chunk_id
stringlengths 3
8
| chunk
stringlengths 1
1k
|
|---|---|
1961_36 | horror to an almost unbearable level". In contrast, USA Today's Claudia Puig stated that director Dennis Iliadis failed at trying to keep the film from becoming another "torture porn". Puig felt that the killing scenes were too drawn out, noting the technique was down to heighten the effect, but actually comes across more as "repugnant and fetishized violence". She also noted that the parents seemed to find enjoyment in exacting their revenge, even when their daughter lay dying in the next room. Joe Neumaier of the New York Daily News was in agreement with Puig when he referred to the film as "stomach-churningly anti-human" because of its violence, and questioned why Goldwyn and Potter even signed on to the film. Neumaier suggests that the film's violence fails to create the sense of "theatricality of the Saw or Hostel films", or even provide audiences with "the unkillable-monster nostalgia of [the] Friday the 13th re-do". Neumaier also states that the 2009 film lacks the reasoning to |
1961_37 | exist that Craven's 1972 original had, which was to push the "boundaries of cinema's new permissiveness". |
1961_38 | When comparing the 2009 film to its 1972 counterpart, Newsdays Rafer Guzman stated that Iliadis's film contains better "production values" than the 1972 original, but overall it keeps the "marrow of the story". Guzman suggests that some of the violence may have ventured too close to hysteria, and that this film is not like The Virgin Spring—which Guzman reminds that Roger Ebert "famously compared the original to"—but overall the film is "horribly, shamefully satisfying". Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune, who disliked the 1972 film and went so far as to call the original "unstable trash", found the remake to be a better film. Phillips noted that the 2009 film was well written—apart from a couple of moments that felt like they belonged in a different movie—well acted, and contains characters that seem like "real people [with] plausible behavior, amid plausible tension, borne of a terrible situation". He also suggests that, contrary to other critic opinion, the 2009 remake does |
1961_39 | not attempt to follow the current trend of Hostel or Saw-like films simply because audiences are gravitating toward them as of late. Mark Olsen, of the Los Angeles Times, believes the 2009 remake is "deeply misguided refraction of the original". Olsen points to what he feels is the addition of unnecessary back story for the family, and Iliadis's choice to film the rape scene in a "verdant, scenic forest", which gave the sequence an "art-directed falseness, draining the audience-implicating authenticity and replacing it with the easy distance of knowing entertainment". Olsen also felt that changing the trinket Mari holds in the original film to a keepsake from her deceased brother turns the family into "heroic characters" who appear to be "defending their entitlement to a rustic second home and vintage motorboat, not their right to exist". |
1961_40 | Dennis Harvey of Variety believed that the film lacked in comparison to the 1972 original in almost every aspect. Harvey felt like the film spent more time trying to please current horror conventions than create an effective update to Craven's film. Harvey criticized the choice of changing a "credibly ordinary family" into "typical modern movie-fantasy clan". He also noted that Dillahunt's portrayal of Krug is no match for David Hess. Michael Rechtshaffen, from The Hollywood Reporter, felt that the remake followed close to the original—something fans of the 1972 film would appreciate—but that the film lacked the timing of the Craven's film. Craven was responding to the graphic images being sent back during the Vietnam War and allowed his film "sociological context", while Iliadis's 2009 film comes across as "exploitative". Although Rechtshaffen points out that the parents lack the training and skill of Liam Neeson's character in Taken, the performances from all of the actors are |
1961_41 | "uniformly sturdy". |
1961_42 | Lisa Kennedy of The Denver Post suggested that some viewers may want to leave the theater before finishing the movie, as Paige and Mari's fight to survive is "so disturbing" and "earnest", the murders and rapes so "verite" that it forced the reviewer to "fear for women in the audience who have been victims of rape". Yet, Kennedy believes the film manages to create a deeper message by identifying the "truly horrific" nature of what occurs by following the events with "a deep pause". Comparing this remake to the multiple Michael Bay slasher remakes, Kennedy states that this film "is not an idea-free flick", and that it "[engages] what the word 'horror' means". Roger Ebert, who gave the film a mildly positive review of 2.5 out of 4 stars, was also appalled by the rape sequence of the film, and noted that the rest of the violence seemed to fall within the standard of trying to invent new ways to kill people simply to please horror fans. At the same time, he praised the performances of |
1961_43 | Goldwyn, Potter, Paxton, and Dillahunt. He noted that the audience actually fears for the parents, and that Dillahunt is convincing as the "evil leader of a pack of degenerates". |
1961_44 | See also
List of films featuring home invasions
References
External links
2009 films
2009 horror films
2009 crime thriller films
2000s horror thriller films
2000s serial killer films
Adaptations of works by Wes Craven
American crime thriller films
American films
Remakes of American films
American rape and revenge films
American serial killer films
American horror thriller films
Crime horror films
English-language films
Films about child abduction
Films about violence against women
Films scored by John Murphy (composer)
Films shot in South Africa
Horror film remakes
Universal Pictures films
Films directed by Dennis Iliadis
Films about psychopaths |
1962_0 | Keith Michael Patrick Cardinal O'Brien (17 March 1938 – 19 March 2018) was a senior-ranking Catholic prelate in Scotland. He was the Archbishop of Saint Andrews and Edinburgh from 1985 to 2013.
Cardinal O'Brien was the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland and had been the head of its conference of bishops until he stepped down as archbishop in February 2013. O'Brien's resignation followed publication of allegations that he had engaged in inappropriate and predatory sexual conduct with priests and seminarians under his jurisdiction and abused his power. O'Brien was opposed to homosexuality, which he described as "moral degradation", and a vehement opponent of same-sex marriage. |
1962_1 | On 20 March 2015, the Vatican announced that though he remained a member of the College of Cardinals, O'Brien would not exercise his rights or duties as a cardinal, in particular voting in papal conclaves; he had excused himself from participating in the 2013 conclave. O'Brien died after a fall, aged 80, on 19 March 2018.
Early life and education
O’Brien was born at Ballycastle, in County Antrim, Northern Ireland, on St. Patrick's Day, 17 March 1938. After primary education in Ballycastle, his family moved to Scotland where his father was serving with the Royal Navy at Faslane. O'Brien initially attended St Stephen's Primary School, Dalmuir, before continuing to secondary school at St Patrick's High School, Dumbarton. His family then moved to Edinburgh, where he completed his secondary education at Holy Cross Academy. |
1962_2 | O'Brien studied at the University of Edinburgh where he gained a Bachelor of Science degree in chemistry in 1959 (and a Diploma in Education in 1966). His studies for the priesthood were at St Andrew's College, Drygrange, Roxburghshire, and he was ordained priest on 3 April 1965 by his predecessor, Cardinal Gordon Gray. Initially serving as curate at Holy Cross, Edinburgh from 1965 until 1966, he completed his teacher training certificate at Moray House College of Education. From 1966 to 1971, he was employed by Fife County Council as a teacher of mathematics and science; he also served as chaplain to St Columba's Secondary School, initially in Cowdenbeath and then in Dunfermline, while assisting at St Bride's Parish, Cowdenbeath. |
1962_3 | O'Brien was then moved to full-time parish apostolate in St Patrick's, Kilsyth from 1972 until 1975 and then St Mary's, Bathgate from 1975 until 1978. He served as spiritual director to the students at St Andrew's College, Drygrange from 1978 until 1980; then as Rector of St Mary's College, Blairs, the junior seminary near Aberdeen, from 1980 until 1985.
