Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 May 14

Humanities desk
< May 13	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 14

Regime Change Successfully Implemented by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. During the Cold War

In which countries did the U.S. successfully implement regime change during the Cold War? Also, I'm asking the same question, but for the U.S.S.R.

For the U.S., I can think of:

• Iran (1953)
• Guatemala (1954)
• Chile (1973)
• Grenada (1983)
• Panama (1989)
• Arguably Afghanistan (1992, but the process was begun during the Cold War)

For the U.S.S.R., I can think of:

• Hungary (1956)
• Czechoslovakia (1968)

Which countries am I missing for the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Is there some reason why you are arguing that the restoral of constitutional rule after the murderous overthrow of the Grenadan government, or the support of Afghan natives versus military invaders counts as "regime change"? Do you really expect us to list every government behind the Iron Wall, and Korea, China, and Vietnam, etc., etc., in response to this nonsense? Have you never heard of the Berlin Wall? This is yet another provocative POV pushing piece of sh*t on your part, Futurist. Ask some simple requests for references please, rather than these debate inciting diatribes. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard of the Berlin Wall, but I don't see what this has to do with U.S. and Soviet involvement in regime change. And please, no profanity. Thankfully I was able to find a Wikipedia article right now about the part of my question regarding the U.S.--Covert United States foreign regime change actions. Are you suggesting that this article should be deleted? In regards to your question about Grenada, I'm not sure now that I know more details about it. In regards to Afghanistan, it is worth noting that the Communists came to power there before the U.S.S.R. intervened and that the Najibullah government there collapsed three years after the U.S.S.R. left Afghanistan. Futurist110 (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

For the US, the 1963 coup in South Vietnam. Henry^Flower 05:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I previously knew about that one but I forgot it when making this poll. Futurist110 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that regime change had such massive negative connotations. From memory, it was one of my country's goals as announced by our Prime Minister when we invaded Iraq this century. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Neither did I. Futurist110 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You should also look at United States occupation of the Dominican Republic (1965–66); I believe it fits your criteria. Just outside your time period, the military intervention to restore President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in Haiti in 1994 constituted a form of regime change (like your Afghanistan example, the crisis began earlier, in September of 1991; while the USSR was still barely standing at that time, the Cold War was for all intents and purposes already over, however). --Xuxl (talk) 09:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the Soviet Union, most of the regime changes that I can think of happened before or shortly after the beginning of Cold War. The regimes in the Baltic States were overthrown in 1940 shortly before the newly installed governments "joined" the Soviet Union Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940). Polish government in exile was replaced by the pro-Soviet provisional government at the end of WWII. 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état (during Cold War) would also qualify. Otherwise the Soviets seem to have preferred supporting local communist forces, as opposed to more direct CIA-style intervention (e.g., China).129.178.88.84 (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Cuba? Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

At the start of the Cold War, the Soviets engineered (or at least strongly supported) the establishment of Communist rule in all of the countries that later formed Comecon, often under the guise of "free" elections. See Polish legislative election, 1947, Soviet occupation of Romania and the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état for the most blatant examples. Alansplodge (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Soviet assistance was crucial to the success of the Derg in seizing power in Ethiopia in 1974. Marco polo (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

El Salvador? See the article "Salvadoran Civil War."198.190.231.15 (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The charts here may be useful: Polity IV Individual Country Regime Trends, 1946-2010. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The USSR did not implement regime change in Hungary. This was a people's revolution, against the USSR's occupation. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 13:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I expect that you are thinking of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. I was referring to the way in which the Soviet occupiers manipulated the democratic apparatus in Hungary to turn a 17% vote for the communists in 1945 into an election in 1949 where there were only communist candidates. Tactics included persuading the prime minister, Ferenc Nagy, to resign by kidnapping his son. The secretary of the majority Independent Smallholders, Agrarian Workers and Civic Party was deported to Siberia for several years. See Republic of Hungary (1946–1949) for the sordid details. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Alan, I was responding to the OP's question, which said 'Hungary 1956'. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean now. Alansplodge (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that the Soviets hanged the guy who was Prime Minister in '56, I think it might be said that they implemented regime change, even if there was formal continuity. --Trovatore (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Career

Are there any websites out there that aid one in making a career choice if one is unsure of what employment path to take? I mean like questionaires and then a breakdown. Pass a Method talk 13:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Where are you located? This will help us give you location-specific websites. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently the UK Pass a Method talk 15:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

While we're waiting for Tammy to return, I see a bunch of those tools at careers@bath, University of Kent and Prospects UK. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The UK has recently seen the launch of the National Careers Advice service, their website may have what you are looking for (but I have to say, it seems to be more a second-level site, rather than the sort of first-level stuff you're looking for). --TammyMoet (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

How fast is a horse?

