breifne, now County Cavan, and West Breifne, now County Leitrim. The Normans invaded south Leitrim in the 13th century but were defeated at the Battle of Áth an Chip in 1270.  Much of the county was confiscated from its owners in 1620 and given to Villiers and Hamilton. Their initial objective was to plant the county with English settlers. However, this proved unsuccessful. English Deputy Sir John Perrot had ordered the legal establishment of "Leitrim County" a half-century prior, in 1565. Perrott also demarcated the current county borders around 1583.  Long ago Ireland was covered in woodland, and five great forests are traditionally said to have stood in Leitrim, with a 19th-century county survey stating- "a hundred years ago almost the whole country was one continued, undivided forest, so that from Drumshanbo to Drumkeeran, a distance of nine or ten miles, one could travel the whole way from tree to tree by branches". Many of these great forests were denuded for the making of charcoal for iron works around Sliabh an Iarainn. Working of the county's rich deposits of iron ore began in the 15th century and continued until the mid 18th century. Coal mining became prominent in the 19th century to the east of Lough Allen at Sliabh an Iarainn and also to the west in Arigna, on the Roscommon border. The last coal mine closed in July 1990 and there is now a visitor centre. Sandstone was also quarried in the Glenfarne region.  Writing in 1791, the geographer Beaufort suggested the county housing population encompassed 10,026 homes with "upwards of 50,000 inhabitants", the primary agriculture being cattle production, and the growth of flax sustaining the linen industry. Leitrim was first hit by the recession caused by the mechanisation of linen weaving in the 1830s and its 155,000 residents (as of the 1841 census) were ravaged by the Great Famine and the population dropped to 112,000 by 1851. The population subsequently continued to decrease due to emigration. After many years, the wounds of such rapid population decline have finally started to heal. Agriculture improved over the last century. Leitrim now has the fastest growing population in Connacht.  The "Book of Fenagh" is the most famous medieval manuscript originating here. In the 19th century the poet John McDonald (of Dromod) lived in the county, and William Butler Yeats spent the turn of the twentieth century fascinated with Lough Allen and much of Leitrim. Glencar Waterfall, from Manorhamilton, inspired Yeats and is mentioned in his poem The Stolen Child.

Local government and politics.

Leitrim County Council is the local authority for the administrative county. The county is divided into three Local Electoral Areas for the purpose of elections: Ballinamore (6 councillors), Carrick-on-Shannon (6 councillors), and Manorhamilton (6 councillors).  For elections to Dáil Éireann, Leitrim is in the Sligo–Leitrim constituency. This constituency existed from 1948 to 2007, but from 2007 until Sligo–Leitrim was re-created in 2016, County Leitrim was divided between two constituencies: Roscommon–South Leitrim and Sligo–North Leitrim. This proved controversial, and at the 2007 general election there was no TD elected whose domicile was in the county.

County Leitrim ( ; ) is a county in the Republic of Ireland. It is in the province of Connacht and is part of the Border Region. It is named after the village of Leitrim. Leitrim County Council is the local authority for the county, which had a population of 32,044 according to the 2016 census. The county encompasses the historic Gaelic territory of West Breffny ("Bréifne") corresponding to the northern part of the county, and Muintir Eolais or Conmaicne Réin, corresponding to the southern part.

利特里姆郡(County Leitrim;爱尔兰语:Contae Liatroma),是爱尔兰的一个郡,位于爱尔兰岛北部。其海岸线仅3公里长,又为艾伦湖和香农河划分为南北两半。历史上属康诺特省。郡名的意思是「灰色的山岭」。


Purposes.

One purpose of official retribution is to channel the retributive sentiments of the public into the political and legal systems. The intent is to deter people from resorting to lynchings, blood feuds, and other ugly forms of vigilante self-help. Another purpose is to promote societal solidarity through participation in the act of punishing, under the theory that "the society that slays together stays together." Another purpose is to prevent a situation in which a citizen who would have preferred to obey the law as part of his civic responsibility decides that he would be a fool to not violate it, when so many others are getting away with lawlessness that the point of his obedience is mostly defeated.

History.

In the early period of all systems of code, retribution for wrongs took precedence over the enforcement of rights. A rough sense of justice demanded that a criminal should be punished with the infliction of proportionate loss and pain as he inflicted on his victim. Therefore, ""lex talionis"" (an eye for an eye) was very prominent in ancient law. The Bible is no exception: in its oldest form it too included the ""lex talionis"", the law of "measure for measure" (this is only the literal translation of ).  In the 19th century, philosopher Immanuel Kant argued in "Metaphysics of Morals", §49 E., that retribution is the only legitimate form of punishment the court can prescribe. He said that, "Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society, but instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has committed a crime."  Kant regarded punishment as a matter of justice, which must be carried out by the state for the sake of the law, not for the sake of the criminal or the victim. He argues that if the guilty are not punished, justice is not done and if justice is not done, then the idea of law itself is undermined.  One of the reasons for the abandonment of retribution by 20th century reformers was that they gave up on the idea of personal autonomy, since they believed science had discredited it.  While retributive justice is usually considered as a cornerstone of criminal punishment, it has been shown that it also plays a role in civil law.

Principles.

According to the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy", retributive justice is committed to three principles:

Proportionality.

Proportionality requires that the level of punishment be related to the severity of the offending behaviour. An accurate reading of the biblical phrase "an eye for an eye" in Exodus and Leviticus is said to be: "'only" one eye for one eye', or "an eye in place of an eye". However, this does not mean that the punishment has to be "equivalent" to the crime. A retributive system must punish severe crimes more harshly than minor crimes, but retributivists differ about how harsh or soft the system should be overall. The crime's level of severity can be determined in multiple ways. Severity can be determined by the amount of harm, unfair advantage or the moral imbalance that the crime caused.  Traditionally, philosophers of punishment have contrasted retributivism with utilitarianism. For utilitarians, punishment is forward-looking, justified by a purported ability to achieve future social benefits, such as crime reduction. For retributionists, punishment is backward-looking, justified by the crime that has already been committed. Therefore, punishment is carried out to atone for the damage already done.

Subtypes.

Retributive justice is of two distinct types. The classical definition embraces the idea that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of harm caused by the offence. A more recent version advocated by philosopher Michael Davis asserts that the amount of punishment must be proportionate to the amount of unfair advantage gained by the wrongdoer. Davis introduced this version of retributive justice in the early 1980s, at a time when retributive justice was resurging within the philosophy of law community, perhaps due to the failings of reform theory in prior decades.  A retributive justice system's assessment of blameworthiness (or lack thereof) can either justify punishment or serve merely to limit the punishments society imposes for other reasons.

