Marcus Samuel Blitzstein (March 2, 1905January 22, 1964), was an American composer, lyricist, and librettist. He won national attention in 1937 when his pro-union musical The Cradle Will Rock, directed by Orson Welles, was shut down by the Works Progress Administration. He is known for The Cradle Will Rock and for his off-Broadway translation/adaptation of The Threepenny Opera by Bertolt Brecht and Kurt Weill. His works also include the opera Regina, an adaptation of Lillian Hellman's play The Little Foxes; the Broadway musical Juno, based on Seán O'Casey's play Juno and the Paycock; and No for an Answer. He completed translation/adaptations of Brecht's and Weill's musical play Rise and Fall of the City of Mahagonny and of Brecht's play Mother Courage and Her Children with music by Paul Dessau. Blitzstein also composed music for films, such as Surf and Seaweed (1931) and The Spanish Earth (1937), and he contributed two songs to the original 1960 production of Hellman's play Toys in the Attic.

Life and career

Blitzstein was born in Philadelphia on March 2, 1905, to affluent parents. Blitzstein's musical gifts were apparent at an early age; he had performed a Mozart piano concerto by the time he was seven. He went on to study piano with Alexander Siloti (a pupil of Tchaikovsky and Liszt), and made his professional concerto debut with the Philadelphia Orchestra in Liszt's E-flat Piano Concerto when he was 21.

After studying composition at the Curtis Institute of Music, he went to Europe to continue his studies in Berlin with Arnold Schoenberg (with whom he did not get on), and in Paris with Nadia Boulanger (with whom he did). Despite his later political beliefs, he was, in the early years of his career, a self-proclaimed and unrepentant artistic snob, who firmly believed that true art was only for the intellectual elite. He was vociferous in denouncing composers—in particular Respighi,  Ravel, and Kurt Weill—who, he felt, debased their standards to reach a wider public.

His works of this period, mostly pianistic vehicles such as the Piano Sonata (1927) and the Piano Concerto (Blitzen) are typical of the Boulanger-influenced products of American modernism — strongly rhythmic (though not influenced by jazz) and described by himself as "wild, dissonant and percussive."  These early works were far removed from the Schoenberg style.

The dramatic premiere of the pro-union The Cradle Will Rock took place at the Venice Theater on June 16, 1937. The cast had been locked out of the Maxine Elliott Theatre by the Works Progress Administration, the government agency which had originally funded the production, so the cast and musicians walked with the audience to the nearby Venice. There, without costumes or sets, they performed the work concert-style, actors and musicians alike, sitting among the audience (to evade union restrictions on their performance) with Blitzstein narrating from the piano. In 1939,  Leonard Bernstein led a revival of the play at Harvard, narrating from the piano just as Blitzstein had done. Blitzstein attended the performance, after which he and Bernstein became close friends; Bernstein would later say that Blitzstein's contribution to the American musical theatre was "incalculable". The 1999 film Cradle Will Rock was based on this event, though heavily embellished. In the film, Blitzstein (played by Hank Azaria) is portrayed as gaining inspiration through ghostly appearances by his idol Brecht and his late anorexic wife.

Additional major compositions include the autobiographical radio song play I've Got the Tune, The Airborne Symphony (1946), Regina (1949), Reuben, Reuben (1955), and Juno (1959). At the time of his death Blitzstein was at work on Idiots First, a one-act opera based on the eponymous story by Bernard Malamud – intended to be part of a set of one-acters called Tales of Malamud – which Ned Rorem has called "his best work". This was followed by the work Blitzstein intended to be his magnum opus, a three-act opera commissioned by the Ford Foundation and optioned by the Metropolitan Opera entitled Sacco and Vanzetti. Both Tales of Malamud and Sacco and Vanzetti were completed posthumously, with the approval of Blitzstein's estate, by composer Leonard Lehrman. Lehrman's long-awaited Marc Blitzstein: A Bio-Bibliography, published in 2005 by Praeger, is the longest published biographical bibliography of any American composer at 645 pages.

In 1958, Blitzstein was subpoenaed to appear before the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC). Appearing first in a closed session, Blitzstein admitted his membership in the Communist Party (ending in 1949) and, challenging the right of HUAC to question him at all, refused to name names or cooperate any further. He was recalled for a further public session, but after a day sitting anxiously in a waiting room he was not called to testify.

During a visit to Martinique in 1964, at the age of 58, Blitzstein was murdered by three sailors he had picked up in a bar, one of whom he was said to have propositioned. He is buried at Chelten Hills Cemetery in Philadelphia.

Personal life and family
Blitzstein was openly gay. He wrote to his sister in 1929, regarding prior attempts to suppress or hide his orientation, "it is absurd to assume there are no sins; there are definitely Cardinal sins -- sins against oneself, against one's law. My sin is, has been... the willingness to corrupt my nature." His first lover was the conductor Alexander Smallens, with whom he traveled to Europe in 1924. Blitzstein nevertheless married novelist Eva Goldbeck on March 2, 1933. They had no children.
His mother-in-law was Berlin-born musical star and opera singer Lina Abarbanell. He dedicated a number of works, including Romantic Piece for Orchestra (1930), String Quartet, 'The Italian' (1930), the ballet Cain (1930), and the Serenade for String Quartet (1932) to his wife-to-be. She died of anorexia in 1936, and his grief prompted him to throw himself into the work of creating The Cradle Will Rock.

Selected works

 Triple-Sec (1928)
 Garrick Gaieties (1930) — revue — contributing composer (revival of Triple-Sec)
 The Harpies, opera (1931)
 The Condemned (1932, unproduced)
 Parade (1935) — revue — featured songwriter
 The Spanish Earth (1937) — composer with Virgil Thomson
 Caesar (1937) — play revival — incidental music composer
 Pins and Needles (1937) — revue — contributing bookwriter
 The Cradle Will Rock (1937) — musical — composer, lyricist, bookwriter, director, pianist, and actor in the roles of Clerk, First Reporter, and Professor Mamie
 Danton's Death (1938) — play revival — incidental music composer
 I've Got the Tune (1938) — radio opera
 No for an Answer (1941)
 Native Land (1942)
 The Airborne Symphony (1946) — symphony — composer
 Another Part of the Forest (1946) — play — incidental music composer
 Androcles and the Lion (1946) — play revival — incidental music composer
 Regina (1949) — opera — composer and orchestrator, librettist
 Let's Make an Opera (1950) — special performance — director
 King Lear (1950) — play revival — incidental music composer
 The Threepenny Opera (1954) — operetta revival — editor of Bertolt Brecht's book and lyrics into English
 Reuben, Reuben (1955) — opera
 Juno (1959) — musical — composer, lyricist and co-orchestrator
 Toys in the Attic (1960) — play — featured songwriter for "French Lessons in Songs" and "Bernier Day"
 Tales of Malamud (two one-act operas): Idiots First (1963, unfinished, completed by Leonard Lehrman, 1973) and The Magic Barrel (1964, unfinished)
 Sacco and Vanzetti (1964, unfinished opera, completed by Leonard Lehrman, 2001)

References

Sources
 John Warrack and Ewan West (1992), The Oxford Dictionary of Opera.
 Eric A. Gordon (1989), Mark the Music: The Life and Work of Marc Blitzstein. New York: St. Martin's Press. Reprinted: New York: iUniverse, 2000.