Archbishop and cardinal
O’Brien was nominated Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh on 30 May 1985 and was consecrated by Cardinal Gray, then Archbishop Emeritus of St Andrews and Edinburgh, at St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh on 5 August 1985. Pope John Paul II created him Cardinal-Priest of Ss Joachim and Anne ad Tusculanum on 21 October 2003.
O'Brien was made Bailiff Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta in 2005, appointed Grand Prior of the Scottish Lieutenancy of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem in 2001 and appointed Knight Grand Cross (KGCHS) of that order in 2003. |
1962_4 | In 2004, Cardinal O'Brien was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Canada, an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from the University of St Andrews, and an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from the University of Edinburgh. In 2015 there were calls for the honorary degree from St Andrews to be revoked due to admission of sexual impropriety. Professor Manfredi La Manna wrote, "I, for one, would not recognise as a colleague someone who admitted abusing his position of power for sexual gratification with subordinates." The University decided against this, noting, "(...) that revocation cannot change or ameliorate the wrongs of the past and that, notwithstanding the very real hurt and loss caused by the actions of the honorand, it would be no more than an empty gesture." |
1962_5 | O'Brien was Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Argyll and the Isles from 1996 until 1999, when Bishop Ian Murray took over the diocese. O'Brien took part in the 2005 Papal Conclave which elected Pope Benedict XVI. In anticipation of the 2010 visit of Pope Benedict to England and Scotland, O'Brien and Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, said that the crisis involving Seán Cardinal Brady, Archbishop of Armagh, over the priest Brendan Smyth and other clerical abuse charges was one for the Irish Catholic Church and should not overshadow Benedict's visit. O'Brien and Nichols were asked whether the pope would respond to charges made against the church about clerical sex abuse during his four-day visit, the first papal visit to the UK since John Paul II in 1982. O'Brien said he did not know; Nichols said English, Welsh and Scottish bishops had "robust" rules in place to protect children. Campaigners for victims of abuse wanted an investigation of the way O'Brien dealt with all |
1962_6 | allegations of abuse while he was leader due to O'Brien's sexual misconduct admission. Mario Conti, Archbishop emeritus of Glasgow, said all the Scottish Catholic bishops except O'Brien cooperated over an independent inquiry into the handling of child abuse in Scotland between 1952 and 2012 with the results to be published. The inquiry was delayed because O'Brien and only O'Brien withdrew cooperation. |
1962_7 | When O'Brien announced on 25 February 2013 that Pope Benedict had accepted his resignation as archbishop, he said he would not exercise his right to participate in the conclave in March to elect Benedict's successor. On 20 March 2015, Pope Francis accepted O'Brien's renunciation of all duties as cardinal, an event extremely rare in Church history. Though he remained a cardinal until his death in 2018, he no longer participated in any public, religious or civil events.
Curial appointments
After his creation as cardinal, O'Brien was appointed a member of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications and also a member of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People. He was President of the Bishops' Conference of Scotland and fulfilled various engagements at the request of other members of the Conference. He was sometimes referred to as the "Primate of Scotland"; however, this title or position has never existed. |
1962_8 | Resignation as archbishop
O'Brien tendered his resignation from the governance of the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh to the Pope some time in 2012, in view of his 75th birthday in March 2013; the Pope accepted it nunc pro tunc on 13 November 2012 and decided it would become effective on 25 February 2013. He remained a cardinal. The announcement of his resignation followed allegations initially in The Observer newspaper that O'Brien had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with junior clergy. The Pope appointed Philip Tartaglia as temporary apostolic administrator in O'Brien's place. In July, Leo Cushley, a priest from Motherwell, was named to succeed O'Brien as archbishop.
Sexual misconduct and consequences
In 2013 allegations became public that Cardinal O'Brien had engaged in inappropriate, sometimes predatory sexual activity from the 1980s to 2003.
Accusations and admission |
1962_9 | On 23 February 2013, The Observer reported that O'Brien had been accused of inappropriate sexual behaviour involving four men (three serving priests, and one former priest) within the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh dating back to the 1980s. The former priest resigned the priesthood when O'Brien became a bishop and stated, "I knew then he would always have power over me. (…) I left to preserve my integrity." It was reported that one complainant needed long term counselling due to the actions of O'Brien.
One of the four, referred to only as "Priest C", alleges that the degree of control a superior has over subordinate priests made it hard for him to refuse O'Brien's demands. "He [the bishop above a priest] has immense power over you. He can move you, freeze you out, bring you into the fold ... he controls every aspect of your life." |
1962_10 | The complaint demanding O'Brien's immediate resignation was lodged with the Vatican's ambassador to the United Kingdom and there were efforts to silence at least one critic.
O'Brien initially contested the allegations. According to the BBC, a source within the church said that O'Brien "doesn't know who his accusers are and doesn't know what they're accusing him of". On 24 February 2013 he did not attend a special service to celebrate the eight-year tenure of Pope Benedict XVI at St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh. It was widely reported that he had asked for legal advice and been advised not to attend. On 25 February 2013 it was announced that O'Brien's previously submitted resignation as archbishop would take effect that same day, and a temporary apostolic administrator was appointed in his place. O'Brien said that he would not participate in the oncoming conclave, although entitled to do so. O'Brien then made no further public appearance until early May 2013. |
1962_11 | On 3 March 2013, the Scottish Catholic Media Office released a statement from O'Brien in which he said, "I ... admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal." He said he intended to retire permanently from the public life of the church. Archbishop Philip Tartaglia, temporary successor to O'Brien, said the "credibility and moral authority" of the church had been damaged.
Later in March 2013 a former priest announced his intention to sue O'Brien, saying O'Brien had groped and kissed him as a 19-year-old seminarian in the 1980s. One of the four whistleblowers who testified against O'Brien in 2013, Brian Devlin, who later left the priesthood, in 2021 waived anonymity to publish a book, Cardinal Sin, about his experiences and his fight for improved church governance and accountability. |
1962_12 | O'Brien was further accused of trying to grope a priest in 2003 in Rome at a drinks party to celebrate his becoming a cardinal. It was also alleged that O'Brien had been in a long-term physical relationship with one of the complainants.