I can't stop thinking about something I came across while researching an answer to the Paul the Apostle question above. In the article Roman roads, we are told, without a source given, that along the roads, official horse-changing stations:

were located every 20 to 30 km (12 to 18 miles). . . . Using these stations in chariot relays, the emperor Tiberius hastened 800 km (500 mi) in 24 hours to join his brother, Drusus Germanicus, who was dying of gangrene as a result of a fall from a horse.

This breaks down into a speed of about 20 miles an hour - maybe just possible for a supremely motivated young man in excellent physical condition. If the story is true - if I've done my math right, Tiberius was 51 at the time. I also note that the 19th-century Pony Express covered 1900 miles in 10 days or maybe 7 or 8 miles an hour, on average, with many changes of horses and riders. Which makes me wonder two things: 1) How fast can a horse go while pulling a chariot? 2) Are there any other known stories from later times or recent times of a single rider or charioteer covering that much distance in a day? Textorus (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Secretariat ran the 1973 Belmont Stakes in 2 minutes and 24 seconds, the fastest mile and a half in the history of the race. That works out to 1 mile in 96 seconds, or around 37.5 miles per hour. Running a horse or series of horses at such a pace would take about 14 hours to travel 500 miles. So it could be done, but you'd need a lot of very fast horses. Also, the 7 to 8 miles per hour assumes riding 24 hours a day for 10 straight days. Is that how the Pony Express was done, or did they take breaks? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No single rider went all the way from St. Joseph, Mo., to San Francisco; the company had about 80 riders, the article says, horses were changed every 10 miles or so, and the riders changed every 70-100 miles. Presumably, they were going non-stop while "on duty" but could relax and eat, etc., when their segment was completed. Textorus (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Some corrections re the Tiberius story:

1. When Drusus died in 9 BC, Tiberius was 33, not 51 :)

2. The distance claimed was 200 Roman miles (296 km/184 miles), not 500 - I'll go fix the article on that.

The source is Pliny's Natural History; I'll go put it in the article. Wikisource has the original Latin: [1] (paragraph 84). 184.147.137.171 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I confused BC with AD on the year of Drusus's death. And appreciate your correcting the article - although 300 miles is still a helluva long ride for a solitary Tiberius to make, even at 33 - or so it seems to me. Textorus (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

He said 184 modern miles, not 300. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I do that all the time too! And 184 (modern) miles in 24 hours (which could easily have been something like 30 hours and still thought of as a day) is about the same speed as the pony express, 7-8 mph. I agree though, quite an endurance feat. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected again; must need glasses. Yes, quite a feat: even a leisurely 20-mile ride in one day on horseback will leave you buttsore and weary, but I suppose the early emperors lived on horseback for much of their lives. Textorus (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

24-hour run says the record for a person running is 188 miles, so I don't see there would be too much of a problem doing it with new relay horses every few miles pulling a chariot - that's easier than having someone riding. Dmcq (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Denmark's Failure

Why does it seem that Denmark's history since the Kalmar War is largely a story of failure? First they lost the position as the hope of being the champions of Protestantism during the Thirty Year's War then they lost Scania and many Norwegian provinces to the Swedes in multiple Dano-Swedish war and the March across the Belts. Then in the Napoleonic War, the British annihilated their entire navy and in the end they had to cede all of Norway to the Swedes. Finally in the Second Schleswig War, they lost all of Schleswig-Holstein. Obviously there will no direct answers to this, but historians must have noted the string of defeat and territorial losses that Denmark endured since the 17th century. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long reply, but it is a very long and complicated process. It seems one of the main reasons, as proposed recently by Danish historians (citation below), is that Denmark in early modern times found itself in a position that was suddenly extremely vital to outside powers, namely the possession of the Strait of Øresund. Earlier this was no big problem, in fact quite the opposite - it was quite lucrative, but with the increasing importance of overseas trade, especially by the rising powers of England and the Netherlands this became a problem because the Baltic trade was vital as the main source of naval supplies, and Denmark was in no respect able to match the strength posed by those powers. And it became the main policy of these naval powers from the late 16th century and onwards to counter this Danish control of the Sound by siding with the enemies of Denmark (in this period mainly Sweden) in their effort to break it.