Criticisms.

Many jurisdictions that adopt retributive justice, especially in the United States, use mandatory sentencing, where judges impose a penalty for a crime within the range set by the law. However, judges have limited discretion to consider mitigating factors, leading to greater penalties under certain circumstances.  When the punishment involves a fine, the theory does not allow the financial position of an offender to be considered, leading to situations in which a poor individual and a millionaire could be forced to pay the same amount. Such a fine would be punitive for the poor offender while insignificant for the millionaire. Instead of pure retribution, many jurisdictions use variants such as the European Union's emphasis on punitive equality, which base the amount of a fine not just on the offense but also on the offender's income, salary, and ability to pay. Consequently in 2002 a senior Finnish executive at Nokia was given a fine of €116,000 (US $103,000) on a traffic ticket issued for driving in a zone, based on his income of €14 million (US $12.5 million) per year. Similarly, a Finnish businessman was required to pay €54,000 based on his yearly income of €6.5 million, making the fine equally punitive as a typical €200 (US $246) fine for the same offense would have been had it been issued to a Finn earning an average salary. The retributive theory's lack of consideration of the perpetrator's and victim's status has led many jurisdictions to move away from it in various ways, including punitive equality and taking into consideration the status and wealth, or lack of status and wealth, of an offender and their consequent ability to both pay fines and defend themselves effectively in court.  One critique of some concepts of just deserts is that they are primitive, emphasizing social harm rather than the character and culpability of offenders. An example being California's 1976 statute calling for "terms proportionate to the seriousness of the offense with provision for uniformity in the sentences of offenders committing the same offense under similar circumstances." More generally, prioritizing justice for the public over crime control goals has come under criticism as attributable more to the relative ease of writing sentencing guidelines as crime tariffs (as opposed to describing the appropriate influence of situational and personal characteristics on punishment) than to any sound arguments about penological theory.

Alternatives.

Traditional alternatives to retributive justice have been exile and shunning. In pre-modern societies such sentences were often the equivalent of the death penalty as individuals would find it impossible to survive without the support and protection of the society that they had wronged.  Modern alternatives to retributive measures include psychiatric imprisonment, restorative justice and transformative justice. A general overview of criminal justice puts each of these ideals in context.  One libertarian approach to this issue argues that full restitution (in the broad, rather than technical legal, sense) is compatible with both retributivism and a utilitarian degree of deterrence.

Retributive justice is a theory of punishment that when an offender breaks the law, justice requires that s/he suffers in return. It also requires that the response to a crime is proportional to the offence. Prevention of future crimes (deterrence) or rehabilitation of the offender are other purposes of punishment. Retribution is different from revenge because retributive justice is directed only at wrongs, has inherent limits, is not personal and involves no pleasure at the suffering of others and employs procedural standards. Classical texts advocating the retributive view include Cicero's "De Legibus" (1st century BC), Kant's "Science of Right" (1790), and Hegel's "Philosophy" "of Right" (1821).

应报,或译为应报理论、应报主义或应报式正义(英语:Retributive Justice)是的理论之一,认为因果报应是自然的理性,而刑罚的理由即仅只是犯罪的应报。在刑罚理论中,通常亦等同于绝对理论。


1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler

Early history (1923–1933).

In the early days of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), the leadership realized that a bodyguard unit composed of reliable men was needed. Ernst Röhm formed a guard formation from the "19.Granatwerfer-Kompanie"; from this formation the "Sturmabteilung" (SA) soon evolved. Adolf Hitler in early 1923, ordered the formation of a small separate bodyguard dedicated to his service rather than "a suspect mass", such as the SA. Originally the unit was composed of only eight men, commanded by Julius Schreck and Joseph Berchtold. It was designated the "Stabswache" (staff guard). The "Stabswache" were issued unique badges, but at this point was still under SA control. Schreck resurrected the use of the "Totenkopf" ("death's head") as the unit's insignia, a symbol various elite forces had used in the past, including specialized assault troops of Imperial Germany in World War I who used "Hutier" infiltration tactics.  In May 1923, the unit was renamed "Stoßtrupp" (Shock Troop)–Hitler. The unit numbered no more than 20 members at that time. On 9 November 1923, the "Stoßtrupp", along with the SA and several other Nazi paramilitary units, took part in the abortive Beer Hall Putsch in Munich. In the aftermath, Hitler was imprisoned and his party and all associated formations, including the "Stoßtrupp", were disbanded.  In the mid-1920s, violence remained a large part of Bavarian politics. Hitler was a potential target. In 1925, Hitler ordered the formation of a new bodyguard unit, the "Schutzkommando"

Expansion.

On 13 April 1934, "Reichsführer-SS" Heinrich Himmler ordered the "Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler" (LAH) to be renamed ""Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler"" (LSSAH). Himmler inserted the SS initials into the name to make it clear that the unit was independent from the SA or army. The LSSAH was considered a "National Socialist" unit, which eventually grew into an elite Panzer division of the Waffen-SS. Although nominally under Himmler, Dietrich was the real commander and handled day-to-day administration.  During 1934, "Stabschef-SA" Ernst Röhm continued to push for greater political influence for his already powerful SA. Hitler decided that the SA had to be eliminated as an independent political force and ordered the LSSAH to prepare for the action. The LSSAH formed two companies under the control of Jürgen Wagner and Otto Reich, these formations were moved to Munich on 30 June.  Hitler ordered all SA leaders to attend a meeting at the Hanselbauer Hotel in Bad Wiessee, near Munich. Hitler along with Sepp Dietrich and a unit from the LSSAH travelled to Bad Wiessee to personally oversee Röhm's arrest on 30 June. Later at around 17:00 hours, Dietrich received orders from Hitler for the LSSAH to form an "execution squad" and go to Stadelheim prison where certain SA leaders were being held. There in the prison courtyard, the LSSAH firing squad shot five SA generals and an SA colonel. Additional alleged "traitors" were shot in Berlin by a unit of

Invasion of Poland.

During the initial stages of the invasion of Poland, the LSSAH was attached to the "17.Infanterie-Division" and tasked with providing flank protection for the southern pincer. The regiment was involved in several battles against Polish cavalry brigades attempting to hit the flanks of the German advance. At Pabianice, a town near Łódź, the LSSAH fought elements of the Polish 28th Infantry Division and the Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade in close combat. Throughout the campaign, the unit was notorious for burning villages. In addition,

Invasion of France.