O'Brien faced allegations of a "culture of cronyism" within his archdiocese and that this made him less likely to challenge priests to whom he had made advances. |
1962_13 | In 2015, The Glasgow Herald reported allegations that in at least 40 cases young clerics were encouraged to let O'Brien hear their confessions, and the religious act was used for sexual grooming. There was allegedly reluctance to accept O'Brien's actions as a sexual predator. Victims of O'Brien's sexual abuse felt unable to complain because within the church only a pope has ever been able to discipline a cardinal. After publication of the McLellan Report in 2015, The Rev. Andrew McLellan said the church's treatment of O'Brien showed that secrecy is still an "important part of the atmosphere" within the church. |
1962_14 | One of the four whistleblowers, Brian Devlin, gave up anonymity to write a book, "Cardinal Sin". The four went public when Cardinal O'Brien was allowed to attend the conclave to choose a successor to Pope Benedict XVI because they did not think that should happen. O'Brien's misconduct was well known internally before the four made public allegations. Devlin stated, “People go with sincere feelings to their bishop and he doesn’t respond. It’s indescribably bad and has nothing to do with Christianity. They still hurt and control people and I demand my freedom to say, ‘Stop this. Stop your cruelty.’” Devlin was a seminarian aged 19 when O'Brien first befriended him, then tried unsuccessfully to seduce him sexually. Before he made the sexual advances, Devlin thought O'Brien was the holiest man he knew and was impressed when O'Brien said Devlin would be a good priest. The morning after Devlin fled O'Brien's advances Devlin saw him at the altar, Devlin stated, “I remember that moment |
1962_15 | so clearly. I looked at him and thought: you are a fraud. I could see it was a cosmetic exercise, this holy-man image. The bonhomie, the jokes, the banter … all of it was a con trick to hook me, and I imagine others, into an intimacy with him.” |
1962_16 | Ecclesiastical response
On 27 April 2013, The Scotsman reported that Marc Cardinal Ouellet would head an investigation into O'Brien, and that appointment of Scottish bishops had been halted until the inquiry was completed. This contradicted another report suggesting that the Vatican would not hold a formal investigation or publish any formal report because "The Church doesn't work that way." No decision had been made to demote or laicise O'Brien. |
1962_17 | O'Brien returned to Scotland and attempted to settle into the church-owned cottage he had planned as his retirement home in Dunbar, East Lothian. One of his accusers, a former seminarian, stated, "Keith O'Brien is giving the impression he wants a nice peaceful little retirement now. My experience hasn't left me for decades and as far as I'm concerned this brings things very much back into focus. I have an issue with Keith O'Brien and it needs to be dealt with." There were fears the cardinal's visibility would harm the church further. On 15 March 2013, it was confirmed that the Vatican had ordered O'Brien to leave Scotland, and he left for months of "prayer and penance". According to The Washington Post, "The statement did not specify that the decision was imposed on O'Brien by the Vatican as punishment, and in fact suggested that the decision was O'Brien's. But in the past, wayward priests have been sanctioned by the Vatican with punishments of 'prayer and penance', and the statement |
1962_18 | made clear Francis supported the move and that the Holy See would decide his future fate." |
1962_19 | The Vatican stated on 15 May 2013 that O'Brien "will be leaving Scotland for several months for the purpose of spiritual renewal, prayer and penance" and "Any decision regarding future arrangements for His Eminence [Cardinal Keith O'Brien] shall be agreed with the Holy See."
Supporters of O'Brien objected to the church requiring O'Brien to leave Scotland; John Canon Creanor threatened legal action to prevent O'Brien's "forced exile", and said he had a legal team ready. Richard Holloway, former Bishop of Edinburgh in the Scottish Episcopal Church, said that forcing O'Brien into exile from Scotland would breach international law. Holloway likened O'Brien's forced exile to the tactics of "extraordinary rendition" (extrajudicial transfer) of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). |
1962_20 | The four complainants said that O'Brien needed psychological counselling rather than prayer and penance. One accusing priest said, "Keith is extremely manipulative and needs help to be challenged out of his denial. If he does not receive treatment, I believe he is still a danger to himself and to others." The four accusers believed there was a smokescreen, with the full story untold, and wanted an investigation to reveal the extent of O'Brien's actions.
Throughout the scandal, the Catholic Church in Scotland failed to act. , O'Brien was still Britain's most senior Catholic. According to Peter Kearney, the director of communications of the Catholic media office (which was largely unavailable for official comment), only Rome could handle the O'Brien affair; nobody in Scotland had authority to challenge a cardinal. |
1962_21 | According to Catherine Deveney writing in The Observer, Archbishop Tartaglia, who was temporary leader of St Andrews and Edinburgh following O'Brien's resignation, failed to confront the issue, and behind the scenes "church insiders" were critical; one told her that "He is completely lacking in leadership qualities". Kearney told The Observer there could be no Scottish investigation because the nuncio had rightly not identified the complainants. But he had; Kearney apparently didn't know that Joseph Toal, Bishop of Argyll and the Isles, had been given names and asked to be a contact point. |
1962_22 | Deveney said that this issue was no longer about personal failure, but systemic failure, and reported that theologian Werner Jeanrond said "As a church, we have failed to come to terms with homosexuality. The highest clerical representative of the church is himself a victim of the system which didn't allow him to own his homosexuality." She added that there are many other scandals involving Scottish clergy, including at least one bishop; misdeeds include sexual misconduct, heavy drinking, payoffs to cover scandals and serious abuse; and she said that "O'Brien knows where the bodies lie. And the hierarchy knows he knows." She said that this issue is not about Scottish clergy, but is worldwide.
In July 2013 O'Brien was reported to be in a monastery in Europe or an enclosed abbey in the English Midlands. In November 2013 there was a report that O'Brien would face no further punishment, which disappointed alleged victims and victims' groups. |
1962_23 | Apostolic visitation
After some delay, it was reported in The Observer on 23 June 2013 that the Vatican had decided to hold an apostolic visitation. This is a formal high-level inspection into the affair, in which the "visitator" is given authority directly by the pope. In this case the visitator was the archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, who had not yet been appointed at the time. Papal nuncio Antonio Mennini told one of the complainants, a former priest known as "Lenny", of the decision. Anyone affected would be able to give evidence; if there was considered to be sufficient evidence, a deeper process would take place in Rome. Lenny was relieved that the facts would finally be examined, but said that the visitation also had to examine "whether any promotions were awarded to the cardinal's cronies". |
1962_24 | According to the article, senior figures in Rome said the visitation would also deal with the more general accusations of moral failings in the church in Scotland. There was criticism of the choice of O'Brien's successor as Archbishop of Edinburgh as visitator; Tom Doyle, a canon lawyer who had worked at the nunciature in Washington and later represented Catholic abuse victims all over the world, said that the whole point was for someone from outside to investigate, and that the choice of O'Brien's successor would make the church "look like fools". Doyle said that dealing with a previous case, which related to widespread child abuse in Ireland, by an apostolic visitation had been a "total farce", and that only totally independent investigations have elicited significant truth in similar cases, as with (non-ecclesiastical) grand juries in the United States and government statutory commissions in Ireland. |
1962_25 | The complainants have been negotiating with Archbishop Leo Cushley but have also appealed to Pope Francis. They would like an investigation into the way the diocese was governed, the manner of O'Brien's appointment, whether close associates were appointed to positions of power and also the extent of O'Brien's predatory behaviour. Cushley promised to hand over the requests personally but discouraged public discussion of the case. During O'Brien's lifetime a Canonical trial remained possible but unlikely. "Lenny" claims the finances of the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh under O'Brien are being investigated internally to find if there were irregularities. If this were not done he would have involved the charity regulator. He says O'Brien bought a jet ski for a friend and the source of the money is unclear. The church has neither confirmed nor denied this. |
1962_26 | O'Brien had since January 2014 been living, initially incognito, in a home provided by the Catholic Church in the village of Ellington, Northumberland, fifty miles south of the Scottish border. O'Brien later moved to Newcastle on Tyne.