External links

 Official Blitzstein website, managed by Kurt Weill Foundation for Music and the Blitzstein Estate
 Unofficial Blitzstein website, managed by John Jansson
 Marc Blitzstein Papers  at the Wisconsin Center for Film and Theater Research

 Marc Blitzstein at ljlehrman.artists-in-residence.com

 Marc Blitzstein plaque in Philadelphia

1905 births
1964 deaths
20th-century American composers
20th-century classical composers
20th-century American male musicians
20th-century American LGBT people
American musical theatre composers
Male musical theatre composers
American people murdered abroad
Curtis Institute of Music alumni
Hollywood blacklist
Jewish American classical composers
Gay Jews
Gay composers
LGBT classical composers
Members of the Communist Party USA
American murder victims
American opera composers
Male opera composers
Musicians from Philadelphia
LGBT classical musicians
LGBT people from Pennsylvania
People murdered in Martinique
American male classical composers
American classical composers
American gay musicians
American LGBT composers
Deaths by beating
Pupils of Arnold Schoenberg
Violence against gay men
Violence against men in North America

Marc Blitzstein


The Mechelen incident of 10 January 1940, also known as the Mechelen affair, took place in Belgium during the Phoney War in the first stages of World War II. A German aircraft with an officer on board carrying the plans for Fall Gelb (Case Yellow), the German attack on the Low Countries, crash-landed in neutral Belgium near Vucht in the modern-day municipality of Maasmechelen within the Province of Limburg. This prompted an immediate crisis in the Low Countries and amidst the French and British authorities, whom the Belgians notified of their discovery; however, the crisis abated relatively quickly once the dates mentioned in the plans passed without incident. It has been argued that the incident led to a major change in the German attack plan, but this hypothesis has also been disputed.

The crash

The incident was caused by an error by the German aviator Major Erich Hoenmanns, the fifty-two-year-old base commander of Loddenheide airfield, near Münster. On the morning of 10 January 1940, he had been flying a Messerschmitt Bf 108 Taifun, an aircraft used for reconnaissance, liaison, and other miscellaneous roles, from Loddenheide to Cologne when he lost his way; extensive low fogbanks obscured his view of the landscape. In response he changed course to the west, hoping to regain his bearings by reaching the River Rhine. However, having already crossed over the frozen and indistinguishable Rhine at the moment he changed direction, he left German territory flying all the way to the River Meuse, the border in this area between Belgium and the Netherlands, and ended up circling Vucht.

At that moment, Hoenmanns seems by mistake to have cut off the fuel supply to the plane's engine by moving a lever inside the cockpit. The engine spluttered, then stopped, and Hoenmanns was forced to land in a nearby field at about 11:30 AM. The aircraft was severely damaged. Both wings were broken off when they hit two Canadian poplar trees as he sped between them; the heavy engine tore off the nose section. The plane was damaged beyond repair, but Hoenmanns survived unscathed.

Had Hoenmanns been alone in the plane, nothing of great significance would likely have happened, apart from his internment for landing without permission in a neutral country. However, he had a passenger, Major Helmuth Reinberger, who was responsible for organising the 7. Flieger-Division's supply, the formation that was to land paratroopers behind the Belgian lines at Namur on the day of the coming attack. Reinberger was going to Cologne for a staff meeting. The previous evening, over a drink in the mess, Hoenmanns had offered to fly him there. Usually, Reinberger would have had to make the tedious trip by train, but Hoenmanns needed some extra flying hours anyway and wanted to take his laundry to his wife in Cologne. Hoenmanns was unaware that Reinberger would be carrying documents related to the German plan for the attack on The Netherlands and Belgium, which on the day of the flight was decreed by Hitler to take place a week later on 17 January.

Only after landing did Hoenmanns become aware that Reinberger was carrying secret documents when they asked a farmhand, Engelbert Lambrichts, where they were, to be told that they had unknowingly crossed Dutch territory and landed just inside Belgium. On hearing this, Reinberger panicked and rushed back to the plane to secure his yellow pigskin briefcase, crying that he had secret documents that he must destroy immediately. To let him do this Hoenmanns, as a diversion, moved away from the plane. Reinberger first tried to set fire to the documents with his cigarette lighter but it malfunctioned; he then ran to the farmhand who gave him a single match. With this Reinberger hid behind a thicket and piled the papers on the ground to burn them. But soon two Belgian border guards, Sergeant Frans Habets and Corporal Gerard Rubens, arrived on bicycles. Seeing smoke coming from the bushes, Rubens rushed over to save the documents from being completely destroyed. Reinberger fled at first but allowed himself to be taken prisoner after two warning shots had been fired.

The two Germans were taken to the Belgian border guardhouse near Mechelen-aan-de-Maas (French: Malines-sur-Meuse). There they were interrogated by Captain Arthur Rodrique, who placed the charred documents on a table. As a diversion once more, Hoenmanns asked the Belgian soldiers to let him use the toilet; Reinberger then tried to stuff the papers into a burning stove nearby. He succeeded but yelled with pain when lifting the extremely hot lid of the stove. Startled, Rodrique turned and snatched the papers from the fire, badly burning his hand in the process. The documents were then locked away in a separate room. The failure to burn them made Reinberger realise that he would surely be shot, for letting the attack plan fall into the hands of the enemy. He decided to commit suicide and tried to grab Rodrique's revolver. When the infuriated captain knocked him down, Reinberger burst into tears, shouting 'I wanted your revolver to kill myself'. Hoenmanns supported Reinberger saying: 'You can't blame him. He's a regular officer. He's finished now.'

Two hours later officers from the Belgian intelligence service arrived, and brought the papers to the attention of their superiors in the late afternoon.

Initial German reaction
Late in the evening of 10 January news of the incident reached Berlin via press reports about a crashed German plane. In the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, the German armed forces high command, it caused a general consternation, as it was soon deduced that Reinberger must have had papers revealing parts of the attack plan with him. On 11 January an enraged Hitler fired both the commander of Luftflotte 2, General Hellmuth Felmy, and Felmy's chief of staff Colonel Josef Kammhuber. It was nevertheless decided to proceed with the attack as originally planned, while the Luftwaffe attaché in The Hague, Lieutenant-General Ralph Wenninger, and the military attaché in Brussels, Colonel Friedrich-Carl Rabe von Pappenheim, would investigate whether the plan had been fatally compromised or not. On 12 January, the day of the attachés' first meeting with Reinberger and Hoenmanns, General Alfred Jodl, the Wehrmacht's Chief of Operations, gave Hitler a worrying assessment of what the Belgians might have learned from it. A note in Jodl's diary on 12 January summed up what he had said to Hitler: 'If the enemy is in possession of all the files, situation catastrophic!' However, the Germans were initially falsely reassured by Belgian deception measures.

Deception
The Belgians decided to try tricking Reinberger into believing that the papers had been destroyed and give him the opportunity to pass this information on to the German authorities. There were two parts to the deception: in the first the Belgian investigators asked Reinberger what was in the plans and told him that he would be treated as a spy if he did not tell them. Later Reinberger testified saying: "From the way this question was asked, I realised he [the interrogator] could not have understood anything from the fragments of the documents he had seen." The second part of the plan was to let Reinberger and Hoenmanns meet the German Air and Army Attachés, Wenninger and Rabe von Pappenheim, while their conversations were secretly recorded. During this meeting Reinberger informed Wenninger that he had managed to burn the papers enough to make them unreadable. This act of deception was fairly successful, at least in the short term. After the meeting at the police station, Vicco von Bülow-Schwante, Germany's ambassador to Belgium, telegraphed his superiors: 'Major Reinberger has confirmed that he burnt the documents except for some pieces which are the size of the palm of his hand. Reinberger confirms that most of the documents which could not be destroyed appear to be unimportant.' This appears to have convinced General Jodl. His diary for 13 January included the entry: "Report on conversation of Luftwaffe Attaché with the two airmen who made forced landing. Result: despatch case burnt for certain."

Belgian reaction
During 10 January the Belgians still doubted the authenticity of the documents, which had been quickly translated by the Deuxième Section (military intelligence) of the general staff in Brussels. Most had indeed been badly damaged by Reinberger's consecutive attempts to burn them, but the general outlines of an attack against Belgium and the Netherlands were clear from the remaining passages, although the date of the attack was not mentioned and most of the text was concerned with specific instructions to 7. Flieger-Division only. As their content conformed to earlier warnings from the Italian Foreign Minister, Count Galeazzo Ciano, about a German attack to take place around 15 January, on 11 January General Raoul Van Overstraeten concluded that the information was basically correct. That afternoon King Leopold III of Belgium decided to inform his own Minister of Defence, General Henri Denis, and the French supreme commander, Maurice Gamelin. At 17:15 the French liaison officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Hautcœur, was given a two-page abstract of the contents, albeit without any explanation of how the information had been obtained. Lord Gort, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force, was also warned, and Leopold personally telephoned Princess Juliana of the Netherlands and Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg, telling the former "Be careful, the weather is dangerous", and the latter "Beware of the flu", both predetermined code phrases indicating the Belgians considered a German attack to be imminent.