In early 1940 the LSSAH was expanded into a full independent motorized infantry regiment and a "Sturmgeschütz" (Assault Gun) battery was added to their establishment. The regiment was shifted to the Dutch border for the launch of Fall Gelb. It was to form the vanguard of the ground advance into the Netherlands, tasked with capturing a vital bridge over the IJssel, attacking the main line of defense at the "Grebbeberg" (the Grebbeline), and linking up with the "Fallschirmjäger" of "Generaloberst" Kurt Student's airborne forces, the "7.Flieger-Division" and the "22.Luftlande-Infanterie-Division".  "Fall Gelb"—the invasion of France and the Low Countries—was launched on 10 May 1940. On that day, the LSSAH crossed the Dutch border, covered over, and secured a crossing over the IJssel near Zutphen after discovering that their target bridge had been destroyed. Over the next four days, the LSSAH covered over, and upon entering Rotterdam, several of its soldiers accidentally shot at and seriously wounded General Student. After the surrender of Rotterdam, the LSSAH left for the Hague, which they reached on 15 May, after capturing 3,500 Dutch soldiers as prisoners of war.

Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece.

After the conclusion of the Western campaign on 22 June 1940, the LSSAH spent six months in Metz (Moselle). It was expanded to brigade size (6,500 men). A 'Flak battalion' and a StuG "Batterie" were among the units added to the LSSAH. A new flag was presented by Heinrich Himmler in September 1940. During the later months of 1940, the regiment trained in amphibious assaults on the Moselle River in preparation for Operation Seelöwe, the invasion of England. After the Luftwaffe's failure in the Battle of Britain and the cancellation of the planned invasion, the LSSAH was shifted to Bulgaria in February 1941 in preparation for Operation Marita, part of the planned invasion of Greece and Yugoslavia.  The operation was launched on 6 April 1941 by aerial bombings of central-southern Yugoslavia, specially over Belgrade causing enormous destructions and thousands of victims and woundeds. After the LSSAH entered on 12 April into the Yugoslavian capital, then to follow the route of the 9.Panzer-Division, part of "General der Panzertruppe" Georg Stumme's XL Panzer Corps. The LSSAH crossed the border near Bitola and was soon deep in Greek territory.  The LSSAH captured Vevi on 10 April. SS-"Sturmbannführer" Kurt Meyer's reinforced "Aufklärungs-Abteilung" (reconnaissance battalion), LSSAH was tasked with clearing resistance from the Kleisoura Pass south-west of

Invasion of the Soviet Union.

Following LSSAH's outstanding performance during Marita, Himmler ordered that it should be upgraded to divisional status. The regiment, already the size of a reinforced brigade, was to be given motorized transport and redesignated ""SS-Division (mot.) Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler"". It was moved to Czechoslovakia in mid May for reorganization until being ordered to assemble in Poland for "Operation Barbarossa", as part of Gerd von Rundstedt's, Army Group South. There was not enough time to deliver all its equipment and refit it to full divisional status before the launch of the invasion of the Soviet Union, so the new "division" remained the size of a reinforced brigade, even though its expansion and development was of concern at the very highest ranks of command. Franz Halder, chief of the OKH General Staff noted on 20 June that "SS 'Adolf Hitler' will not be ready in time. Tracked components leave on 22 June, others not before 25 June," then more hopefully the next day; "Materiel position of SS 'Adolf Hitler' has improved, Div. may yet get ready in time." Despite Halder's hopes, LSSAH was held in reserve attached to XIV Panzer Corps as part of "Generalfeldmarschall" Ewald von Kleist's 1st Panzer Group during the opening stages of the attack. Through July it was attached to III Panzer Corps before finishing August as part of XLVIII Panzer Corps. During this time, the LSSAH was involved in the Battle of Uman and the subsequent capture of Kiev. According to a postwar report by Waffen-SS journalist Erich Kern, the division murdered 4,000 Soviet prisoners in reprisal on 18 August, after finding the mutilated bodies of six dead divisional members who had been executed at Nowo Danzig, north of Kherson. These allegations have been researched using local units' war diaries; no mention of executed German soldiers during those dates has been found. For want of reliable evidence, not even accusations by the Soviet authorities, the allegations remained unproven. In early September, the division was shifted to LIV Army Corps, as part of the 11th Army under Eugen Ritter von Schobert during the advance east after the fall of Kiev. Hoping to capitalize on the collapse of the Red Army defense on the Dnepr River the reconnaissance battalion of LSSAH was tasked with making a speedy advance to capture the strategically vital choke point of the Perekop Isthmus through a ""coup de main"" but were rebuffed by entrenched defenders at the town of Perekop. That same day, 12 September, 11th Army's commander was killed in an aircraft accident, and Hitler appointed Erich von Manstein to command. It took five days for Manstein to take matters in hand, and the operation to clear the Crimean Peninsula was not launched until 17 September. Manstein deployed LSSAH to create diversions while preparing for the main assault, intending to employ it to exploit an eventual breakthrough, but was forced to throw pioneers into the attack on the "Tatar Ditch" in the face of a furious counterattacks and did not break the Soviet defense for ten days.  In October, the LSSAH was transferred back north to help solidify the Axis line against fresh Soviet attacks against the Romanian 3rd Army and later took part in the heavy fighting for the city of Rostov-on-Don, which was captured in late November; there, the LSSAH took over 10,000 Red Army prisoners. However by the end of the year, the German advance faltered as Soviet resistance grew stronger.  Under pressure from heavy Soviet counterattacks during the winter, the LSSAH and Army Group South retreated from Rostov to defensive lines on the river Mius. After the spring rasputitsa (seasonal mud) had cleared, the division joined in "Fall Blau", participating in the fighting to retake Rostov-on-Don, which fell in late July 1942. Severely understrength, the LSSAH was transferred to the Normandy region of occupied France to join the newly formed SS Panzer Corps and to be reformed as a Panzergrenadier division.

Battle of Kursk.