Charles Scicluna investigated O'Brien in April 2014 and such an investigation of a cardinal appears unprecedented. There are concerns that the report, allegedly "hot enough to burn the varnish" from the Pope's desk, remains unpublished. |
1962_27 | Following Scicluna's apostolic visitation, the Holy See announced on 20 March 2015 that Pope Francis had "accept[ed] the resignation of Cardinal Keith Patrick O'Brien from the rights and duties of a Cardinal". A statement for the Catholic Church in Scotland confirmed that O'Brien would continue to live outside Scotland until such time as his age and infirmity required that situation to be reviewed. He retained the title of Cardinal, but did not any longer carry out the functions of a cardinal and was only allowed to wear a cardinal's robes in private. According to the Holy See Press Office O'Brien would not take part in papal elections, act as papal adviser, or take part in Vatican congregations and councils, and would lose other roles of a cardinal. Journalist David Gibson wrote that "Those developments, [Scicluna's unpublished report, the home bought for O'Brien, that O'Brien was not officially punished] plus the fact that O'Brien can keep the title of cardinal ... may also keep |
1962_28 | the issue on the boil rather than cooling it off." The ecclesiastical historian Christopher Bellitto said, "What's odd, in this papacy especially, is that O'Brien loses the power, but not the pomp, ... a red hat is still a red hat, even if there is no punch behind it." |
1962_29 | The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests is concerned that the transparency Pope Francis promised is absent and the cardinal's wrong or abusive actions have been kept secret. There is further concern that other clerics failed to disclose abuse by O'Brien which they reasonably should have known or suspected. Abusive bishops have resigned in the past, but action against complicit clerics and bishops who conceal abuse would be a helpful innovation because it would help prevent further abuse and concealment.
Consequences
O'Brien was the first misbehaving Catholic cardinal whose case was dealt with publicly. Richard Sipe, a US former priest working on church abuse, said at the time that O'Brien was not the only case: "We have someone here too. It will go public soon." He was referring to US cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who was ultimately, unlike O'Brien, stripped of his cardinalate. |
1962_30 | The O'Brien case forced accountability and discussion of such cases on the Catholic church, and Rome was forced to create a process. According to O'Brien's victim Keith Devlin, O'Brien's and McCarrick's cases are linked: "If we hadn't gone to the Observer back then, the church would have dealt with McCarrick quite differently. Without O'Brien, there would be no church process."
Health and death
O'Brien said, while criticising a parliamentary bill on embryology in 2008, that he carried an organ donor card. O'Brien suffered from heart problems and was fitted with a pacemaker after complaining of dizzy spells and fainting prior to Passion Sunday Mass in March 2008. Following the acceptance of his resignation in February 2013 he said "Approaching the age of 75 and at times in indifferent health, I tendered my resignation as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh to Pope Benedict XVI some months ago."
O'Brien died after a fall on 19 March 2018, two days after his 80th birthday. |
1962_31 | Views
O'Brien was often forthright in his political and spiritual views. In 1999, at the European Synod of Bishops, O'Brien declared who he saw fit to be the next Archbishop of Westminster, following the death of Basil Cardinal Hume. He named his candidate, Timothy Radcliffe, Master General of the Dominican order (Black Friars). At the synod, Radcliffe had made an appeal to O'Brien, saying that there was a crisis of authority in the church, but the answer could not be more emphasis on authority. In the presence of the Pope, Radcliffe went on: the church should not only speak about the poor, the divorced people, women who had had abortions, homosexuals, but should also take at heart their experiences, eat their bread, take what they had to offer. "They'll blame us being associated with the wrong people but we have a good precedent." |
1962_32 | Secularism
In 2011 he criticised "aggressive secularism", denouncing what he said was the way Christians had been prevented from acting in accordance with their beliefs. O'Brien said aggressive secularism threatened the Christian heritage and he wanted religion to remain in the public sphere. Specifically, legislation requiring Christians to tolerate homosexuality was a type of secularism O'Brien opposed, and he called on Christians of all denominations to unite in combating secularism.
Referring to equality legislation which prevents discrimination against homosexuals, he [O'Brien] said Christians faced being sidelined in British society because they were not willing to publicly endorse lifestyles that run contrary to their belief system.
His [O'Brien's Easter 2011] homily included instances where Christians had fallen foul of equality legislation, preventing discrimination against gay people, and swiftly drew fire from groups campaigning against religious privilege in public life. |
1962_33 | Evan Harris of the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association called O'Brien's statements "paranoid and unjustified".
Homosexuality
Before becoming a cardinal, O'Brien had been regarded as "liberal" on the issue of homosexuality, saying that there were a significant number of homosexual priests ministering within the Catholic Church. However, in December 2004 he told members of the Scottish Parliament that homosexuals were "captives of sexual aberrations", comparing homosexuals to prisoners in Saughton Prison; and later referred to homosexuality as a "moral degradation". But in 2005 O'Brien did rebuke Bishop Joseph Devine, who had suggested that homosexuals should not be allowed to teach in Catholic schools, commenting, "I don't have a problem with the personal life of a person as long as they are not flaunting their sexuality." |
1962_34 | In January 2006 he criticised Westminster MPs over the introduction of civil partnerships in the UK, and Holyrood members over the liberalisation of divorce laws in Scotland. In July 2006 he opposed proposals to change the law which would require Catholic adoption agencies to place children with homosexuals in the same way as with heterosexuals, calling them totalitarian.
In December 2011, O'Brien reiterated the Catholic Church's continued opposition to civil partnerships and suggested that there should be no laws that "facilitate" same-sex relationships, saying that |
1962_35 | In 2012, O'Brien criticised in The Daily Telegraph government proposals to introduce same-sex marriage, saying it was "madness", and would "redefine society since the institution of marriage is one of the fundamental building blocks of society", and thus shame the United Kingdom. Conservative MP Margot James, who was considered one of the most influential gay women in 2009, called these comments "scaremongering" and said: "I think it is a completely unacceptable way for a prelate to talk. I think that the government is not trying to force Catholic churches to perform gay marriages at all. It is a purely civil matter." The Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, said: "We have had prejudice, discrimination and homophobia for hundreds of years. That doesn't make it right [...] I don't want anybody to feel that this is a licence for whipping up prejudice." Dan Hodges wrote: "I can't remember the last time I read a more morally and intellectually bankrupt rant from a senior |
1962_36 | member of the clergy." |
1962_37 | The LGBT rights campaigners Stonewall awarded O'Brien "Bigot of the Year" at their annual awards in 2012. The award was criticised by First Minister of Scotland, Alex Salmond, as being "clearly wrong" and "not conducive to a proper and dignified debate on the important issue of equality in Scotland".