French reaction
On the morning of 12 January, Gamelin held a meeting with the highest French operational army commanders and the Chief of Military Intelligence Colonel Louis Rivet. Rivet was sceptical of the warning but Gamelin considered that, even if it were a false alarm, this would be an excellent opportunity to pressure the Belgians into allowing a French advance into their country. Gamelin intended to execute a decisive offensive against Germany in 1941 through the Low Countries; their neutrality would however, be an obstacle to these plans. If this invasion scare would make the Belgians take the side of France and Britain, this awkward problem would be partially solved and strategically vital ground from which to launch the attack effortlessly gained. On the other hand, if Germany really went ahead with the invasion, it was very desirable that the French forces could entrench themselves in central Belgium before the enemy arrived. Both to intensify the crisis and to be ready for any occasion that presented itself, Gamelin thus ordered 1st Army Group and the adjoining Third Army to march towards the Belgian frontier.

The warning by Sas
That their deception plan seemed to prove that the documents were genuine, that day further increased Belgian anxiety; the next day they became convinced the situation was critical. In the evening of 13 January, a message from Colonel Georges Goethals, Belgium's Military Attaché in Berlin, included these words: "Were there tactical orders or parts of them on the Malines plane? A sincere informer, whose credibility may be contested, claims that this plane was carrying plans from Berlin to Cologne in relation to the attack on the West. Because these plans have fallen into Belgian hands, the attack will happen tomorrow to pre-empt countermeasures. I make explicit reservations about this message, that I do not consider reliable, but which it is my duty to report." The "sincere informer" was the Dutch Military Attaché in Berlin Gijsbertus Sas who spoke with Goethals at about 17:00; his information always had to be carefully considered because he was in contact with a German intelligence officer who was an opponent of the Nazi regime, known today to have been Colonel Hans Oster.

General Van Overstraeten, the King of Belgium's military adviser, who was informed of the message at about 20:00, was astonished that the informant appeared to know about the capture of the plans. It had not been mentioned in any press report of the crash. It was possible that it was part of a grand German deception plan, but equally possible that it was genuine. Acting on the assumption that it could be taken seriously, Van Overstraeten altered the warning that the Belgian Chief of the General Staff Lieutenant-General Édouard van den Bergen had drafted and which was about to be sent to all Belgian Army commanders on 13 January; whereas it had stated that an attack on the next morning was 'probable', it now said an attack was 'quasi-certain'. Van den Bergen, who had secretly promised Gamelin to bring Belgium in on the allied side, then decided to broadcast (on a popular current affairs radio programme) that night at about 22:30, an immediate recall to their units of all the 80,000 Belgian soldiers on leave. "Phase D", as it was known, would ensure that their forces would be at full strength at the moment of the German attack.

This dramatic gesture was made without reference to Leopold III of Belgium or Van Overstraeten and without knowing the decision that had been taken to keep Germany in the dark about whether Belgium was in possession of its attack plans.<ref>Van den Bergen's note to the Minister of Defence, dated 21 January 1940, in CDH, Carton A Farde 2 C111</ref> Then, again without reference to the King or Van Overstraeten, Van den Bergen ordered the barriers to be moved aside on the southern border with France so that French and British troops could march in swiftly when they were called in, in response to the German attack. If the Germans had indeed attacked on 14 January, Van den Bergen would probably have been congratulated for his energetic decision-making. As it was, he fell into disgrace for acting without the King's permission, as Leopold III was the Supreme Commander of all the Belgian armed forces. Van den Bergen was rebuked so harshly by Van Overstraeten that the Belgian Chief of Staff's reputation never recovered; at the end of January he resigned. One of Van Overstraeten's complaints about Van den Bergen's actions was that he had given the Germans reason to believe that the Dutch had their attack plans.

Dutch reaction
Although Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and her government were alarmed by the Belgian warning, Dutch supreme commander Izaak H. Reijnders was sceptical of the information. When the Belgian military attaché in The Hague, Lieutenant-Colonel Pierre Diepenrijckx, handed him a personal memorandum from Van Overstraeten on 12 January, he responded "Do you believe in these messages yourself? I don't believe in them at all." Again the Dutch were not informed of the precise source, and the Belgians hid the fact that the Germans in these plans only intended a partial occupation of the Netherlands, not including the Dutch National Redoubt, the Vesting Holland.

Whether Reijnders was also warned the next day by Sas is still unknown – after the war he even denied having spoken to the Belgian attaché – but on the morning of 14 January, in reaction to the Belgian alert, he ordered that no leave was to be granted to any soldier – unlike the Belgians, the Dutch thus did not recall anyone – and to close the strategic bridges while fuses should be placed within their explosive charges. The civilian population in the afternoon became worried by the radio broadcast about the leave cancellation. They feared that the Germans would take advantage of the severe cold to cross the New Hollandic Water Line, now that it was frozen. The next week, to reassure the people, much press coverage was given to the motorised circular saws that were available to cut the ice sheets over inundations.

Climax and anti-climax

The Belgian Government's (second cabinet of Paul van Zeeland) desire to keep their possession of the plans a secret was yet further undermined, this time by the King himself. On the morning of 14 January, he had sent a message to Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, via Admiral Sir Roger Keyes asking for certain guarantees. This was sent through Keyes because he had established himself as the secret link between the British Government and the Belgian King. The aforementioned guarantees included assuring that the Allies would not open negotiations for a settlement of any conflict without Belgium's agreement. Keyes added a rider that he believed Leopold might be able to persuade his government to call the Allies immediately if the guarantees were forthcoming. This was of interest to the Allies because both Britain and France had been trying to persuade Belgium to let their troops in ever since the beginning of the war.

There is no transcript of Keyes' conversation with Churchill but if Keyes really did say what he meant to say then it was changed the further down the line it went. By the time that it reached the French that afternoon, there was no reference to the fact that Keyes was only giving his personal opinion about the calling-in of the Allies. The French record of what was on offer stated that 'the King would ask his Government to ask the Allied armies to occupy defensive positions inside Belgium immediately', if the Belgians received satisfaction in related guarantees. Édouard Daladier, the French Président du Conseil in January 1940, quickly told the British Government that, as far as France was concerned, the guarantees could be given. So the French believed that the Belgians would receive a satisfactory response from the British Government in relation to the guarantees, and would then immediately invite the Allied Armies to march in.

At 15:50 Daladier informed Gamelin that the Belgians had in principle agreed to a French advance and asked whether he was ready to execute it. Gamelin was very pleased, responding that due to heavy snowfall in the area of the Belgian-German border the Germans would be themselves unable to advance quickly, that a German invasion was therefore unlikely and that this posed an ideal situation for a French entrenchment, adding "We must now seize the occasion". Gamelin ordered that the Allied troops under his control during the night of 14–15 January should make their approach march to the Franco-Belgian border so that they would be ready to enter at a moment's notice.

At 16:45 Gamelin was however telephoned by his deputy, the commander of the Western Front General Alphonse Georges. Alarmed by the order, Georges worried that the decision was irreversible and would set a series of events in motion that would make a German invasion inevitable at a moment when the French army and airforce had not yet completed their rearmament. Gamelin lost his temper and abused Georges, forcing him to agree with the order. During the night, the Belgians were told of the manoeuvre. It was only at 8 a.m. on 15 January that Gamelin saw the British response to the guarantees: they were offering a watered down version that was most unlikely to be acceptable to the Belgians. At the same time he received messages from the advancing forces that the Belgian border troops had stopped removing the border obstacles and had not been ordered to allow them entrance into their country. Three hours later Daladier, prompted by the desperate Gamelin who insisted that the premier would make the Belgian government "face up to its responsibilities", told Pol le Tellier, Belgium's Ambassador in Paris, that unless the French had an invitation to enter Belgium by 8 p.m. that evening, they would not only withdraw all British and French troops from the border but would also refuse to carry out similar manoeuvres during further alerts until after the Germans had invaded.