The spring "rasputitsa" halted offensive operations, giving the LSSAH time to rest and refit. By early June 1943, the division had been fully refitted and was now under the command of SS-"Brigadeführer", Theodor Wisch. Its armor strength was 12 Tiger Is, 72 Panzer IVs, 16 Panzer III and Panzer IIs, and 31 StuGs. In late June 1943, the formation of I SS Panzer Corps meant that Hausser's "SS Panzer" Corps was renamed II SS Panzer Corps. The II SS Panzer Corps was moved north to Belgorod in preparation for the upcoming summer offensive Operation Citadel. The LSSAH, along with the SS Divisions Totenkopf and Das Reich, was to form the spearhead of General Hermann Hoth's 4th Panzer Army, tasked with breaching the southern flank of the Kursk salient. Field Marshal Walter Model's 9th Army was to breach the northern flank, and the two forces were to meet near the city of Kursk, to the east, thereby encircling a large Soviet force. The attack commenced on 5 July. The LSSAH's panzers, advancing in "Panzerkeil"s (wedges), soon ran into the elaborate defenses of the Red Army, which slowed the advance. By 9 July, the II SS Panzer Corps had advanced north, and were nearing the small town of

Italy and subsequent operations.

The division, re-equipped with vehicles, arrived on the Po River Plain on 8 August 1943. The LSSAH was given the task of guarding several vital road and rail junctions in the area of Trento-Verona. After several weeks, the division was moved to the Parma-Reggio area. During this period, the "Leibstandarte" was involved in several skirmishes with partisans. With Italy having announced an armistice with the Allies of 8 September 1943, the division was ordered to begin disarming nearby Italian units. This went smoothly, with the exception of brief, bloody fights with Italian troops stationed in Parma, Cremona and Piacenza on 9 September. By 19 September, all Italian forces in the Po River Plain had been disarmed.  While on rear security duties in Italy, LSSAH men murdered 49 Jewish refugees near Lake Maggiore, in the Lake Maggiore massacres, who had fled there after the German takeover. The murders happened between 15 and 24 September. Some of the victims had their

Western Front.

The division was transferred again as part of the I SS Panzer Corps which at this time consisted of the 101 SS Heavy Panzer Battalion, SS Division Hitlerjugend, SS Division Götz von Berlichingen and the Panzer Lehr Division. The LSSAH had been positioned north of the River Seine to counter any possible landing in the area of the Pas de Calais so the first units did not arrive in Normandy until after the Allied invasion there on 6 June 1944; part of it arrived on the night of 27–28 June with the whole division taking another week. By 4 July the I SS Panzer Corps was reformed, and now consisted of the LSSAH and the Hitlerjugend. The first action they were involved in was the defense of Carpiquet village and airfield in the Allied Operation Windsor. There then followed a number of Allied attacks – Operations Charnwood and Jupiter. On 12 July the LSSAH was holding the Caen south sector from Maltot in the west to the Caen – Falaise road in the east. During the night of 14 – 15 July, LSSAH was relieved by the 272nd Infantry Division and pulled back to an assembly area astride the Caen – Falaise road between Ifs and Cintheaux.

Operation Goodwood.

The British Operation Goodwood took place between 18 and 20 July 1944. British VIII Corps, with three armored divisions, launched the attack aiming to seize the German-held Bourguébus Ridge, along with the area between Bretteville-sur-Laize and Vimont. The operation was preceded by a three-hour bombing by 2,500 aircraft. The Division strength prior to Goodwood was reported as 59 Panzer IVs, 46 Panthers and 35 StuG IIIs.  II/1st SS Panzer Regiment, located near Garcelles, received orders to attack the British at Soliers. While moving its 13 Panthers towards Bourguébus, the unit engaged 60 British tanks, destroying 20 of them and capturing Soliers. Around 12:00, the Panther Battalion, I/1st

Operation Lüttich.

On 25 July 1944, US forces under General Omar Bradley succeeded in breaking through the German defenses as part of Operation Cobra and entered Brittany. Hitler forbade any retreat, and ordered a counteroffensive, codenamed Operation Lüttich, by the XLVII Panzer Corps, consisting of the 2nd Panzer Division, part of the LSSAH, the SS Division Das Reich and the 116th Panzer Division. The plan for the attack to hit the 30th Infantry Division east of Mortain, then cut through American defenses to reach the coast. The US response was aided by Ultra intelligence, which had revealed the plans for Operation Lüttich by 4 August. As a result, Bradley was

Ardennes Offensive.

The Ardennes Offensive (16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945) was a major German offensive launched through the forested Ardennes Mountains region of Belgium, France and Luxembourg.. The offensive was called "Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein" (Operation "Watch on the Rhine") by the Germans. The 'bulge' was the initial incursion

Malmedy massacre.

Peiper bypassed the Elsenborn ridge, and at 07:00 on 17 December, the unit seized a US fuel depot at Büllingen, and refueled before continuing westward. At 12:30, near the hamlet of Baugnez, on the height halfway between the town of Malmedy and Ligneuville, Peiper's "Kampfgruppe" encountered a convoy of the 285th Field Artillery Observation Battalion, US 7th Armored Division. After a brief battle the Americans surrendered. Along with other Americans captured earlier (127 men total), they were disarmed and sent to stand in a field near the crossroads, where the Germans shot them en masse with machine guns and pistols. Of the 84 men killed, 41 were killed by a pistol shot to the head at close range and six were killed by having their skulls bashed in. After feigning death in the field for several hours while the Germans moved among them shooting survivors, a group of about 30 men escaped. Researcher Danny S. Parker believe that Peiper or one of his subordinates made the decision to kill the prisoners. There is no record of an SS officer giving an execution order. News of the killings raced through the Allied lines. Captured SS men who were part of "Kampfgruppe Peiper" were tried during the Malmedy massacre trial following the war for this massacre

Eastern Front 1945.

Operation Spring Awakening (6 March 1945 – 16 March 1945) was the last major German offensive launched during World War II. It began in great secrecy on 6 March 1945. The German forces launched attacks in Hungary near Lake Balaton. This area included some of the last oil reserves still available to the Axis. The operation involved many German units withdrawn from the failed Ardennes Offensive on the Western Front, including the 6th SS Panzer Army and the LSSAH. Operation Spring Awakening was a failure for the German side. Within a week, the early gains were halted by massive counter-attacks by Soviet forces. The overwhelming numerical superiority of the Red Army made any defense impossible, yet Hitler somehow had believed victory was attainable.  After the failure of Operation Spring Awakening, Sepp Dietrich's 6th SS Panzer Army retreated in stages to the Vienna area. The Germans prepared defensive positions in an attempt to hold the city against the fast arriving Red Army, in what become known as the Vienna Offensive. The Germans could not hold Vienna, which fell to the Soviet forces on 13 April.  This defeat resulted in the "Ärmelstreifen" (Cuff Titles Order) or "armband order", which was issued by Hitler to the commander of the 6th SS Panzer Army, Sepp Dietrich. Hitler claimed that the troops "did not fight as the situation demanded." As a mark of disgrace, Hitler ordered the Waffen-SS units involved to remove their cuff titles (German: "Ärmelstreifen"). Dietrich refused to carry out the order and did not relay the message to the troops. According to Heinz Guderian, most cuff titles had already been removed; he later wrote that the removal of unit cuffs from the "Leibstandarte", "Totenkopf", "Hohenstaufen", and the "Das Reich" Divisions was accomplished for security reasons.