Clerical celibacy
On 22 February 2013, in an interview with the BBC, O'Brien said he was open to the possibility of removing the requirement of celibacy in the priesthood.
Abortion and embryo research
In May 2007 O'Brien urged Roman Catholics to reject political candidates who support what he called the "social evil" of abortion, and said that such Catholic politicians should not expect to remain full members of the church. |
1962_38 | During March 2008, O'Brien highlighted the issue of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill being debated in Parliament, denouncing the government for a "monstrous attack on human rights" through its "evil" endorsement of "Frankenstein" experiments. Some scientists suggested that he intentionally used inflammatory language to stir up opposition to the bill; others argued he was sticking up for morals and forced the Government to allow MPs to vote freely on the issue. (Gordon Brown had originally imposed a three-line whip on Labour MPs, meaning they had to back the bill, regardless of personal convictions.) |
1962_39 | O'Brien himself narrated a five-minute video recording in which he stated the "many, many concerns" of the Catholic Church concerning the bill which was to be voted on in Parliament. It was posted on YouTube, and sent as a DVD to every member of Parliament. In the video O'Brien made clear he was not against medical research, and supported research with non-embryonic stem cells, but was opposed to using embryos which would later be destroyed. He expressed the church's concerns over "human-animal hybrids". |
1962_40 | British politics
In February 2010, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Jim Murphy, said in the House of Commons that faith was "at the very foundations of the Labour Party" and encouraged openness to religion in public life. O'Brien responded that he "welcomed the sentiment" but said that "a tangible example by the Government over the last decade that it acknowledged or endorsed religious values would also have been welcomed. Instead we have witnessed this Government undertake a systematic and unrelenting attack on family values." O'Brien said to the Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Iain Gray, "I hope he [Pope Benedict XVI] gives you hell [during his September 2010 visit] for what has happened over the past 10 years." |
1962_41 | In March 2011, O'Brien called British foreign policy "anti-Christian" for greatly increasing aid to Pakistan without requiring any commitment from the Pakistani government to religious freedom for Christians and other religious minority groups. He made this statement in the wake of the assassination of Pakistani minister Shahbaz Bhatti, who had spoken out against the country's blasphemy law.
British monarchy
O'Brien called for a 310-year-old law banning Catholics from taking the throne to be repealed. He said the Act of Settlement of 1701 was hampering efforts to curb sectarianism. Former Prime Minister David Cameron said that "in principle" he supported reforming the law on royal succession to remove the ban on Catholics, and people married to Catholics, from ascending the throne. |
1962_42 | Scottish independence
In an interview with the University of St Andrews philosopher John Haldane, published in the Catholic Herald in October 2006, Cardinal O'Brien stated that he would be "happy" if Scots voted for independence and predicted that independence is coming "before too long". He drew parallels with the independence of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland: "it is difficult to argue that ecclesiastical independence is acceptable but political independence is not".
Poverty
In 2011, Cardinal O'Brien preached a homily including the quote below.
See also
Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church
References
External links |
1962_43 | 1938 births
2018 deaths
People from Ballycastle, County Antrim
People from West Dunbartonshire
Clergy from Edinburgh
People educated at Our Lady & St Patrick's High School
People educated at St Augustine's High School, Edinburgh
Alumni of the University of Edinburgh
20th-century Roman Catholic archbishops in the United Kingdom
21st-century British cardinals
Science teachers
Roman Catholic archbishops of St Andrews and Edinburgh
Cardinals created by Pope John Paul II
Mathematics educators
Members of the Pontifical Council for Social Communications
Knights of Malta
20th-century people from Northern Ireland
Knights of the Holy Sepulchre
Roman Catholic priests from Northern Ireland
Catholic Church sexual abuse scandals in the United Kingdom
21st-century Scottish clergy
Accidental deaths from falls
Accidental deaths in England |
1963_0 | Nuclear Power and the Environment, sometimes simply called the Flowers Report, was released in September 1976 and is the sixth report of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, chaired by Sir Brian Flowers. The report was dedicated to "the Queen's most excellent Majesty." "He was appointed "to advise on matters, both national and international, concerning the pollution of the environment; on the adequacy of research in this field; and the future possibilities of danger to the environment." One of the recommendations of the report was that:
"There should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear fission power until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that a method exists to ensure the safe containment of longlived, highly radioactive waste for the indefinite future." |
1963_1 | The "Flowers Report" was prompted by a proposal in 1975 to set up an international nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Windscale. Windscale is a large nuclear facility on the coast of Cumbria in Northwest England that was built after World War II to produce plutonium for England's nuclear weapons program. The facility suffered a leak in 1973, which put it out of commission until the plans for the international nuclear fuel reprocessing plant were proposed. This proposal was met with strong resistance after it became known to the public and as a result, the plans to build the nuclear reprocessing plant were never acted upon. |
1963_2 | Radioactive waste management and disposal strategies have been enacted since the publishing of "The Flowers Report". This put the responsibility of disposing radioactive waste into the hands of those who are producing it. It was not until 1982 that the Department of the Environment, after their previous method proved to be not as effective as they had hoped, decided to enact stronger guidelines and rules regarding radioactive waste. The responsibility of disposal was then passed over to the government. This led to the Department of the Environment gaining a few new responsibilities: securing the disposal process at an establishment, making sure the method of disposal is safe and well researched, and lastly, keeping the waste secured and away from the public after it has been disposed of. |
1963_3 | In the United States, as of 2008, uranium ore reserves are primarily kept in Wyoming and New Mexico, totaling an estimated one billion, 227 million pounds. This uranium ore will be turned into fuel that will be used in the operation of nuclear power plants, creating low-levels of radioactive waste. "Spent" uranium fuel becomes radioactive waste as a result of the fission process. This "spent" fuel must be removed and replaced from nuclear power plants every 18 to 24 months; it is then shipped to specifically designed and licensed disposal sites. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Transportation carefully control and regulate the management, packing, transport, and disposal of waste. |
1963_4 | The Flower's Report
The Flower's report is composed of eleven chapters in a compilation of over 200 pages. The chapters cover a wide range of subjects and topics related to radioactive activity.
Chapter One: Introduction
The Flower's Report introduction chapter consists of six pages. The report introduces the topics of nuclear technology, future projections on commercial reactors, concerns for left over radioactive waste, other uses of nuclear technology (that will not be the focus of the report), and concerns with development of nuclear reactors.
