"Terrorism" too, was used as an excuse by Hitler; granted that much of his terrorism was contrived [..]

There was of course also a lot of genuine terrorism in Nazi occupied Europe, at least in the sense that the events really happened as reported. Newspapers that were still legally in print here in the Netherlands during WWII often referred to acts of resistance as terrorism, and the press (even sometimes the resistance friendly illegal press) also editorialized about the immorality of doing things like stealing food stamps, exposing innocents to harm by hiding among them, provoking Nazi violence against innocents with guerilla tactics, etc. Even during WWII one man's freedom fighter was another man's terrorist. There's nothing new in that debate.

The more interesting question, which was immediately posed here in the Dutch news, is when the Chinese copy will be ready and how expensive it will be compared to the F-35.

We are partner in the development project, but politicians don't seem to be to keen on committing to a 7-8 billion dollar F-35 order in the short term. Perhaps waiting for the Chinese VLO fighter-bomber is a solution...

It's not that certain oppressors are incapable of being shamed, but rather that some oppressors are less hypocritical about their behaviour than others.

Given the examples, I wonder how strongly "mood" correlates with population per house seat and electoral vote.

The Dutch 2001-2007 winners of the World Solar Challenge met 60 mph in 2003 and exceeded it in 2005 on average over a 1,877 miles distance. 60 mph is the speed to aim for to have a chance of winning (contingent on weather, and being forced by circumstances to brake).

Perhaps the article is only trying to say that a UK university is participating with a competitive car in the World Solar Challenge.

The list of countries who owe their independence to the fighting spirit of the American soldier is staggering. Kuait, Israel, France, Poland, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Belgum, Netherlands, Greece, Egypt, Italy, Tripolli, South Korea, Panama, Spain, and now Iraq and Afhganastan.

And the US owes its independence to the fighting spirit of French, Spanish, and Dutch soldiers.

Note that by your logic Poland owes its independence to the US twice! You liberated it once in WWII, and then a few decades later from Soviet oppression.

It was undoubtedly also the Nazi's reasoning behind the 1940 Rotterdam Blitz, which made the Allies abandon the policy of not deliberately bombing civilian targets (first British bombardment on a German city was on the evening of the day after the Rotterdam Blitz). No Allied government bought the Nazi argument that carpet bombing Rotterdam was legitimized by the Dutch defense of the river bank inside the city.

The Dutch did indeed surrender to prevent additional civilian casualties, but receive very little praise in the history books - their own and those of others - for that civilized decision. Why would anyone expect Iraqi insurgents to follow that example? Stalingrad is the historical example to follow.

Non-US coalition forces account for 43% of casualties in Afghanistan, and the countries involved in the southern provinces (besides the UK, also Canada, the Netherlands, Australia, Denmark, Romania) have seen their share of battle with the Taliban, both in offensive operations usually led by US and UK and sometimes on their own in defensive battles. While the rest of Afghanistan is safer, it is still no picnic.

I've always been fascinated by the European assumption that the USA was obligated to help out in any European war, by the way. Especially when we watch those same Europeans not get involved in those same wars till it suits them.

Interesting point. The US entered only halfway WWII. Up to that point they basically did the exact same thing that France, the UK, and Poland did when the Nazis occupied part of Czechoslovakia, and France and the UK did when Poland was invaded: decide that they didn't feel a moral obligation to help the defending side in a conflict that didn't seem to directly concern them.

The people in charge of the UK and France in this period have not been treated kindly by history, even though (to be fair) they probably wouldn't have been able to start a war in 1938 even if they wanted to. Poland would however only be liable to criticism if it had stayed out while its ally France acted, but is not criticized for doing nothing on it's own.

Nowhere you ever see the suggestion that, say, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, of Norway should have acted on such a moral obligation. Some of these have however been criticized for a general lack of preparedness for defending themselves.

The extent of the obligation is clearly proportional to the potential military strength of such a country. Therefore the US as a superpower is nearly always deserving of criticism.

Since the US always had the potential turn the tide in WWII, it's timing and motives deserve to be scrutinized. The US in my opinion did intentionally let the Russians bleed, and perhaps it was right in doing so.

Perception matters here. Most Europeans do not attribute the obligation to police the world to the 25 small to medium-sized countries that form Europe, while increasingly Americans judge the behaviour of "Europe" as a whole and expect more of it.

Using flags and torches for signalling between armies is obviously a prehistoric idea. Even Sun Tzu mentions it.

I dimly recollect reading somewhere that the Byzantines used something similar to fixed semaphore lines for military purposes. It's not likely they had something like a full alphabet for transmitting free form messages, though.

One slightly older example is that the Dutch used a permanent semaphore line along the length of the Dutch Water Line during the Franco-Dutch War (1672-1678). I have a book (in Dutch) that mentions it. Since the Dutch inundated the area this was clearly more practical than sending messengers to communicate between fortesses and towns. Apparently the idea was there, but wasn't perceived as useful enough to adapt to civilian use.