Battle of Berlin.

Part of the LSSAH ended the war fighting in Berlin. On 23 April 1945, Hitler appointed "Brigadeführer" Mohnke the commander for the central government district (Zitadelle sector) that included the Reich Chancellery and "Führerbunker". Mohnke's command post was under the Reich Chancellery in the bunkers therein. He formed "Kampfgruppe" Mohnke which was divided into two weak regiments made up of approximately 2,000 men. The core group were the 800 of the "Leibstandarte" Guard Battalion (assigned to guard the Führer). After Hitler's suicide, they received orders to

Organisation.

Structure of the division:

The 1st SS Panzer Division "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler", short LSSAH, began as Adolf Hitler's personal bodyguard, responsible for guarding the Führer's person, offices, and residences. Initially the size of a regiment, the LSSAH eventually grew into an elite division-sized unit during World War II.

武装党卫队第1师「阿道夫·希特勒警卫旗队」(),是从希特勒的私人卫队发展演变而来的一支部队,完全由标准的日耳曼人组成,从团扩大到旅再扩大为师。是武装党卫队战斗力最强的师之一。1939年参加入侵波兰行动的时候还是一支独立部队,1941年归属党卫军并参加巴巴罗萨行动。战后在纽伦堡审判中,党卫军被判为犯罪组织,第1装甲师是其组成部分,该部队在1940年至1945年之间杀害了至少5,000名战俘。


History.

Original magazine: 1899–1998.

"Technology Review" was founded in 1899 under the name "The Technology Review" and relaunched in 1998 without "The" in its original name. It currently claims to be "the oldest technology magazine in the world."  In 1899, "The New York Times" commented:  The career path of James Rhyne Killian illustrates the close ties between "Technology Review" and the Institute. In 1926, Killian graduated from college and got his first job as assistant managing editor of "Technology Review;" he rose to editor-in-chief; became executive assistant to then-president Karl Taylor Compton in 1939; vice-president of MIT in 1945; and succeeded Compton as president in 1949.  The May 4, 1929 issue contained an article by Dr. Norbert Wiener, then Assistant Professor of Mathematics, describing some deficiencies in a paper Albert Einstein had published earlier that year. Wiener also commented on a cardinal's critique of the Einstein theory saying:  The historical "Technology Review" often published articles that were controversial, or critical of certain technologies. A 1980 issue contained an article by Jerome Wiesner attacking the Reagan administration's nuclear defense strategy. The cover of a 1983 issue stated "Even if the fusion program produces a reactor, no one will want it," and contained an article by Lawrence M. Lidsky, associate director of MIT's Plasma Fusion Center, challenging the feasibility of fusion power (which at the time was often fancied to be just around the corner). The May 1984 issue contained an exposé about microchip manufacturing hazards.  In 1966, the magazine started using a puzzle column started in Tech Engineering News a few months earlier. Its author is Allan Gottlieb, who has now written the column for more than fifty years.  As late as 1967, the "New York Times" described "Technology Review" as a "scientific journal." Of its writing style, writer George V. Higgins complained:  In 1984, "Technology Review" printed an article about a Russian scientist using ova from frozen mammoths to create a mammoth-elephant hybrid called a "mammontelephas.". Apart from being dated "April 1, 1984," there were no obvious giveaways in the story. The Chicago "Tribune" News Service picked it up as a real news item, and it was printed as fact in hundreds of newspapers.  The prank was presumably forgotten by 1994, when a survey of "opinion leaders" ranked "Technology Review" No. 1 in the nation in the "most credible" category.  Contributors to the magazine also included Thomas A. Edison, Winston Churchill, and Tim Berners-Lee.

Relaunch: 1998–2005.