This chapter also gives an arrangement of the entire report's information that acts as an outline for the information presented, including later chapters' topics and main points. |
1963_5 | Chapter Two: Radioactivity and Radiobiology |
1963_6 | The focus of the first half of the chapter is designed to provide basic information about atoms and radiation to aid in later chapters. The first half covers the basics on atoms such as: an atom consists of Neutrons, Protons, and Electrons; the atomic number of an atom determines the amount of protons in one atom; and that protons are roughly 2000 times heavier than electrons (see atom). The concept of radiation is introduced through ionization which is the process of adding one or more electrons to, or removing one or more electrons from, atoms or molecules, thereby creating ions. From there certain particles can cause ionization. The ionizing particles are alpha particles (a type of ionizing radiation ejected by the nuclei of some unstable atoms that are large subatomic fragments consisting of two protons and two neutrons), beta particles (subatomic particles ejected from the nucleus of some radioactive atoms that are equivalent to electrons), gamma particles (electromagnetic energy |
1963_7 | photon) and energetic neutron radiation (energy released from an atom in the form of neutral particles called neutrons). The second half focuses on knowledge of radiation introduced into the environment and humans. Flower's and his team concluded in 1976 that low levels over a long exposure time can prevent a cell from dividing or further damaging genetic information. |
1963_8 | Other topics covered are the effects of plutonium in the body. For instance, animals being susceptible to radiation causes birth defects among the litter. Chapter two concludes with a concern of radiation affecting an entire species of animals as opposed to a group. |
1963_9 | Chapter Three: Nuclear Power
Chapter Three focuses on nuclear power. This chapter main concentration is on nuclear reactors and the basic physical principals of which reactor operation is based. An understanding of the different types of reactors that are in use or plan to be used is given. It also accounts for the nuclear fuel cycle and the operations that are involved in the fabrication and treatment of nuclear fuel. It begins with the extraction of uranium from the mine to the fuel fabrication plant and then to reactors. Furthermore, it incorporates the removal of spent fuel and its treatment to extract material suitable for incorporation of fresh fuel along with the treatment and disposal of wastes. |
1963_10 | Chapter Four: Major Issues Raised by Nuclear Power |
1963_11 | Chapter Four emphasizes on major issues raised by nuclear power. The reason why chapter two and chapter three are so detailed in the effects of radioactivity and the principles of nuclear power along with the nuclear fuel cycle is so that there could be a better understanding on the problems that could cause environmental effects. Concerns about nuclear development, which is considered in detail in other chapters, centers on a few major issues. This chapter focuses on issues as a whole to ensure that they can be seen in the perspective that allows people to understand the underlying social and ethical questions that they raise. It begins with the world energy demand, the problem scale of nuclear development, and nuclear hazards that stem from other technological developments. The advantages must be weighed against the fears and risks attached to nuclear power, which can lead to many people disregarding nuclear power as an acceptable means of energy, also referred to as "the Faustian |
1963_12 | bargain." Certainly these fears must be taken seriously and can not be disregarded. This chapter concludes with the concerns of the future and the fact that the world is on the threshold of a huge commitment to fission power, which if fully entered into, it may be effectively impossible to reverse for a century or more. |
1963_13 | Chapter Five: International and National Control Arrangements |
1963_14 | Chapter Five focuses on the internal and national control arrangements. It begins by accepting that the hazards of ionizing radiation are well appreciated by anyone who works in the field and that there is, and has been, an elaborate system at the national and international level to minimize these risks. Although there are many questions to be answered, much has been learned and there has been a stricter management with respect to ionizing radiation and protecting the health of both radiation workers and the general public. It suggests that greater resources should be allocated to a critical group that is most exposed to a particular pollutant in order to determine a safe discharge criteria. This chapter also focuses on the organizational arrangements of responsibility, which may still be unclear. If a rapid expansion in the near future occurs, new problems are likely to rise; thus, creating new changes in the allocation of responsibilities. It focuses on the present arrangements, |
1963_15 | their efficacy, and recommendations that arise in order to sustain efficacy and effectiveness. It does not discuss discharges of radioactivity to the environment, but rather presents arrangements that are made in order to ensure protection to the general public and the environment. |
1963_16 | Chapter Six: Reactor Safety and Siting
Chapter Six stresses on reactor safety and compares the risks of reactor accidents with those arising from other activities or events. It clearly states that absolute safety cannot be ensured and that the advancing scale and complexity of technology tends to increase the possible consequences of serious accidents as well as the problems by which these accidents may be caused. Accordingly, all that can be expected is that the techniques and disciplines used to ensure safety are enough to reduce accidents to acceptable rates. The biggest concern in this chapter is the environmental effects of possible reactor accidents. The focus is on looking into the principles that are applied in seeking reactor safety. |
1963_17 | Chapter Seven: Security and the Safeguarding of Plutonium |
1963_18 | Chapter Seven focuses on security and the safeguarding of plutonium. Much of the concern that is presented with nuclear power is not strictly on the effects of normal operations, but to those that might be created by illicit activities directed towards nuclear installations or materials. The issues that arise within this chapter are the safeguarding of society, security arrangements, and the viewpoint of the ordinary citizen about the restrictions on their freedom that might result from security measures. One of the risks discussed is the sabotage of nuclear installation which could release harmful substances into the environment along with radioactivity. Another risk is the diversion of plutonium which could be made into a bomb or dispersed deliberately and will only increase along with the reliance of plutonium in fast conductors. Lastly, in regards to whether or not the measures necessary to protect society against these risks are going to interfere with civil liberties. |
1963_19 | Chapter Eight: Radioactive Waste Management
Chapter Eight focuses on radioactive waste management which is generated at various stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. This chapter focuses more strictly on radioactive waste, specifically on the waste that presents particularly difficult problems regarding its disposal and management. It also covers the harms that are present in the storage of nuclear waste along with the steps that are being taken to ensure that no harm is caused to the environment. Furthermore, this chapter considers the possibilities that exist for a safe disposal of these wastes and the organization needed to pursue the search and judge its results. |
1963_20 | Chapter Nine: Energy Strategy and the Environment
Chapter Nine focuses on energy storage and the environment along with the implications of a large nuclear power program. This chapters seeks and attempts to provide some understanding of those issues that bear on the question of whether great future dependence on nuclear fission power must be regarded as inevitable. It also helps understand if these implications should be accepted and what other alternate strategies might be available along with their economic, social, and environmental consequences. Some examples mentioned as acceptable means of energy are wave power and CHP systems. |
1963_21 | Chapter Ten: Nuclear Power and Public Policy
Chapter Ten reflects on nuclear power and public safety. This chapter draws the line on which policy should be adopted towards the development of nuclear power. Due to the popular belief that the spread of technology is responsible for the environment progressively deteriorating, nuclear power is highly opposed in some countries. This chapter mainly focuses on the United States and how the debate between the nuclear industry and the environmental movement has become increasingly controversial. One side of the spectrum sees technology as "blind to the dangers of the world", whereas the other side believes they "are making an essential contribution to the well-being of humanity." Also, this issue brings about the concerns of large scale nuclear power leading to a nuclear war on account of the connection of civil and military uses of nuclear power with the expansion of nuclear development. |
1963_22 | Chapter Eleven
Chapter Eleven is a summary of principal conclusions and recommendations.