The Belgian cabinet that day proved unable to come to a positive decision about the invitation. The invasion had after all already been predicted for the 14th but failed to materialise. Heavy snowfall continued on the eastern border, making an immediate German attack unlikely. The King and Van Overstraeten, both staunch neutralists, hoped a diplomatic solution could be reached to end the war and had no intention of involving their country unless it were absolutely necessary. At about 12:00 Van Overstraeten ordered the Belgian border troops to rebuild the barriers and reminded them of the standing order to "repulse by force any foreign unit of whatever nationality which violated Belgian territory". At 18:00 Daladier told a disappointed Gamelin he "could not take the responsibility of authorising us to penetrate preventively into Belgium", i.e. violate Belgian neutrality.

The Germans call off the invasion
When Jodl learned on 13 January 1940 that the documents were probably unreadable, he called off plans to execute the attack three days early on 14 January – the same plans that would cause the crisis in Belgium – and postponed them to 15 or 16 January, to be decided as the circumstances demanded. In the evening came the surprising news that the Belgian and Dutch troops – who had already been mobilised since September 1939 – had been put on alert. This was attributed to the crash and the too obvious approach march of the German Sixth Army, the latter causing the element of surprise to be lost. On 15 January road conditions were so poor due to the snowfall and the weather prospects so bleak that Jodl advised Hitler to call the invasion off indefinitely. The Führer hesitantly concurred on 16 January at 19:00.

Results
In the short term no damage appeared to have been done but it has been argued that in the longer term the consequences of this incident were disastrous for Belgium and France. When the real invasion came, on 10 May 1940, the Germans had fundamentally changed their strategy and this change resulted in the swift Fall of France, whereas arguably even a partial German victory would have been far from certain if the original plan had been followed. Determining the exact nature of the causal connection between the incident and the change in strategy has however proven to be problematic.

In the more traditional account of events, the incident caused Hitler to ask for a drastic change of strategy. He told Jodl that "the whole operation would have to be built on a new basis in order to secure secrecy and surprise." The Belgians felt obliged to tell the Germans that they had the attack plan. When Joachim von Ribbentrop, Germany's Foreign Minister, retorted that it was out of date, he would then have been more truthful than he intended. In reaction to Hitler's demand the German High Command would have gone on a search for an alternative, finally finding it in the proposals of General Erich von Manstein, the former Chief of Staff of the German Army Group A, who for some months had been championing a new concept: instead of being committed to the attack detailed in the captured documents, whose principal thrust was on Belgium's north-eastern frontier, the German Panzer Divisions were to be concentrated further south. Jodl recorded on 13 February that Hitler concurred, referring to the Mechelen Incident: "We should then attack in the direction of Sedan," Hitler told Jodl. "The enemy is not expecting us to attack there. The documents held by the Luftwaffe officers who crash landed have convinced the enemy that we only intend to take over the Dutch and Belgian coasts." Within days of this discussion Hitler had personally talked to Von Manstein and the Führer had given it the green light. The plan that had caused so much mayhem when it was captured by the Belgians in 1940 was replaced.

However, the importance of the incident has also been vehemently denied. Hitler was already hesitant about the original plan from its very beginning. The postponement was one of many and even on this occasion more to be attributed to the weather conditions than to the disclosure of the content of the documents. As the plan was rather traditional and predictable, no fundamental secrets were compromised and as such there was no direct need for a change. Hitler's demand for surprise referred not to an unpredictable new strategy but to a shortened approach and concentration phase, so that a tactical surprise could be gained before the enemy could react. To this end the armoured divisions were located further west and organisation was improved. There was no direct change in strategic thinking and when an improved concept was finished, within a continuous process of amendments, on 30 January, this Aufmarschanweisung N°3, Fall Gelb ("Deployment Directive, Case Yellow"), did not fundamentally differ from earlier versions. In this view only the fact that some of Von Manstein's friends managed to bring his proposals to Hitler's attention really caused a fundamental turn. The main consequence of the incident would have been that it disclosed, not the German plan, but the way the Allies would deploy in case of an invasion, allowing the Germans to adapt their attack accordingly.

The adoption of the revised Fall Gelb by the Germans, while the Allies were still expecting Hitler to go ahead with the captured version meant that the Germans could set a trap. There would still be an attack made on central Belgium but this would merely be a diversion to pull as many troops as possible to the north while the main German attack fell on the Ardennes, and would then cross the Meuse between Sedan and the area north of Dinant, to penetrate as far as the Channel coast. In doing so the armies in Belgium would be cut off from their supplies and forced to surrender. This ruse may have been clever, but it would only work if Gamelin stuck to his original strategy; which was asking rather a lot, given that until 14 January 1940 his intuition had been impeccable. Had he not guessed correctly the content of the German's original Aufmarsschanweisung Fall Gelb''?

However, Gamelin failed to change his strategy on the presumption the Germans would change theirs, despite misgivings from Gort and the British Government. Perhaps the Allies still believed that the captured documents were a 'plant'. Perhaps the British were embarrassed by the size of their contribution, and therefore hesitated to overly criticize their ally's strategy.

Gamelin has been severely criticized for not changing his plan. His stance has been explained as an inability to believe that the very traditional German High Command would resort to innovative strategies, let alone to the even more novel "Blitzkrieg" tactics needed to make them work; any large concentration of forces being supplied through the poor road network in the Ardennes would have had to act very quickly. Also in this respect the incident would thus not have important consequences.

Aftermath
Erich Hoenmanns and Helmuth Reinberger were tried in absentia in Germany and condemned to death. Transporting secret documents by plane without explicit authorisation was strictly forbidden and a capital offence. The verdicts would never be executed. After a stay in an internment camp in Huy both men were evacuated in 1940, first to Britain and then to Canada. Hoenmanns's wife Annie was interrogated by the Gestapo, that feared her husband was a traitor. She denied this, but from the fact that she was unaware of an extramarital affair of Hoenmanns, it was concluded that she was an unreliable source of information. His two sons were allowed to serve in the army and were killed in action during the war. The men were later in the war part of prisoner of war exchanges in 1943 (Hoenmanns) and 1944 (Reinberger). On returning to Germany they were put on trial.  Hoenmanns was partially pardoned while Reinberger was fully acquitted.

References

Western European theatre of World War II
Aviation accidents and incidents in 1940
Aviation accidents and incidents in Belgium
1940 in Belgium
Belgian neutrality in World War II

Mechelen incident


Harte-Hanks Communications Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (1989), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States supplied an additional journalistic behavior that constitutes actual malice as first discussed in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). In the case, the Court held that departure from responsible reporting and unreasonable reporting conduct alone were not sufficient to award a public figure damages in a libel case. However, the Court also ruled that if reporters wrote with reckless disregard for the truth, which included ignoring obvious sources for their report, plaintiffs could be awarded compensatory damages on the grounds of actual malice.

Background
In November 1983, Daniel Connaughton unsuccessfully ran for the position of Municipal Judge of Hamilton, Ohio, losing to incumbent James Dolan. A local newspaper, the Hamilton JournalNews, supported the incumbent Dolan. About a month before the election, Dolan's Director of Court Services resigned his position and was subsequently arrested on perjury charges. On November 1, 1983, while a grand jury investigation of the charges was taking place, the JournalNews ran a front page article quoting Alice Thompson, a witness in the trial. Thompson was quoted as saying Connaughton had used "dirty tricks" and had offered both Thompson and her sister tangible benefits (including employment opportunities and a trip to Florida) "in appreciation" for Thompson's testimony in the trial.

Lower court proceedings
Connaughton filed suit against Harte-Hanks Communications, the publisher of the JournalNews, alleging that its article had defamed him. He claimed the article was false, had injured his personal and professional and political reputation and was published on the grounds of actual malice. Harte-Hanks pushed for summary judgment, arguing that even if Thompson's statements were false, the article was protected under the neutral reportage privilege. The District Court denied their motion, saying it could not be proven the article was written with disinterest.

The case moved to trial, in which jurors listened to three separate interviews—two by JournalNews reporters and a third by Connaughton. The jury found that the reporting fulfilled three special verdicts for public figure libel: the article was defamatory, the article was false and the article was published with actual malice. The court awarded Connaughton $5,000 in compensatory damages and also $195,000 in punitive damages.