To this should be added the facts that 1) Sweden in the same period proved extraordinary adept in converting their society into a very efficient military-complex, arguably the most efficient in the world at the time and 2) the rulers of Denmark proved far less efficient in turning the medieval society into an early modern nationstate, it seems the major reforms and revolutions only occurred during crises, that is when it was already too late. And that the rulers were evidently not entirely aware that they had lost out in the scale of balance, and still behaved as if it was the old times when Denmark was the leading nation in Scandinavia. Not to mention that with a few notable exceptions, the Danish government was extremely inept when it came to choosing allies and continuosly seemed to end up consorting with reluctant or simply no allies. In general the branch of the House of Oldenburg that made up the Danish monarchy at the time doesn't seem to have bred the finest exemplars of the human race, most of the Danish kings in the period were mediocre, the rest were downright useless.

But while Denmark was dismembered in the following treaties, especially the Treaty of Roskilde, it actually still posed a hindrance to traffic in the strait, collecting the so-called Sound tax of every wessel crossing it, but with decreasing power to back up that threat. So as historian Lars Bangert Struve says about Danish foreign policy in the 18th century ("Allieret eller neutral - Dansk sikkerhedspolitik 1740-1807", p. 17-32 in: Danmark og Napoleon, Hovedland, 2007), it was only a question of time until it came to a showdown where Denmark would have to concede the fact that it had become a minor league player and abandon claims on the Sound traffic. This occurred in 1801-7.

1864 is somewhat different as it is tied up with the ethnic conflicts of a mixed nationality area (a civil war had occurred between Denmark and the German duchies in 1848-51), the rise of nationalism in Europe (both in Denmark and in Germany) as well as the politics of Bismarck and the emergence of Germany as a Great Power in Europe. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another factor is simply Denmark's size. With a small land area (excluding Greenland, which is mostly covered by glaciers) and population, it simply couldn't match the resources to compete with larger nations. Small nations and city-states can be quite powerful, for a time, but the numbers eventually turn against them. For example, we have ancient Athens, then, much later, Venice. And, although ancient Rome also started out as just a city, they had a better model where they made the captured people into Romans (at least those near Rome), and thus where able to expand their base, and last longer than most empires. (Their eventual failure might be because they stopped doing this in the outer provinces, treating those people more like slaves than citizens. When you get to a point where far more people hate you than support you, then you have a problem.) StuRat (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Saddhiyama and would add that Denmark's decline began with Sweden's rise. During the late middle ages, Denmark had dominated Scandinavia in the Kalmar Union mainly because of its control over trade between the Baltic and North seas. When the Kalmar Union ended, Gustav I of Sweden succeeded in forming a strong monarchy in Sweden, with crown control over 60% of the farmland in both Sweden and Finland. He also strengthened Sweden's tax regime. These both generated large amounts of income to pay for military adventures, including the defeat of Denmark and the taking of some of its best agricultural land in Scania. From there it was downhill for Denmark, which next lost Norway to Sweden. Prior to the 19th century, the division of Germany had allowed Denmark to continue to assert some power in northern Germany, but the rise of a strong Prussia and German unification created a giant on Denmark's southern border that it could not hope to defeat. Denmark's survival in the face of Prussia's rise is what really needs to be explained. Ultimately the explanation is that Prussia and Germany knew that neither Russia nor Britain would have allowed Germany to threaten Baltic shipping by conquering Denmark. Indeed, freeing Denmark and the Baltic was one of the more important stakes for the Allies in World War II. Marco polo (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Denmark was also a victim of economy: It really didn't have an abundance of natural resources, nor did it have a particularly large population, so it didn't have a really large native economic base to support itself. Consider that the Sound Dues accounted for a significant portion of the Danish national treasury, as much as 2/3rds of the state income in the 16th century!!! To place literally all of your eggs in one basket like that is a recipe for disaster, and Denmark's slow slide from it's peak during the Hanseatic era, when Baltic Trade was a HUGE economic engine for Denmark's economy, via the Sound Dues, through all of the events noted above, can be tied to the shift of European trade away from the Baltic. If you want to look at the major events leading to this, the Age of Exploration and the Trade routes it opened up around the world which depended not one iota on access to the Baltic, as well as successful means to bypass the Baltic altogether, such as the opening of Archangelsk to the Muscovy Company, Richard Chancellor, and Hugh Willoughby which allowed Britain to trade directly with Russia and points east, completely bypassing the Oresund. So, with all of the competition from Atlantic trade, and a significant portion of the Baltic trade now bypassing the Baltic altogether via the White Sea and Archangelsk, Denmark, whose entire economy depended solely on the Baltic trade, lost out huge. None of this really has much to do with the competence of the rulers from the House of Oldenburg or not; some of them may have been very good rulers, and some maybe not so much, but you can't squeeze blood from a turnip, and it's hard to fund armies when you only have a single source of income, and it dries up. --Jayron32 20:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree to the first part, but one has to remember that initially Sweden was largely in the same situation. Small population, largely agricultural and backwards, yet through intelligent administrative reforms managed to turn that situation into a completely different beast in terms of efficiency. With such a comparison you can't but point the finger on the rulers as having at least a part in the disaster for not seeing a need for reforms themselves (that one was certifiable insane, another a hopeless drunkard doesn't help, but of course they didn't de facto govern either). Denmark proper didn't have a lot of natural resources, but Norway did, and Schleswig-Holstein was relatively densely populated (more than one third of the entire population of the kingdom). There was a lot of unused potential in Denmark-Norway of early modern times.