See also
List of books about nuclear issues
Nuclear or Not?
Environmental impact of nuclear power
Acute Radiation Syndrome
References
Books about nuclear issues
British non-fiction books
Environmental impact in the United Kingdom
Environmental non-fiction books
Environmental reports
Reports of the United Kingdom government
Nuclear power in the United Kingdom
1976 non-fiction books
1976 in the environment |
1964_0 | The People's Volunteer Army (PVA) was the armed forces deployed by the People's Republic of China during the Korean War. Although all units in the PVA were actually transferred from the People's Liberation Army under the orders of Mao Zedong, the PVA was separately constituted in order to prevent an official war with the United States. The PVA entered Korea on 19 October 1950, and completely withdrew by October 1958. The nominal commander and political commissar of the PVA was Peng Dehuai before the ceasefire agreement in 1953, although both Chen Geng and Deng Hua served as the acting commander and commissar after April 1952 due to Peng's illness. The initial (25 October – 5 November 1950) units in the PVA included 38th, 39th, 40th, 42nd, 50th, 66th Corps totalling 250,000 men, and eventually about 3 million Chinese civilian and military personnel served in Korea by July 1953.
Background |
1964_1 | Although the United Nations Command (UN) forces were under United States command, this army was officially a UN "police" force. In order to avoid an open war with the US and other UN members, the People's Republic of China deployed the People's Liberation Army (PLA) under the name "volunteer army". |
1964_2 | About the name, there were various opinions. According to some scholars during the mid 1990s, after the PRC made the strategic decision to send soldiers to Korea, the very first name of this army was "support army." But Huang Yanpei, the vice premier of the Government Administration Council of the Central People's Government at that time, suggested that the name "support army" might cause the international community to assume that China was sending soldiers as an act of direct aggression against the United States. Therefore, the army's name was modified to "volunteer army" while different unit designations and footings were used instead, to give the impression that China did not intend to declare war against the US, but rather that Chinese soldiers were only present on Korean battlefields as individual volunteers. On the other hand, some recent studies show that the change was not only due to Huang's advice. Because much earlier on July 7, 1950, the name had already been changed to |
1964_3 | "volunteer army" by Zhou Enlai on his manuscript about the decision of the army's clothing and flags. |
1964_4 | Despite arguments on the changing from "People's Support Army" to "People's Volunteer Army", the name was also a homage to the Korean Volunteer Army that had helped the Chinese communists during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the Chinese Civil War. It also managed to deceive the US intelligence and the UN about the size and nature of the Chinese forces that entered Korea. They later realized that the PVA was the PLA's North East Frontier Force (NEFF), with other PLA formations transferred under NEFF's command as the Korean War dragged on. But the result was that they still admitted the name, "People's Volunteer Army", in order to minimize the war within the Korean Peninsula and prevent escalation of the war.
Strengths and weaknesses
Clothing |
1964_5 | The PVA soldier was reasonably well clothed, in keeping with the PLA's guerrilla origin and egalitarian attitudes. All ranks wore a cotton or woolen green or khaki shirt and trousers combination with leaders' uniforms being different in cut.
Equipment |
1964_6 | The nominal strength of a PLA division was 9,500 men, with a regiment comprising 3,000 and a battalion consisting of 850. However, many divisions sent to Korea were below-strength while the divisions stationed opposite Taiwan were above-strength. There was also variation in organization and equipment as well as in the quantity and quality of the military equipment. Some of the PLA's equipment was from the Imperial Japanese Army or were captured from the Kuomintang (Nationalist Chinese) military forces. Some Czechoslovak-made weapons were also purchased on the open market by the PRC. During the PVA's first offensive (the so-called First Phase Campaign) in the Korean War between October and November 1950, large quantities of captured US weapons were widely used due to the availability of the required ammunition and the increasing difficulty of constant re-supplying across the Yalu River due to numerous UN-conducted air interdiction operations. In addition, there was also a local copy of |
1964_7 | the US Thompson submachine gun being produced by the PRC, based on the type of which had already been exported to and used in China since the 1930s and by UN troops during the Korean War as well. Later on, after the first year of the Korean War, the Soviet Union began to send more weapons and ammunition to the PRC, which started to produce licensed copies of some types of Soviet weapons , such as the PPSh-41 submachine gun, which was designated as the Type 50. In addition to surplus WWII Soviet arms, the Soviet Union also provided some WWII German small arms to the Chinese like the Karabiner 98k rifle. Surplus Mauser ammunition were also supplied by the Soviet Union or were available from stocks left behind by the KMT forces who also used German ammunition. |
1964_8 | Actions during the Korean War
First Phase Campaign (October 25 – November 5, 1950) |
1964_9 | The collapse of the North Korean Korean People's Army (KPA) in September/October 1950 following the Battle of Inchon, the Pusan Perimeter Offensive and the UN September 1950 counteroffensive alarmed the PRC Government. The PRC had issued warnings that they would intervene if any non-South Korean forces crossed the 38th Parallel, citing national security interests. US President Harry Truman regarded the warnings as "a bold attempt to blackmail the UN". On October 8, 1950, the day after UN troops crossed the 38th Parallel and began their offensive into North Korea, Chairman Mao issued the order for the NEFF to be moved to the Yalu River, ready to cross. Mao sought Soviet aid and saw intervention as essentially defensive: "If we allow the U.S. to occupy all of Korea... we must be prepared for the US to declare... war with China", he told Joseph Stalin. Zhou Enlai was sent to Moscow to add force to Mao's cabled arguments. Mao delayed his forces while waiting for Soviet help, and the |
1964_10 | planned attack was thus postponed from 13 October to 19 October. Soviet assistance was limited to providing air support no closer than from the battlefront. The MiG-15s in PRC colours would be an unpleasant surprise to the UN pilots; they would hold local air superiority against the F-80 Shooting Stars until newer F-86 Sabres were deployed. The Soviet role was known to the US but they kept quiet to avoid any international and potential nuclear incidents. It has been alleged by the Chinese that the Soviets had agreed to full scale air support, which never occurred south of Pyongyang, and helped accelerate the Sino-Soviet Split. |
1964_11 | On October 15, 1950, Truman went to Wake Island to discuss with UN commander General Douglas MacArthur the possibility of Chinese intervention and his desire to limit the scope of the Korean War. MacArthur reassured Truman that "if the Chinese tried to get down to Pyongyang there would be the greatest slaughter."
On October 19, 1950, Pyongyang, North Korea's capital, was captured by UN forces. On the same day, the PVA formally crossed the Yalu River under strict secrecy. |
1964_12 | The initial PVA assault began on October 25, 1950, under the command of Peng Dehuai with 270,000 PVA troops (it was assumed at the time that Lin Biao was in charge, but this notion had been disproved). The PVA assault caught the UN troops by surprise, and employing great skill and remarkable camouflage ability, concealed their numerical and divisional strength after the first engagement with the UN. After these initial engagements, the Chinese withdrew into the mountains. UN forces interpreted this withdrawal as a show of weakness; they thought that this initial attack was all that the Chinese forces were capable of undertaking.