Harte-Hanks appealed, again citing the First Amendment defense against libel. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision however, writing that the court's ruling did not encroach upon the First Amendment rights of the publisher, and that the lower court was not incorrect in labeling the article as defamatory and false.

Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court decided the case unanimously in favor of Connaughton. Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by all members of the Court except Justice Scalia, who wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. Separate concurring opinions were written by Justices White, Blackmun and Kennedy.

Justice Stevens began his opinion by referencing New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967), which state that public figures, such as Connaughton, must definitively prove actual malice to be awarded damages in libel suits.

He then referenced the case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), which had occurred the year before, and had ruled that public figures "may not recover for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress . . . without showing . . . that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made . . . with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true."

However, citing St. Amant v. Thompson (1968), Stevens ruled that the reporters had acted with "reckless disregard for the truth." Stevens focused on Patsy Stephens, the elder sister of Alice Thompson. Stephens had been present when Connaughton had allegedly played "dirty" tricks with the sisters, and Thompson reported that Stephens could confirm the accusations against Connaughton. The editor of the JournalNews then instructed his employees to interview every witness to Connaughton and Thompson's conversation—except Patsy Stephens. Every other witness to the exchange denied Stephens' accusations. Justice Stevens wrote that a responsible newspaper would and should corroborate with obvious sources, particularly since Thompson had earlier assured that Stephens could confirm her charges, and Stephens would be the only witness to do so. Justice Stevens also wrote that "if the Journal News had serious doubts concerning the truth of Thompson's remarks, but was committed to running the story, there was good reason not to interview Stephens."

Additionally, Justice Stevens noted that Jim Blount, editorial director for the JournalNews, had penned an editorial on October 30, two days before the article in question surfaced. This editorial predicted that more information concerning the impropriety and integrity of the candidates might surface in the next few days. Stevens wrote that this can be taken to be mean that the JournalNews had already decided to publish the article on October 30, well before it had verified its sources.

Justice Stevens then explains that while public figures can legally endure more defamation than private persons, they are not completely unprotected by the courts, provided they can prove the defendants acted with actual malice.

He finished his opinion by stating that, because of the inconsistencies with the JournalNews' reporting, and because they deliberately ignored sources that would have either affirmed or denied Stephens' allegations, the JournalNews was guilty of reckless disregard for the truth and, by extension, actual malice.

Aftermath
After the case was remanded to the lower court, Connaughton won the retrial, and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision by the Sixth Circuit.

References

External links

1989 in United States case law
United States defamation case law
United States Supreme Court cases
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court

Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton


Charles Emmanuel of Savoy, 6th Prince of Carignano (24 October 1770 – 16 August 1800) was a Prince of Savoy and later the Prince of Carignano between 1780 and 1800, and the paternal grandfather of Vittorio Emanuele II, the first king of a united Italy.

Biography

He was a son of Victor Amadeus II, Prince of Carignano and Joséphine of Lorraine, and a fifth-generation descendant of Thomas Francis, Prince of Carignano, founder of the Carignano line of the House of Savoy.

On 24 October 1797 he married in Turin Maria Christina of Saxony, daughter of Carl Christian Joseph of Saxony, Duke of Courland, himself son of Augustus III of Poland. They had two children.

Charles Emmanuel died three years after his marriage in a French prison. He had fought against the French in the First Coalition War, but had made peace with the Republicans after the abdication of Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia. Soon after he became a suspect and was imprisoned in the Citadel of Turin. From there he was moved to Dijon and then to Chaillot in Paris, where he died. He was buried at the Basilica of Superga.

Issue

Prince Charles Albert of Savoy (1798–1849), Prince of Carignano, and King of Sardinia, married Archduchess Maria Theresa of Austria and had issue;
Princess Elisabeth of Savoy (1800–1856), married Archduke Rainer of Austria and had issue.

Ancestry

External links
Biography

1770 births
1800 deaths
Nobility from Turin
Princes of Carignan
Burials at the Basilica of Superga

Charles Emmanuel, Prince of Carignano


A beneficiary in the broadest sense is a natural person or other legal entity who receives money or other benefits from a benefactor. For example, the beneficiary of a life insurance policy is the person who receives the payment of the amount of insurance after the death of the insured. In trust law, beneficiaries are also known as cestui que use.

Most beneficiaries may be designed to designate where the assets will go when the owner(s) dies. However, if the primary beneficiary or beneficiaries are not alive or do not qualify under the restrictions, the assets will probably pass to the contingent beneficiaries. Other restrictions such as being married or more creative ones can be used by a benefactor to attempt to control the behavior of the beneficiaries. Some situations such as retirement accounts do not allow any restrictions beyond the death of the primary beneficiaries, but trusts allow any restrictions that are not illegal or for an illegal purpose.

The concept of a "beneficiary" will also frequently figure in contracts other than insurance policies. A third-party beneficiary of a contract is a person whom the parties intend to benefit from its provisions but who is not a party to the contract. A software distributor, for example, may seek provisions protecting its customers from infringement claims. A software licensor may include in its agreements provisions that protect those who provided code to that licensor.

In the context of development aid, the term "beneficiaries" refer to the persons and the communities that use the project outputs: the entities that development-aid projects.

See also
Beneficiary (trust)
Estate planning
Inheritance
Birth certificate
Legal fiction

References

Legal terminology
Wills and trusts

Beneficiary


A tweeter is a small loudspeaker. Tweeters are designed to reproduce high-pitched sounds (such as the sound of a whistle or a bird singing). It can mean sound's frequency going up to 20kHz. Humans can't hear frequencies larger than 20 000 Hz. Low frequencies would destroy small speakers because it is not designed to create larger movements. This is what a subwoofer is for, to play low frequencies.

Audio technology

Tweeter


Astronomical spectroscopy is the science of using spectroscopy to figure out what elements astronomical bodies, such as stars, planets and nebulae, are made of. It can also be used to work out how those objects are moving, using doppler shift.

The study of spectroscopy and spectra is used in astronomy to help scientists study the whole spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, which radiates from stars and other hot celestial objects. Spectroscopy can be used to find properties of distant stars and galaxies. It can find out their chemical composition, temperature, density, mass, distance, luminosity, and relative motion using doppler effect measurements.

Chemical properties of stars

Isaac Newton used a prism to split white light into a spectrum of color, and Fraunhofer's high-quality prisms allowed scientists to see dark lines of an unknown origin.

It was not until the 1850s that Gustav Kirchoff and Robert Bunsen explained the dark lines. Hot solid objects produce light with a continuous spectrum, and hot gasses emit light at specific wavelengths. However, hot solid objects surrounded by cooler gasses show a near-continuous spectrum with dark lines corresponding to the emission lines of the gasses. By comparing the absorption lines of the
Sun with emission spectra of known gasses, the chemical composition of stars can be discovered.

References

Astrophysics
Spectroscopy

Astronomical spectroscopy


Micro Precision Products Ltd (MPP) was a British optical company that between 1941 and 1982 produced cameras and related equipment. (From 1976, its name was MPP Photographic Products Ltd.)

MPP was formed in 1941 to sell equipment produced by Celestion Ltd.; in its early days, MPP employees also worked for Celestion or the related McMurdo Instrument Company. MPP was based in London: in Kingston until 1976, Wandsworth thereafter.

Products

MPP's first major product was the Micro-Technical Camera, in 1948. This was far in advance of any other camera produced in Britain. Mark II followed in 1949; Mark III in 1951; Marks VI, VII and VIII in 1952, 1956, and 1963. (Marks IV and V were not sold.) These had the full versatility and quality of technical cameras; some long remained in professional use.

The Micro-Press Camera was a press camera available through the 1950s.

MPP is the only postwar British manufacturer of twin-lens reflex cameras. The Microcord (1951) was based on the Rolleicord; it was soon (1952) followed by the Microcord Mk II, with an improved shutter (the German Prontor). The Ross lens is of high quality. In 1958, MPP brought out the lever-wound Microflex, inspired by the Rolleiflex. This had excellent optics (by Taylor, Taylor and Hobson) and the camera was well made, but the crank invited hard use for which it was not designed. Shortly after its introduction, Britain dropped the high duty rates that had made Rollei equipment prohibitively expensive, and the Microflex had to be heavily discounted.