And regarding the dependance on Baltic trade, it actually did remain quite crucial for British trade, even the one they carried out on the other side of the globe, because most of the crucial naval supplies used on those routes did come from the Baltic trade. And the Øresund route remained the most important route to that trade for the duration of the 18th century, as the northern routes simply was too treacherous to rely on for any great amount of traffic. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Every single European monarchy has had their fair share of insane and incompetent monarchs. England survived the rule of Edward II and George III, France managed to survive the rule of Henry III, Spain became a world empire following the madness of Joanna of Castile. What those countries had that Denmark didn't was an economic power base to exploit. --Jayron32 23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Britain was a constitutional monarchy by that point and could function as well with or without a monarch while Joanna's madness was countered by her son's effective rule. Denmark and Sweden had the same potentials but the kings of Sweden were better able to lead their countries than the Danish. I agree the Danish kings around this time were mediocre (the best, the more competent rulers could do were to defend against further losses or implement modernizing reforms that Sweden had already experienced). Also Denmark lacked any military kings like the Sweidsh Gustavus Adolphu and Charles X-XII. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

does The Economist have a (relatively) new Editor?

does The Economist have a (relatively) new Editor or Editor in Chief of some kind? It was literally unreadable on a textual level (as in, complete rubbish, worse than blog comments in terms of a coherent sentence or thought) as of about a year ago, and had been for some time (maybe going back 2-3 years, meaning 2010-2012, during which it plain sucked.) I know because during that interval I kept picking it up and it was always rubbish.

Now I picked up an issue, because it's relatively good again (as it was until 2007). What - or more probably who - has changed? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Economist has never been "literally unreadable on a textual level" or "complete rubbish". You're putting forward your own, demonstrably incorrect, opinions as objective fact. --Viennese Waltz 21:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Your typical personal attack, combined with no effort to actually answer the question, also qualifies as "complete rubbish". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. But equally, there's no such thing as an incorrect opinion. Opinions by their very nature have no truth value. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Volkswagen is a nanny and proud of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What's the point of calling Viennese Waltz Volkswagen? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Because he gets called VW from time to time. Nicknames are used with affection. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Because he has a strange sense of "humour". --Viennese Waltz 13:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I see, that's like calling Baseball Bugs > BB > BlackBerry, or Big Brother or Be Back. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Soytenly. And I've been called a lot worse. But I don't care what they call me, as long as they call me to supper. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that I mean myself personally. If I wrote the same thing about a band, I would also consider it obvious and "needless to say" (so I didn't) that it is just my opinion. Regardless of my subjective opinion, you can tell me whether the editorship has changed recently (in the past year). 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Our article says the editor-in-chief has been the same person since 2006, and indeed his name is still on the masthead. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It's strange - what else do you think would explain that I have several issues next to me, and I can open some of them (from a certain period) and be unable to read any of the articles through even if I'm really interested in the subject-matter, the writing being so bad, and then there are issues, including any of the recent ones, where the articles are uniformly really well-written and engaging, regardless of whether I have any interest whatsoever in the subject? It's a puzzle to me. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some representative examples of both "unreadable" and "readable" text from the Economist during the time periods you are interested it? You've asserted that there was a difference, but unless we can read the text ourselves, we really have no means to make a comparison. Just an article or two displaying "complete rubbish, worse than blog comments in terms of a coherent sentence or thought" and then one or two that are of a better quality. That would really help your cause. --Jayron32 23:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