Second Phase Campaign (November 25 – December 24, 1950) |
1964_13 | On November 25, 1950, in the Second Phase Offensive (or campaign) the PVA struck again along the entire Korean front. In the west, at the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River, the PVA overran several UN divisions and landed an extremely heavy blow into the flank of the remaining UN forces, decimating the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division in the process. In December 1950, Chinese forces captured Pyongyang. The city saw a massive evacuation of refugees alongside UN forces heading south in order to avoid the advancing PVA. The resulting UN retreat from North Korea was the longest retreat of an American unit in history. In the east, at the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, Task Force Faith - a 3,000 man unit from the 7th Infantry Division - was surrounded by the PVA 80th and the 81st Divisions. Task Force Faith managed to inflict heavy casualties onto the PVA divisions, but in the end it was destroyed with 2,000 men killed or captured, and losing all vehicles and most other equipment. The destruction of |
1964_14 | Task Force Faith was considered by the PVA to be their biggest success of the entire Korean War. The 1st Marine Division fared better; though surrounded and forced to retreat, they inflicted heavy casualties on the PVA, who committed six divisions trying to destroy the Marines. Although the PVA were able to recapture much of North Korea during the Second Phase Campaign, 40 percent of the PVA was rendered combat ineffective—a loss which they could not recover from until the start of Chinese Spring Offensive. |
1964_15 | UN forces in northeast Korea withdrew to form a defensive perimeter around the port city of Hŭngnam, where an evacuation was carried out in late December 1950. Approximately 100,000 military personnel and material and another 100,000 North Korean civilians were loaded onto a variety of merchant and military transport ships. Eighth Army commander General Walton Walker was killed in an accident on December 23, 1950. He was replaced by Lieutenant General Matthew Ridgway, who led airborne troops in the Second World War.
Third Phase Campaign (December 31, 1950 – January 8, 1951) |
1964_16 | Hoping to pressure the UN into abandoning South Korea, Mao ordered the PVA to attack the UN forces along the 38th Parallel. On the last day of 1950, PVA/KPA forces attacked several ROK divisions along the parallel, breaching the UN defenses in the process. To avoid another encirclement, UN forces evacuated Seoul on January 3, and PVA/KPA forces recaptured the city on January 4. Both the US Eighth Army and the US X Corps retreated another , but the overextended PVA were completely exhausted after months of nonstop fighting. Ridgway took immediate steps to raise the morale and fighting spirit of the battered Eighth Army, which had fallen to low levels during its retreat from North Korea. |
1964_17 | Fourth Phase Campaign (January 30 – April 21, 1951) |
1964_18 | The overextended PVA were forced to disengage and to recuperate for an extensive period of time, but the UN forces soon returned to the offensive. On January 23, 1951, the US Eighth Army launched Operation Thunderbolt, attacking the unprepared PVA/KPA forces south of the Han River. This was followed up with Operation Roundup by US X Corps in central Korea. Hoping to regain the initiative, the PVA counterattacked at the Battle of Hoengsong on February 11, stopping US X Corps' advance in the process. But without proper rest and recuperation, the new offensive soon fizzled out at the Battle of Chipyong-ni on February 15. With the entire PVA incapable of any further offensive operations, the US Eighth Army launched Operation Killer on February 21, followed by Operation Ripper on March 6. A revitalized Eighth Army, restored by Ridgway to fighting trim, expelled the PVA/KPA troops from Seoul on 16 March, destroying much of the city with aerial and artillery bombardments in the process. |
1964_19 | MacArthur was removed from command by President Truman on April 11, 1951, due to a disagreement over policy. MacArthur was succeeded by Ridgway, who led the UN forces for additional offensives across the 38th Parallel. A series of attacks managed to slowly drive back the opposing forces, inflicting heavy casualties on PVA/KPA units as UN forces advanced some miles north of the 38th parallel to Line Kansas.
Fifth Phase Campaign (April 22 – May 22, 1951) |
1964_20 | The PVA counterattacked on 22 April 1951 with the Fifth Phase Campaign (also known as the "Chinese Spring Offensive") and with three field armies (approximately 700,000 men). The offensive's first thrust fell upon US I Corps and IX Corps which fiercely resisted, blunting the impetus of the offensive, which was halted at the No-Name Line north of Seoul. On May 15, 1951, the PVA commenced the second impulse of the Spring Offensive and attacked the ROK and the US X Corps in the east, and initially were successful, yet were halted by May 22. On 20 May the US Eighth Army counterattacked the exhausted PVA/KPA forces in the UN May-June 1951 counteroffensive, inflicting heavy losses. The destruction of the PVA 180th Division of the 60th Army during the counterattack has been considered to be the worst Chinese defeat during the entire Korean War. Roughly 3,000 men managed to escape (including the division commander and other high-ranking officers), but the majority of the division were killed |
1964_21 | or captured. During the final days of the Fifth Phase Campaign, the main body of the 180th Division was encircled during a UN counterattack, and after days of hard fighting, the division was fragmented, and the regiments fled in all directions. Soldiers either deserted or were abandoned by their officers during failed attempts to wage guerrilla warfare without support from the local people. Finally, out of ammunition and food, some 5,000 soldiers were captured. The division commander and other officers who escaped were subsequently investigated and demoted on return to China. The UN counterattack halted at Line Kansas where they were met with fresh troops from the counterattacking PVA 42nd and 47th Corps on 27 May, and subsequent offensive action stand-down began the stalemate that lasted until the armistice of 1953. |
1964_22 | Stalemate (June 10, 1951 – July 27, 1953)
The UN counterattack in the aftermath of the Chinese Spring Offensive stabilized the front roughly along the 38th Parallel. The rest of the war involved little territory change, large-scale bombing of the population in the north, and lengthy peace negotiations, which started in Kaesong on July 10, 1951. Even during the peace negotiations, combat continued. For the UN forces, the goal was to recapture all of what had been South Korea before an agreement was reached in order to avoid loss of any territory and the PVA attempted similar operations. A major issue of the negotiations was repatriation of POWs. The Chinese and North Koreans insisted on forcible repatriation, while the UN insisted on voluntary repatriation. The war continued until the Chinese and North Koreans eventually dropped this issue. |
1964_23 | On November 29, 1952, U.S. President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower fulfilled a campaign promise by going to Korea to find out what could be done to end the war. With the UN's and PVA's acceptance of India's proposal for an armistice, fighting ended July 27, 1953, by which time the front line was back around the proximity of the 38th Parallel. A demilitarized zone (DMZ) was established along the Military Demarcation Line, which is patrolled to this day by North Korean troops on one side and South Korean and American troops on the other. |
Subsets and Splits