Other products included enlargers (even for large format), projectors, dark slides, carrying cases and a flashgun that was similar in design and appearance to Graflex models.

Sources
 Skinner, Basil. Micro Precision Products: The MPP story and the products. Newquay, Cornwall: MPP Publications, 2004. . (For a description of the book, see this page, retrieved in 2007 from the website of Michael Pritchard FRPS.)

Further reading
 Wakefield, George L. Camera movements. London: Fountain Press, 1955. (The book first describes the movements possible with an MPP Micro Technical Camera Mark VI, and then discusses the use of those movements with this camera.)

External links
 The MPP Users' Club
 Photographs of a MPP Mk VII

Technology companies established in 1941
Defunct manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom
Photography companies of the United Kingdom
Manufacturing companies disestablished in 1982
Manufacturing companies established in 1941
Technology companies disestablished in 1982
1941 establishments in England
1982 disestablishments in England
British companies disestablished in 1982
British companies established in 1941

Micro Precision Products


Nagoya is one of the largest cities in Japan, with over 2 and a quarter million people in 2010. It is in Aichi Prefecture. There are 16 wards in Nagoya.

Tourist attractions
 Nagoya castle: It was built in 1615 by Japan's famous military commander, Ieyasu Tokugawa. It is one of Japan's most famous castles. The gold dolphin-like fishes on the roof are its main feature. It is said that the total weight of the gold used is 215.3 kilograms.

Nagoya City Science Museum: located in  Shirakawa park in Naka-ku, Nagoya-shi.  It reopened in 2011. Its planetarium is 35 meters in diameter. It is the largest in the world.

Related pages
 Nagoya Grampus

References

Nagoya


iPass Inc is an American multinational company headquartered in Redwood Shores, California. iPass provides Internet access on wireless-enabled devices. iPass was first incorporated in California in July 1996 and later reincorporated in Delaware in June 2000. The company's stock was added to the NASDAQ on July 24, 2003.

History
iPass was founded in January 1996 by Chris Moore. Moore was replaced by Michael H. Mansouri, who took the position of Chairman, President and CEO in 1999, serving until 2001.Kenneth Denman succeeded Mansouri as President and CEO in 2001, later assuming the position of Chairman in 2003.

In July 2003, iPass successfully issued its IPO, raising over $100 million.

In 2004, iPass launched a policy orchestration initiative to integrate patch management, assessment and remediation of remote and mobile computers into its connectivity platform. In pursuing this initiative, iPass acquired two companies in 2004: Safe3w, which developed patented dynamic device "fingerprinting" technology, and Mobile Automation, which specialized in mobile device management.

Two years later, iPass acquired GoRemote Internet Communications, a former rival in the corporate remote access market. In the midst of these acquisitions, iPass recorded year-end revenue growth, despite declining revenues from the company's traditional dial-up business. In fact, total revenues grew to $192 million by the end of 2007.

In 2008, the company appointed Evan Kaplan as CEO and President to replace Denman. During Kaplan's tenure, iPass began to build a service delivery platform for its new enterprise mobility services. By January 2010, the company delivered the first version of its cloud-based platform, iPass Open Mobile.

2015 ushered in a change in iPass' executive team, beginning with the appointment of Gary Griffiths to the position of CEO and President. Griffiths and his newly appointed Chief Commercial Officer, Patricia Hume, pursued a new growth strategy for mobility services, launching iPass Unlimited, a per-user, per-month, fixed fee subscription for unlimited Wi-Fi usage. iPass also prioritized strategic partner procurement in 2015, which resulted in the expansion of its network of global hotspots from 18 million to 50 million. The company also undertook enhancements to its products and applications. In November 2015, iPass announced proprietary technology, iPass SmartConnect.

Products and services
iPass is a cloud-based service manager that connects users and devices to the company's global Wi-Fi footprint.  In its most simple form, it is an application, downloaded by service users to laptops, tablets, or smartphones, to identify and connect to iPass hotspots. It is compatible with Automatic Credential Assignment.

Derived from the company's connectivity intellectual property, the app is powered by iPass SmartConnect, iPass' Wi-Fi service platform, which identifies and rates access points based on factors such as signal strength, speed, bandwidth availability, and connection success rate. iPass SmartConnect also incorporates Last Mile VPN security, profile settings, Wi-Fi connectivity, and network curation to expand the network of available hotspots.

The platform also includes a proprietary scalable reporting and transaction clearing back-end.

Technology infrastructure
The company has a global authentication fabric of integrated servers and software, interconnected with over 160 distinct global Wi-Fi networks. This infrastructure gives the company's aggregated hotspots the look and feel of iPass hotspots. With the addition of iPass SmartConnect, the architecture now opens avenues for improving connection success, real-time monitoring of network outages, and least-cost network routing .

Wi-Fi network
iPass has a Wi-Fi network footprint and supply chain that consists of approximately 50 million hotspots in over 100 countries, including major airports, convention centers, planes, trains, train stations, hotels, restaurants, retail, and small business locations.[22] This network footprint includes millions of community and free hotspots.

Other websites
iPass official website

Internet

IPass


The Fortune Theatre is a 432-seat West End theatre on Russell Street, near Covent Garden, in the City of Westminster. From 1989 until 2023 the theatre hosted the long running play The Woman in Black.

History
The site was acquired by author, playwright and impresario Laurence Cowen, and had previously been the location of the old Albion Tavern, a public house that was frequented by Georgian and Victorian actors. The theatre is situated next to Crown Court Church, and dwarfed by the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane on the opposite side of the road.

Cowen commissioned architect Ernest Schaufelberg to design the theatre in an Italianate style. Constructed from 1922 to 1924, it was the first theatre to be built in London after the end of the First World War. One of the first buildings in London to experiment with concrete, its façade is principally made of bush hammered concrete, with brick piers supporting the roof. Since the demolition of the original Wembley Stadium, the theatre is now the oldest remaining public building designed wholly using concrete as a textured and exposed façade. The theatre's famous figurine, Terpsichore (perched high above the entrance) was sculpted by M. H. Crichton of the Bromsgrove Guild, a noted company of artisans from Worcestershire. The theatre is entered through bronze double doors, and internally there is a foyer of grey and red marble, with a beaten copper ticket booth.

With 432 seats in the auditorium, it is believed to be the second smallest West End theatre. It was refurbished in 1960, and Grade II listed by English Heritage in May 1994.

Productions
The theatre opened, as the Fortune Thriller Theatre on 8 August 1924, with Sinners by Lawrence Cowen. During the Second World War, the theatre hosted performances by ENSA, entertainers drawn from the armed forces. Since the war, the theatre has been a receiving house, with actors such as Dame Judi Dench, Dirk Bogarde and Maureen Lipman appearing. The Fortune also hosted shows from Flanders and Swann and Beyond the Fringe. Nunsense played at the theatre in 1987.

From 1989 until 2023 the theatre hosted the long running play The Woman in Black, which was adapted by Stephen Mallatratt from the book of the same name by Susan Hill. A celebration was held in 2001 to mark the 5,000th performance. On 9 November 2022 it was announced that the Woman in Black would close at the Fortune theatre, with the final performance taking place on 4 March 2023.

From 9 to 13 September 2008, the show was performed in Japanese by Takaya Kamikaya and Haruhito Saito, in celebration of the 150th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the UK and Japan.

The theatre was also used to record the Lily Savage video "Paying the Rent" in 1993, which was later broadcast by Channel 4 in the UK in 1996.

On 29 March 2023, a new production opened at the Fortune Theatre for the first time since 1989: Operation Mincemeat.

References
 Guide to British Theatres 1750–1950, John Earl and Michael Sell pp. 110 (Theatres Trust,  2000)

External links

West End theatres
Theatres in the City of Westminster
Grade II listed buildings in the City of Westminster
Theatres completed in 1924
Performance art venues

Fortune Theatre


The Beaux Arts Trio was a famous piano trio. The three musicians (a violinist, cellist and pianist first performed together in public on 13 July  1955 at the Berkshire Music Festival, known today as the Tanglewood Music Center. Their last American concert was held at Tanglewood on 21 August 2008.  Their last concert was in Lucerne, Switzerland on 6 September  2008.