A radical transition of the magazine occurred in 1996. At that time, according to the "Boston Business Journal", in 1996 "Technology Review" had lost $1.6 million over the previous seven years and was "facing the possibility of folding" due to "years of declining advertising revenue."  R. Bruce Journey was named publisher, the first full-time publisher in the magazine's history. According to previous publisher William J. Hecht, although "Technology Review" had "long been highly regarded for its editorial excellence," the purpose of appointing Journey was to enhance its "commercial potential" and "secure a prominent place for Technology Review in the competitive world of commercial publishing." John Benditt replaced Steven J. Marcus as editor-in-chief, the entire editorial staff was fired, and the modern "Technology Review" was born.  Boston "Globe" columnist David Warsh described the transition by saying that the magazine had been serving up "old 1960s views of things: humanist, populist, ruminative, suspicious of the unseen dimensions of new technologies" and had now been replaced with one that "takes innovation seriously and enthusiastically." Former editor Marcus characterized the magazine's new stance as "cheerleading for innovation."  Under Bruce Journey, "Technology Review" billed itself as "MIT's Magazine of Innovation." Since 2001, it has been published by Technology Review Inc., a nonprofit independent media company owned by MIT.  Intending to appeal to business leaders, editor John Benditt said in 1999, "We're really about new technologies and how they get commercialized." "Technology Review" covers breakthroughs and current issues on fields such as biotechnology, nanotechnology, and computing. Articles are also devoted to more mature disciplines such as energy, telecommunications, transportation, and the military.  Since Journey, "Technology Review" has been distributed as a regular mass-market magazine and appears on newsstands. By 2003, circulation had more than tripled from 92,000 to 315,000, about half that of "Scientific American," and included 220,000 paid subscribers and 95,000 sent free to MIT alumni. Additionally, in August 2003, a German edition of "Technology Review" was started in cooperation with the publishing house Heinz Heise (circulation of about 50,000 as of 2005). According to The "New York Times", as of 2004 the magazine was still "partly financed by M.I.T. (though it is expected to turn a profit eventually)."  "Technology Review" also functions as the MIT alumni magazine; the edition sent to alumni contains a separate section, "MIT News," containing items such as alumni class notes. This section is not included in the edition distributed to the general public.  The magazine is published by Technology Review, Inc, an independent media company owned by MIT. MIT's website lists it as an MIT publication, and the MIT News Office states that "the magazine often uses MIT expertise for some of its content." In 1999 "The Boston Globe" noted that (apart from the alumni section) "few "Technology Review" articles actually concern events or research at MIT." However, in the words of editor Jason Pontin:  From 1997 to 2005, R. Bruce Journey held the title of "publisher"; Journey was also the president and CEO of Technology Review, Inc. Editors-in-chief have included John Benditt (1997), Robert Buderi (2002), and Jason Pontin (2004).  The magazine has won numerous Folio! awards, presented at the annual magazine publishing trade show conducted by "Folio!" magazine. In 2001, these included a "Silver Folio: Editorial Excellence Award" in the consumer science and technology magazine category and many awards for typography and design. In 2006, "Technology Review" was named a finalist in the "general excellence" category of the annual National Magazine Awards, sponsored by the American Society of Magazine Editors.  On June 6, 2001, "Fortune" and CNET Networks launched a publication entitled "Fortune/CNET Technology Review". MIT sued FORTUNE's parent corporation, Time, Inc. for infringement of the "Technology Review" trademark. The case was quickly settled. In August the MIT student newspaper reported that lawyers for MIT and Time were reluctant to discuss the case, citing a confidentiality agreement that both sides described as very restrictive. Jason Kravitz, a Boston attorney who represented MIT in the case, suggested that the magazine’s change of name to "Fortune/CNET Tech Review," a change that occurred in the middle of the case, may have been part of the settlement.  Many publications covering specific technologies have used "technology review" as part of their names, such as Lawrence Livermore Labs's "Energy & Technology Review", AACE's "Educational Technology Review", and the International Atomic Energy Agency's "Nuclear Technology Review."  In 2005, "Technology Review," along with "Wired News" and other technology publications, was embarrassed by the publication of a number of stories by freelancer Michelle Delio containing information which could not be corroborated. Editor-in-chief Pontin said, "Of the ten stories which were published, only three were entirely accurate. In two of the stories, I'm fairly confident that Michelle Delio either did not speak to the person she said she spoke to, or misrepresented her interview with him." The stories were retracted.

Modern magazine: 2005-present.

On August 30, 2005, "Technology Review" announced that R. Bruce Journey, publisher from 1996 to 2005, would be replaced by the then current Editor in Chief, Jason Pontin, and would reduce the print publication frequency from eleven to six issues per year while enhancing the publication's website. The Boston Globe characterized the change as a "strategic overhaul." Editor and publisher Jason Pontin stated that he would "focus the print magazine on what print does best: present[ing] longer-format, investigative stories and colorful imagery." Technology Review's Web site, Pontin said, would henceforth publish original, daily news and analysis (whereas before it had merely republished the print magazine's stories). Finally, Pontin said that Technology Review's stories in print and online would identify and analyze emerging technologies. This focus resembles that of the historical "Technology Review." Pontin convinced copy editors to adopt the diaeresis mark for words like "coördinate", a rarity in native English usage, though failed to convince them to use logical punctuation.  Without evident comment, the July/August, 2017, issue revealed a shift in top personnel, with Elizabeth Bramson-Boudreau listed as Chief Executive Officer and Publisher, and David Rotman as Editor. Gideon Lichfield was named editor-in-chief in November, 2017.  Every year, the magazine publishes a list of the 10 technologies it considers the most influential.

Annual Lists.

Each year, MIT Technology Review publishes three annual lists:

Innovators Under 35.

"MIT Technology Review" has become well known for its annual Innovators Under 35. In 1999, and then in 2002—2004, MIT Technology Review produced the "TR100", a list of "100 remarkable innovators under the age of 35." In 2005, this list was renamed the "TR35" and shortened to 35 individuals under the age of 35. Notable recipients of the award include Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, Geekcorps creator Ethan Zuckerman, Linux developer Linus Torvalds, BitTorrent developer Bram Cohen, MacArthur "genius" bioengineer Jim Collins, investor Micah Siegel and Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen. The list was renamed Innovators Under 35 in 2013.

Recognition.

In 2006, "Technology Review" was a finalist in the National Magazine Awards in the category of General Excellence.  In 2010, "Technology Review" won the gold and silver prizes for best full issue of a technology magazine (for its November and June 2009 issues) and the gold, silver, and bronze prizes for best single article in a technology magazine (for “Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map” by David Rotman; “Prescription: Networking” by David Talbot; and “Chasing the Sun“ by David Rotman) in the "Folio Magazine" Eddie Awards.  In 2007, "Technology Review" won the bronze prizes in the "Folio Magazine" Eddie Awards in the categories of best issue of a technology magazine and best single technology article. That same year, technologyreview.com won third place in the MPA Digital Awards for best business or news Website and second place for best online video or video series.  In 2008, "Technology Review" won the gold prize for the best issue of a technology magazine (for its May 2008 issue); the gold, silver, and bronze prizes for best single articles in a technology magazine (for "The Price of Biofuels" by David Rotman; "Brain Trauma in Iraq" by Emily Singer; and "Una Laptop por Niño" by David Talbot); the gold prize for best online community; and the bronze prize for best online tool in the "Folio Magazine" Eddie Awards. That same year, "Technology Review" won third place in the Magazine Publishers of America (MPA) Digital Awards for best online videos.  In 2009, "Technology Review" won the gold prize for Best Online News Coverage; the gold and silver prizes for best single articles in a technology magazine (for "How Obama Really Did It" by David Talbot) and "Can Technology Save the Economy?" by David Rotman and the silver prize for best online community in the "Folio Magazine" Eddie Awards.  In 2011, "Technology Review" won the silver prize for best full issue of a technology magazine (for its January 2011 issue) and the gold and silver prizes for best single article in a technology magazine (for “Moore's Outlaws” by David Talbot and "Radical Opacity" by Julian Dibbell) in the "Folio Magazine" Eddie Awards. That same year, "Technology Review" was recognized for the best science and technology coverage in the "Utne Reader" Independent Press Awards.  In 2012, MIT Technology Review won the gold and silver prizes for best full issue of a technology magazine (for its June and October 2012 issues), and the gold and bronze prizes for best single article in a technology magazine (for "People Power 2.0" by John Pollock and "The Library of Utopia" by Nicholas Carr) in the "Folio Magazine" Eddie Awards. That same year, MIT Technology Review won the gold prize for best feature design (for "The Library of Utopia" by Nicholas Carr) in the "Folio Magazine" Ozzie Awards.