You can find any, literally every article was bad. Can't you do a search by date and give me the first paragraph of the first hit you find for a random article in 2007 and in 2011? The difference is obvious and this methodology is sound. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it's like Jayron32 says. It's up to you to provide evidence for your assertion. Without any such evidence, your accusations are just so much hot air. --Viennese Waltz 05:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be good if the OP could provide an example. And it would be good if you could curb your own hot air. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Another theory - did it have a dwindling readership/budget due to the Internet, but then recently tablet readership has picked up again? If so this would clearly be visible on some chart showing readership (or budget/revenue/whatever) between the years 2005- present. Can anyone find such a chart? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to entertain your theories, especially because you've been incapable of producing any evidence supporting your premise ("It was literally unreadable on a textual level"). Nobody can explain why the Economist suddenly improved if it did not, in fact, suddenly improve. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The closer explanation that I can give to the OP's point of view, assuming good faith and all, is that he read one blog hosted at The Economist. Those blogs can be from all sorts of contributor, often some think tank pushing for a point, and I suppose they are not reviewed by The Economist, and don't meet the same quality criteria as the rest of the magazine, which is far from being at the level of blog comments. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they started employing better staff. Magazines are not written by one person. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't employ just one person, but a whole staff. However ,that would imply that they won't have big breaks in quality standards. Maybe you get one journalist inventing stories at a descent magazine, but not a drop to blog-comment level and then back to correctly written articles. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they received a lot of complaints about the standards of their prose, decided to address the issue, and employed new staff as a result. We don't know. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid he's not making even that much sense. He talks about "picking it up", which would seem to imply the involvement of paper. Henry^Flower 12:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it requires a lot of will-power to assume good faith in this question. Either the OP quotes a couple of bad paragraphs (that should be easy since "literally every article was bad") and good ones or I think this is not worth dealing with further. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a totally reasonable question to ask. And it appears to have been answered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Any question is reasonable to ask, but sometimes the OP starts with the wrong premises, which need to be questioned in turn.. Definitely, a couple of examples would have made the question meaningful. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, examples would have been good in supporting his complaints about the mag. But the actual question was, "Does The Economist have a new editor?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I think the 178 challenge. I went to the Current and Previous issues page [2] and choose one of the years in the OP earlier suggested range. First choosing one in 2009 [3]. Hmm that didn't work, it's definitely not 'complete rubbish, worse than blog comments in terms of a coherent sentence or thought'. Okay let's try again this time with 2010 [4] in case either it's a bad year or a fluke. Okay still not seeing what the OP is seeing. But wait, the default seems to be North America. The OP's IP looks up to Hungary. Okay so let's try selecting European Union. Hmm that didn't seem to actually change anything, at least not the links to the issues, but nevermind let's another [5]. Okay fail again. Okay let's change year again [6]. Damn.

Reread the OP's challenge. Ooops while earlier they suggested the problem was at least from 2008 (inclusive) to 2012, they actual challenge is for 2011. Okay that must be it, the OP was wrong on the range. Okay choosing 2011. [7]. Damn still not working. Okay let's try another month and topic [8]. Well nevermind third time's the charm. [9]. Or not.... Here's a story I saw linked on the main page earlier for comparison BTW [10].

I didn't go back to 2007 or earlier to see the wondrous prose and thought allegedly shown then. It was a moot point since none of the results from 2008 - 2011 are unreadable on a textual level, worse than a blog etc.

Incidentally the OP said they picked up 'issues' which I take to mean physical copies of the magazine so this would seem to rule out the OP being confused by some random blog. Being generous, perhaps their neighbourhood magazine seller or doctor's office or wherever they were reading the magazine had a Economist clone which used the trademarks but not the copyrighted content to reduce the risk of legal problems (although one wonders if it may actually increase it given the risk of confusion as possibly experience by the OP).

P.S. Trying to view more than a few of these may not work because of the Economists paywall model where they only give a few free results before they start forcing you to register or pay. I did personally have a look and quick read of the text of all to see if I could see a sign of the what the OP was saying but I'll leave others to figure out for themselves if they want to check all the articles and aren't a subscriber.)

Nil Einne (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Colonel Sam Genius

In Jim Webb's novel The Emperor's General, which is largely about Douglas MacArthur's career immediately following World War II, one of the characters is named Colonel Sam Genius, who was initially responsible for conducting the anti-Japanese war crimes trials until he refused to follow MacArthur's orders and was dismissed. Was Sam Genius a real person? RNealK (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The International Military Tribunal for the Far East was responsible for trying Japanese war criminals. The U.S. representative on the Tribunal was first John Patrick Higgins who resigned in 1946, but he resigned (according to our article) to be with his family back in Massachusetts. The chief prosecutor was Joseph B. Keenan, but he served the duration. I have no idea if Sam Genius was a) a lesser official b) a real person whom Webb changed the name of c) a composite of several real people or d) wholly his own creation. But you can read the relevant Wikipedia articles to get some background on the actual historical events. --Jayron32 23:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Mr Higgins, but "spending more time with the family" is a common euphemism for "jumping before you get pushed" (in British politics at least). Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is in America as well. --Jayron32 14:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The only Google results (that I could find) for Sam Genius relate to the novel. Alansplodge (talk) 17:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)