The Beaux Arts Trio made many recordings including all the well-known works for piano, violin and cello.

When the trio started its members were:

Piano: Menahem Pressler
Violin: Daniel Guilet
Cello: Bernard Greenhouse

The pianist was Menahem Pressler during its whole existence.

There were several changes of violinist:
After Daniel Guilet left they were: Isidore Cohen (1968~), Ida Kavafian (1992~), Yung Uck Kim (1998~), Daniel Hope (2002~)

Bernard Greenhouse stayed with the group until 1987.  After that the cellists were Peter Wiley (1987~), Antonio Meneses (1998~)

Other websites
 Beaux Arts Trio website

Musical groups

Beaux Arts Trio


Reflection is the change in direction of a wave at a boundary between two different media, so that the wave moves back into the medium it came from.
The most common examples include the reflection of light, sound and water waves.

Specular reflection is a mirror-like reflection of light from a surface, in which light from a single incoming direction is reflected into a single outgoing direction. In the diagram to the right, a light ray is coming from the point P, and meets at the mirror at point O. The ray reflects at the point O outwards in the same medium towards point Q. Reflection is measured relative to a line through point O that is at 90˚ to the mirror. The angles made by the light ray (shown in the diagram as  and ) must be equal. Both angles have to be equal whenever reflection occurs. This is known as the "law of reflection".

People make many things to use reflections, including reflecting telescopes, radar, sonar, and lidar and putting light reflectors on things they want to see.

Wave physics

Reflection


are women in the service of Shinto shrines. The translation of Miko is "Woman of God" (chosen by, or totally devoted to, the gods), but the closest meaning is "shrine maiden". In Shinto, there are priestesses; but Miko are not priestesses, because they have less authority. However, they can act as priestesses if needed. They usually help Shintoist priests.

Other websites
Odamachi:Miko, Shinto Shrine Maidens

Religious occupations
Shinto

Miko


Haym Soloveitchik (born September 19, 1937) is an American Modern Orthodox rabbi and historian. He is the only son of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. He graduated from the Maimonides School which his father founded in Brookline, Massachusetts and then received his B.A. degree from Harvard College in 1958  with a major in History. After two years of post-graduate study at Harvard, he moved to Israel and began his studies toward an M.A. and PhD at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, under the historian Professor Jacob Katz. He wrote his Master's thesis on the Halakha of gentile wine in medieval Germany. His doctorate, which he received in 1972, concentrated on laws of pawnbroking and usury. He is known to many as Dr. Gra"ch (Hebrew: ד״ר גר״ח), after his great-grandfather for whom he is named, Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik, who was known as the Gra"ch (Hebrew: גר״ח).

Teaching
Soloveitchik's four step scholarly approach to learning has influenced many of his students. The approach can be traced back to the approach of the Gaon of Vilna. The first step is concentrating on the text. This follows the Vilna Gaon's approach of carefully amending the texts of both exoteric (the Talmud) and esoteric works (for instance, the Torat Kohanim, Tosefta, Avot de-Rabbi Natan, etc.). The second step is knowing the physical reality of the objects described. Third is the conceptual analysis proffered by Rishonim. At this point he introduces an important distinction between Rishonim, which are primary sources, and must be mastered, even if one has to struggle to understand them; and Achronim, which are secondary sources, which can be exploited (if you find good material, use it, but if you don't understand it, don't spend too much time on it). The fourth and final step is sevarah, creating the intellectual framework underpinning the Torah.

Soloveitchik taught at Hebrew University until 1984, and reached the rank of full Professor. During that period, he also taught at and served as Dean of the Bernard Revel Graduate School of Yeshiva University and served as a Rosh Yeshiva at its affiliate, the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. In the early 1980s, he left Hebrew University and began teaching at Yeshiva University on a full-time basis, serving as University Professor. He taught there until 2006, when he was appointed Merkin Family Research Professor in Jewish History and Literature.

Rabbi Michael Rosensweig wrote his Ph.D. (Debt Collection in Absentia: Halakhah in a Mobile and Commercial Age) under Prof. Soloveitchik and is one of the few students mentored by him.

Scholarship
Haym Soloveitchik is acknowledged as a leading contemporary historian of Jewish law. Much of his work focuses on the interaction of Halakha with changing economic realities. Specifically, he has produced major studies of usury and pawnbroking and the multiple ramifications of Jewish involvement in the manufacture and sale of wine. A major theme of his writing is the positing of an essential integrity to the Ashkenazi Jewish legal process in its interaction with contemporary challenges.

Soloveitchik's oft-cited essay Rupture and Reconstruction, where he criticizes the triumph of the elite religion of the yeshiva world over the folk religion of American Orthodoxy, is viewed as a major statement on the state of contemporary Orthodox Judaism.

Published works

Books:

 Halakha, Economy and Self-Image, Jerusalem 1985.
 Responsa as an Historical Source, Jerusalem 1990.
 Principles and Pressures: Jewish Trade in Gentile Wine in the Middle Ages. (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2003).
 Wine in Ashkenaz in the Middle Ages : yeyn nesekh, a study in the history of halakhah.(Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 2008).
 Collected Essays, Volume 1 Littman Library Of Jewish Civilization 2013.
 Collected Essays, Volume 2 Littman Library Of Jewish Civilization 2014.
 "Collected Essays, Volume 3" Littman Library Of Jewish Civilization 2020

Articles:

 'Pawnbroking: A Study in "Ribbit" and of the Halakah in Exile,' PAAJR 38-39(1970–1971)203-268.
 'Three Themes in Sefer Hassidim,' AJS Review 1 (1976), 311-358
 'Can Halakhic Texts Talk History?" AJS Review 3 (1978), pp. 153-196
 'Maimonides'"'Iggeret Ha-Shemad" - Law and Rhetoric,' Rabbi Joseph H. Lookstein Memorial Volume, New York 1980, 281–319.
 'Rabad of Posquières: A Programmatic Essay,' Studies in the History of Jewish Society Presented to Jacob Katz, Jerusalem 1980, vii-xl.
 'Religious Law and Change: The Medieval Ashkenazic Example,' AJS Review 12(1987), 205–221.
 'History of Halakhah - Methodological Issues: A Review Essay of I. Twersky's "Rabad of Posquières,"' Jewish History 5(1991), 75-124.
 'Catastrophe and Halakhic Creativity: Ashkenaz - 1096, 1242, 1306 and 1298,' Jewish History 12(1998), 71–85.
 '[On] Yishaq (Eric) Zimmer, "Olam ke-Minhago Noheg"' AJS Review 23(1998), 223–234.
 'Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy,' Tradition, 28(1994) 64-130.
 'Responsa: Literary History and Basic Literacy,' AJS Review, 24(1999),343-357.
 'Piety, Pietism and German Pietism : "Sefer Hasidim I" and the influence of "Hasidei Ashkenaz," Jewish Quarterly Review 92(2002), 455–493.
 'Halakhah, Hermeneutics, and Martyrdom in Medieval Ashkenaz,' Jewish Quarterly Review 94,1 (2004) 77-108; 2: 278–299.
 'The Midrash, "Sefer Hasidim" and the Changing Face of God,' Creation and Re-Creation in Jewish Thought, New York 2005, 165–177.

Family tree

References

External links
Merkin Family Chair in Jewish History and Literature at Yeshiva University first held by Haym Soloveitchik

Yeshiva University faculty
Yeshiva University rosh yeshivas
Israeli historians of religion
Jewish historians
American Orthodox rabbis
Harvard College alumni
1937 births
Living people
Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty

Haym Soloveitchik


George S. Wunder (April 24, 1912 – December 13, 1987) was a cartoonist best known for his 26 years illustrating the Terry and the Pirates comic strip.

Born in Manhattan, Wunder grew up in Kingston, New York. As a youth, he planned a career as a professional comics artist. Other than correspondence courses, including the International Correspondence School art course, he was a self-taught artist. At the age of 24, he began as a staff artist at the Associated Press, where he worked alongside illustrator Noel Sickles and sports cartoonist Tom Paprocki. At AP, Wunder illustrated fiction and various editorial cartoon features, such as "Can Hitler Beat the Russian Jinx?"