MIT Technology Review is a magazine wholly owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and editorially independent of the university. It was founded in 1899 as The Technology Review, and was re-launched without "The" in its name on April 23, 1998 under then publisher R. Bruce Journey. In September 2005, it was changed, under its then editor-in-chief and publisher, Jason Pontin, to a form resembling the historical magazine.

《麻省理工科技评论》(英语: MIT Technology Review)是由麻省理工学院于1899年创刊的杂志。 它侧重报道新兴科技和创新商业,专注于科技的商业化和资本化。它的读者包括高级管理人员,创业者,投资者,研究员,科学家以及麻省理工校友等。它目前拥有英文、中文、西班牙文、德文等多种不同语言的版本。在2011年,麻省理工《科技创业》在最佳科学/技术类别评选中获得Utne Reader独立新闻奖项。


Ptolemaic rulers and consorts.

Dates in brackets represent the regnal dates of the Ptolemaic pharaohs. They frequently ruled jointly with their wives, who were often also their sisters. Several queens exercised regal authority. Of these, one of the last and most famous was Cleopatra ("Cleopatra VII Philopator", 51–30 BC), with her two brothers and her son serving as successive nominal co-rulers. Several systems exist for numbering the later rulers; the one used here is the one most widely employed by modern scholars.

Inbreeding and health.

In continuation of the tradition established by previous Egyptian dynasties, the Ptolemies engaged in inbreeding including sibling marriage, with many of the pharaohs being married to their siblings and often co-ruling with them. Ptolemy I and other early rulers of the dynasty were not married to their relatives, the childless marriage of siblings Ptolemy II and Arsinoe II being an exception. The first child-producing incestuous marriage in the Ptolemaic dynasty was that of Ptolemy IV and Arsinoe III, who were succeeded as co-pharaohs by their son Ptolemy V, born 210 BC. The most famous Ptolemaic pharaoh, Cleopatra VII, was at different times married to and reigning with two of her brothers (Ptolemy XIII until 47 BC and then Ptolemy XIV until 44 BC), and their parents were likely siblings or possibly cousins as well.  Contemporaries describe a number of the Ptolemaic dynasty members as extremely obese, whilst sculptures and coins reveal prominent eyes and swollen necks. Familial Graves' disease could explain the swollen necks and eye prominence (exophthalmos), although this is unlikely to occur in the presence of morbid obesity. This is all likely due to inbreeding within the Ptolemaic dynasty. In view of the familial nature of these findings, members of this dynasty likely suffered from a multi-organ fibrotic condition such as Erdheim–Chester disease or a familial multifocal fibrosclerosis where thyroiditis, obesity and ocular proptosis may have all occurred concurrently.

The Ptolemaic dynasty (;, "Ptolemaioi"), sometimes also known as the Lagids () or Lagidae (;, "Lagidai", after Lagus, Ptolemy I's father), was a Macedonian Greek royal family, which ruled the Ptolemaic Kingdom in Egypt during the Hellenistic period. Their rule lasted for 275 years, from 305 to 30 BC. They were the last dynasty of ancient Egypt.

托勒密王朝(希腊语:),是由马其顿君主亚历山大大帝死后,其将军托勒密一世所开创的王朝,主要统治埃及,首都-{zh-cn:亚历山大港;zh-hk:亚历山大港;zh-tw:亚历山大}-。第一代君主是亚历山大大帝的将领托勒密一世,最后一任君主是女王克利奥帕特拉七世和其儿子托勒密十五世·小凯撒。


History.

The Duchy was born when the arbitration of the King of Saxony, Frederick Augustus, produced the Treaty of Hildburghausen on 12 November 1826 for the "Gothaische Teilung" (Gothan Division), the extensive rearrangement of the Ernestine duchies. After the extinction of the Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg line, the Duke of Saxe-Hildburghausen exchanged his Duchy for that of Saxe-Altenburg. The Saxe-Meiningen line became Saxe-Hildburghausen and got from Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld the Saalfelder territories as well as the District of Themar and the places of Mupperg, Mogger, Liebau and Oerlsdorf. The Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld received for that the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg, Districts of Königsberg and Sonnefeld from Saxe-Hildburghausen, and the properties of Callenberg and Gauerstadt from Saxe-Meiningen.  By then, the Principality of Lichtenberg, on the Nahe River, had already been a part of the Duchy of Coburg for ten years. Ernest III, the sovereign of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, had received it in 1816 from the Congress of Vienna for providing assistance to the Allies in their war against France. But, because of the great distance from Coburg and of the unrest caused by the Hambach Festival, the Duke sold the Principality in 1834 to Prussia. The newly created Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was initially a double duchy, ruled by Ernest III as Duke Ernest I in a personal union, but with only one vote in the "Bundesrat". The opportunity to unify the two duchies in 1826 was missed. After the "Staatsgrundgesetz" (House laws) of 1852, the duchies were bound in a political and real union. They were then a quasi-federal unitary state. Later attempts to merge the duchies failed in 1867 because the "Landtag" of Gotha did not want to assume the higher state debts of Coburg and in 1872 because of the questions about the administration of the whole union.  The Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha received on 3 May 1852 a national constitution, which had taken substantial parts of the fundamental rights from the Constitution of the National Assembly in Frankfurt. It also joined the German Zollverein in 1834, the North German Confederation in 1866 and the German Empire in 1871. At the "Bundesrat" in Berlin, where it had a seat, it kept its agents but, since 1913, like most of the other Thuringian states, it had to defer to the Grand Duchy of Saxe-Meiningen for the representation.  Ernest I died in 1844. His elder son and successor, Ernest II, ruled until his own death in 1893. Because he had died childless, the throne of the two duchies would have passed to his late brother Prince Albert's male descendants. But Prince Albert was the husband of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and his eldest son, Edward, the Prince of Wales, was already her heir apparent. Besides, he was prohibited by the Constitutions of both duchies from inheriting the throne if there were other eligible male heirs. But he had already renounced his claim in favour of his next brother, Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh. So Alfred became the next Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.  Alfred's only son, also named Alfred, died in 1899, so when Duke Alfred died in 1900 he was succeeded by his nephew the Duke of Albany, the 16-year-old son of Queen Victoria's youngest son, Leopold, as Duke Alfred's next brother Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and his son Prince Arthur of Connaught had renounced their own claims to the succession. Reigning as Duke Carl Eduard, Charles Edward, because of his age, began under the Regency of Prince Ernst von Hohenlohe-Langenburg until he came of age in 1905. The new Duke also continued to use his British title, the Duke of Albany. But, because he chose to side with the Germans against the British in the First World War, he was stripped of his British titles in 1919.  After the November Revolution ended the monarchy in 1918, the two duchies became two different and independent states, the Free State of Coburg and the Republic (later Free State) of Gotha. But their leaders believed that their new countries were not economically feasible so they began to search for possible mergers. Eventually, a referendum was held on 30 November 1919 and the decision was made. On 1 May 1920 the Free State of Gotha merged with the new State of Thuringia and the Free State of Coburg followed two months later, on 1 July 1920, by uniting with the Free State of Bavaria.

Politics.

In the German Empire, the Duchy had only one vote in the "Bundestag" and two votes (for the two Duchies of Coburg and Gotha) in the "Reichstag".  Each Duchy had its own "Landtag", elected every four years by male taxpayers over 25 years of age. Only males 30 years or older were eligible to stand for the elections. The Coburger assembly had 11 members and its twin in Gotha had 19. The assemblies met every year but, every two years, they would combine, alternatively in Gotha and Coburg, for the matters and questions that involve both Duchies.  For both duchies, however, there was a Ministry of State in Gotha but Coburg and Gotha had their own subordinate and almost independent ministries. The Minister of State directed Gotha's Ducal ministry but, for both Duchies, he was responsible for the state affairs, the economical and commercials policies, the judiciary and the conduct of Imperial laws. In Coburg, for state matters as such as community services, police duties, support of the state church, and education, as well as management of assets and finances, and also, until 1891, court matters, the local authorities could not interfere with the decisions from Gotha.  The finances of both Duchies remained basically disconnected. But, in their management, a distinction was always made between the Crown revenue from the domains and the State revenue from taxes and duties. Every four years, a common budget, especially in the financial dealings with the German Empire, was made, even if it interfered with the local and national operations of the two Duchies. Grants from the state budgets of both Duchies were made in the ratio of 7 to 3 between Gotha and Coburg.  Because of its size and finances, the Duchy did not have ambassadors but it did have trade consuls. They were for trade with Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Great Britain, Italy, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, and Turkey. The United States had its own consul in Coburg from 1897 to 1918.  During the American Civil War, Ernst Raven was assigned to the position of consul in the state of Texas. He applied to the Confederate Government for a diplomatic exequatur on 30 July 1861 and was accepted.

Military.

Before 1867, the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha had its own Army. But, on 26 June 1867, because of a treaty signed in 1866 with Prussia, its Army was added, for defending and recruiting purposes, to the 6th Thuringian Infantry Regiment No. 95 of the 22nd Division of the XIth Army Corps. Three battalions of the 6th Thuringian were assigned to Gotha (No. 1), Hildburghausen (No. 2) and Coburg (No. 3) but the Corps headquarters was in Kassel. Unlike Prussia, where military service was mandatory, Saxe-Coburg and Gotha filled its quota in the Imperial Army with the draft.

Miscellaneous.

The capitals of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha were Coburg and Gotha. By 1914 the area and populations of the two duchies were:  There are two residences in Gotha and Coburg. Therefore, the whole ducal court, including the Court Theater, had to move twice a year: from Gotha to Coburg for the summer, from Coburg to Gotha for the winter. For the Court Theater, two almost identical buildings had to be built in 1840 in Gotha (destroyed in the Second World War) and Coburg (now the Coburg State Theater) and thereafter maintained at the same time. In addition to the residential castles, "Friedenstein" in Gotha and "Ehrenburg" in Coburg, the Ducal family also used the "Schloss" Reinhardsbrunn in Gotha as well as the Rosenau and Callenberg castles in Coburg and the hunting lodge Greinburg Castle, Grein, Austria (the latter two still today owned by the ducal branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha). Only the Duchy of Gotha, along with nearby Duchies of Saxe-Meiningen and Saxe-Altenburg and especially the Grand Duchy of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach – was able to be one of the sponsoring states of the University of Jena. Coburg did not have its own university. It did not have its court of law, either. Gotha had its own court of law while Coburg had to go to Meiningen for the legal administration.

Ruler.

Titles and styles of the Sovereign of the House.

According to the "Staatsgrundgesetz" (House laws) of the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the full title of the Duke was:  "Wir, Ernst, Herzog zu Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, Jülich, Cleve und Berg, auch Engern und Westphalen, Landgraf in Thüringen, Markgraf zu Meißen, gefürsteter Graf zu Henneberg, Graf zu der Mark und Ravensberg, Herr zu Ravenstein und Tonna usw."  Translation: We, Ernest, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Jülich, Cleves and Berg, also Angria and Westphalia, Landgrave in Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen, Princely Count of Henneberg, Count of the Mark and Ravensberg, Lord of Ravenstein and Tonna, et cetera.

Titles and styles of other members of the House.

The use of Ducal and Princely titles may be restricted if the marriage conflicts with the requirements of the "Staatsgrundgesetz" or if a member of the House renounces his claims for himself and his descendants.

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (), or Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (), was an Ernestine, Thuringian duchy ruled by a branch of the House of Wettin, consisting of territories in the present-day states of Thuringia and Bavaria in Germany. It lasted from 1826 to 1918. In November 1918, Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, was forced to abdicate. In 1920, the northern part of the duchy (since 1918 the Free State of Saxe-Gotha; culturally and linguistically Thuringian) was merged with six other Thuringian free states to form the state of Thuringia: Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (until 1918 a grand duchy), Saxe-Altenburg and Saxe-Meiningen (until 1918 duchies), Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt and Schwarzburg-Sondershausen (until 1918 principalities), as well as the People's State of Reuss (until 1918 the principalities of Reuss-Gera and Reuss-Greiz). The southern part of the duchy (since 1918 the Free State of Coburg; culturally and linguistically Franconian), as southernmost of the Thuringian states, was the only one which, after a referendum, became part of Bavaria.

萨克森-科堡和哥达(Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha),或称萨克森-科堡-哥达,是韦廷家族在图林根的两个邦国组成的共主邦联。1826年由萨克森-科堡-萨尔费尔德和萨克森-哥达-阿尔滕堡整合产生。1871年加入德意志帝国。1918年德国君主制覆亡,成为科堡自由州和萨克森-哥达自由州。1920年科堡成为巴伐利亚州的一部分,哥达成为图林根州的一部分。