During World War II, he served in the Army from 1942 to 1946. Returning to the Associated Press after World War II, he drew the strip See for Yourself in 1946 for AP Newsfeatures.

Terry and the Pirates
In 1946, when Milton Caniff left Terry and the Pirates, there were about 100 artists who applied for the job, according to Caniff. Wunder submitted samples, and the Tribune-News Syndicate chose Wunder as Caniff's replacement (with former Caniff assistant Lee Elias a close runner-up). Wunder's first Terry and the Pirates appeared in newspapers on December 30, 1946, launching the story "Trouble in Tibet". Comics historian Don Markstein noted the transition:
Terry was left in the hands of George Wunder, a skilled cartoonist who maintained a high level of quality. But Caniff was a unique talent, and nobody could ever truly replace him. Terry Lee had joined the U.S. Air Force during World War II. Wunder left him there, and let him mature fully as an Air Force officer. During the Vietnam Era, military-oriented entertainment declined in popularity. The strip was discontinued in 1973. By that time, Wunder, too, had stopped doing it — although it still bore his byline, it was ghosted by Al Plastino, better known for his work on Superman. (Plastino was also handling the pantomime strip Ferd'nand, and later became Ernie Bushmiller's assistant on Nancy.)

Initially, Wunder drew the strip so it was similar to that of Caniff and Sickles, but he soon developed his own distinctive style. Hotshot Charlie, for example, was drawn in a more openly humorous manner than before. In 1953, Canada Dry offered a "premium giveaway" with a case of its ginger ale — one minibook in a trilogy series of Terry and the Pirates strips by Wunder, printed by Harvey Comics. Throughout the 1950s, the Sunday pages used color for psychological effect. One Wunder panel from that period has no blue or green shadows as one might expect; the panel was colored only with orange, red and yellow. In another, Terry is colored green in front, and his back is a yellow-orange. Wunder drew dramatic and highly detailed pictures, but comics historian Maurice Horn claimed it was difficult to tell one character from another and wrote that Wunder's stories lacked Caniff's essential humor. At the end of the 1950s, Hotshot Charlie was dropped from the strip, which was drawn and colored in a more sedate manner with careful attention to the airplanes flown by Terry Lee and his friends.

Writer-artist Bill Pearson noted that Wunder spent "decades producing a very solid adventure strip. He drew ugly people, even young women, which was certainly a curious trait, but he was one of the very best inkers in the business. His technique was flawless." With his clean and precise inking style, Wunder filled his panels with numerous foreground and background details, as landscape painter Bob Foster observed:
I read Wunder's Terry when I was a kid and even then was impressed by all the work he put into it. Every single panel was fully loaded with detailed backgrounds and detailed wrinkles, costumes and hairs, even on all the characters in the background, all the woodgrain in all the wood, and all those black shadows that lent an air of foreboding to each panel. I could never get over his 3/4 rear view of a character's eyeball straining to see something behind him. And all those overly bridged noses on both guys and gals all crying out for rhinoplasty. For many years I resented the overloaded panels and decided I didn't like Wunder's rendering of Terry and the Pirates. It was only in the last few years that I came to appreciate Wunder's work on Terry. One day I realized that he never cheated. He gave us everything in infinite detail in every panel and never deprived us of any wrinkles, bricks, tiles, leaves, woodgrain, fingernails, hairs, cloth patterns or buttons. Yeah, the look-alike facial features of all his characters in the later years of Terry was stylistic and bothersome, but he never cheated.

Assistants
In mid 1962 former EC Comics and Classics Illustrated artist George Evans came on board as Wunder's assistant on the daily strip.  As Evans related in an interview in The Comics Journal #177 (May 1995), "George would lay out the strip, pencil and ink the characters' heads, and I would finish the strip."  Evans said that during these years Wunder did the Sunday pages all himself.  In the same interview he told how he had drawn a daily strip where a general's uniform varied from the way Wunder drew the character in the Sunday for that week, necessitating re-drawing parts of the Sunday.  Evans offered to help, but Wunder wouldn't let him saying, "It wasn't your mistake."  Then he dug out his electric eraser and went to work on the Sunday.  Evans worked on the strip until it was cancelled in 1973.  Other artists who stepped in to assist Wunder included Lee Elias, Russ Heath, Fred Kida, Don Sherwood, Frank Springer and Wally Wood.

Retirement
The strip was being carried in 100 newspapers when Wunder retired in 1973. The New York Daily News ran every Terry and the Pirates daily and Sunday except for the final three weeks by Wunder in 1973. At the time of his retirement, Wunder commented:
It's a strip I've enjoyed doing, but on the other hand, it has been, oh, a chore. The sheer mechanics of producing that much work week in and week out ties you down... Taste in strips seems to be changing. People just don't seem to follow continuity strips any more the way they used to. They get an average of three to four complete stories a night off the boob tube. There's no reason why they should hang around anywhere from eight to 12 weeks to find out just how one story came out."

When Wunder, who lived in Sherman, Connecticut, announced his retirement, the syndicate chose to cancel the strip on February 25, 1973. Wunder regarded the cancellation as a Vietnam War casualty, commenting, "The fighter pilot is no longer the glamorous, reckless defender of the free world against all comers. He's now the cold-blooded professional dropping napalm on women and children."<ref>[http://www.newspaperarchive.com "Cartoonist George Wunder Planning Terry and the Pirates Retirement", The Cumberland News (Cumberland, Maryland), February 23, 1973.]</ref>

 Death

Wunder died of a heart attack in the New Milford Hospital on Sunday, December 13, 1987, survived by his wife, Mildred, and his sister, Beatrice Bogert of Riverdale, New Jersey. At age 87, Mildred "Millie" A. Wunder (née Smith), who was known as "Mrs. Terry and the Pirates," died March 1, 2001, in Port St. Lucie, Florida after a short illness.

Our Guest Star
Wunder's Our Guest Star was a 1955 promotional strip featuring characters from Terry and the Pirates'' with cameo appearances by film stars and other celebrities.
January 27, 1955 (features Mary Martin)
April 19, 1955 (features Grace Kelly)
October 28, 1955 (features Robert Cummings)
December 29, 1955 (features Charlton Heston)

Awards
Wunder was a member of the Illustrators Club and the National Cartoonists Society. On June 11, 1963, he was honored by the United States Air Force with their Exceptional Service Award. In 1970, he received the National Cartoonists Society's Silver T-Square Award.

See also
Titles of George Wunder's 95 Terry and the Pirates stories from 1946 ("Trouble in Tibet") to 1973 ("Contraband")

References

External links
Ger Apeldoorn: Month-long Terry and the Pirates sequence (October 1952)
Milton Caniff: Conversations by Robert C. Harvey
 George Wunder Cartoons 1947–1970 at Syracuse University (primary source material)

1912 births
1987 deaths
American comics artists
American comic strip cartoonists
Artists from New York City
People from Kingston, New York
Terry and the Pirates
United States Army personnel of World War II

George Wunder


Steven Cherundolo (born February 19, 1979 in Rockford, Illinois) is an American soccer player. He has played most of career (until 2008) for the German football club Hannover 96. Cherundolo plays on the position of a defender.

Before he came to Hannover, Cherundolo played from 1997 to 1998 in an American college soccer league for the University of Portland.

In his first season for Hannover 96, 1998-99, he made four matches in the team which played in the 2nd German league (2. Bundesliga). In the following season, Cherundolo was in the team most of the time, but he had a bad knee injury. He came back during the 2000-01 season and made 18 matches. In the following season, he made 33 of 34 matches and has been a start member of the team most of the time until 2008.

In 2002 he got up to the 1st league with his club and played the following seasons in the 1st German league (1. Bundesliga). All together Cherundolo made 250 matches for Hannover 96 from 1999 to 2008, scoring six goals.

Cherundolo made his first match for the United States national team against Jamaica on 8th September 1999. Until 2008 he has made 44 matches for his national team, scoring two goals.

Other websites
 Steven Cherundolo's Homepage
 homepage of his club, Hannover 96

1979 births
Living people
American soccer players
Sportspeople from Rockford, Illinois

Steven Cherundolo