chunk_id
stringlengths 5
8
| chunk
stringlengths 1
1k
|
|---|---|
610_1 | Oladipo was drafted with the second overall pick in the 2013 NBA draft by the Orlando Magic and went on to be named to the NBA All-Rookie first team. He was traded to the Oklahoma City Thunder in 2016, and then traded to the Indiana Pacers in 2017. He became a first-time NBA All-Star, led the league in steals, was named to the All-Defensive First Team and the All-NBA Third Team, and won the NBA Most Improved Player Award in his first season with Indiana. Despite an injury-riddled 2018–19 season, including a season-ending injury in January 2019, Oladipo was named an Eastern Conference All-Star reserve for the second straight year.
Oladipo is also a singer, having released an EP, Songs for You in 2017 and his debut album V.O. in 2018. He also appeared as "Thingamajig" on season 2 of The Masked Singer, finishing in 5th. |
610_2 | Early life
Oladipo was born in Silver Spring, Maryland, and raised in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. His mother, Joan Amanze Oladipo, a nurse, and father Christopher Oladipo are immigrants from Nigeria. Oladipo’s father is a public health executive for Prince George's County, Maryland, with a Ph.D in behavioral science from the University of Maryland, College Park. Oladipo's parents moved to the United States in 1985, where they were married. Oladipo has three sisters, Kristine (1986), Kendra (1990), who became deaf in second grade, and twin sister Victoria. |
610_3 | After playing CYO basketball at St. Jerome Academy in Hyattsville, Maryland, Oladipo played high school basketball at DeMatha High School, also in Hyattsville. As a senior, he averaged 11.9 points, 10.3 rebounds and 3.6 blocks per game. He led DeMatha to a 32–4 record and the Washington Catholic Athletic Conference and City championships. Oladipo was named to the Washington Post 2010 All-Met First Team and the First Team All-WCAC. He was ranked No. 144 overall and the No. 41 shooting guard in his class by Rivals.com, while Scout.com listed him as the No. 39 shooting guard in his class, and ESPN listed him at No. 53 at his position.
College career
Oladipo chose to play basketball at Indiana University Bloomington and major in sports communication broadcasting, turning down offers from Notre Dame, Maryland, Xavier and others. Upon his commitment to the Hoosiers, he said, "It's like a basketball atmosphere everywhere you go....Bloomington, Indiana is a basketball town. That's perfect." |
610_4 | During the 2010–11 season, Oladipo played in 32 games (five starts), averaging 7.4 points, 3.7 rebounds and 1.06 steals in 18.0 minutes per game, while shooting .547 from the field. He earned his first career start against Penn State on December 27 and responded with 14 points on 5-of-9 shooting, four rebounds, three steals, and two assists in 27 minutes of action.
As a sophomore during the 2011–12 season, Oladipo averaged 10.9 points and 5.5 rebounds in 26.7 minutes per game (47.1% FG, 75% FT). Some commentators referred to him as Indiana's "most improved player this season", and he was often cited as the team's best defender. The team earned a #4 seed in the 2012 NCAA Tournament and defeated New Mexico State in the second round. After defeating VCU in the third round, the Hoosiers lost in the Sweet Sixteen to Kentucky, the eventual national champions. |
610_5 | In the 2012-13 season, despite an Indiana roster deep with talent, Oladipo emerged as one of the nation's biggest stars. Midway through the season, ESPN reporter Eamonn Brenann wrote, "In 2½ seasons in Bloomington, Oladipo has morphed from a raw athletic specimen to a defensive specialist/energy glue guy – he became a hit with IU fans for holding his hand in front of his face after dunks at home, typically after a steal he himself created – into a sudden, stunning, bona fide collegiate star." Due in part to Oladipo's leadership, the Indiana Hoosiers finished the 2012–13 season as the outright Big Ten champions. At the end of the regular season, Oladipo ranked fourth in the country in field goal percentage (61.4), on pace to have the highest field goal percentage by any guard since the 1996–97 season. Among Wooden Award finalists, he had the best net rating, which is the difference between points produced and points allowed per 100 possessions. Oladipo produced 42 more points than he |
610_6 | allowed per 100 possessions. |
610_7 | In 2012–13, Oladipo played and started in all 36 games, averaging 13.6 points, 6.3 rebounds, 2.1 assists and 2.17 steals. At the conclusion of his junior year, Oladipo racked up numerous awards. He was named the Sporting News Men's College Basketball Player of the Year, the National Co-Defensive Player of the Year, and a first-team All-American by the USBWA and Sporting News. In conference honors, he was named a unanimous pick to the first-team All-Big Ten by both the coaches and media, and was named Big Ten Defensive Player of the year.
Professional career
Orlando Magic (2013–2016)
On April 9, 2013, at a press conference with Tom Crean, Oladipo announced his decision to forgo his senior season at Indiana and enter the 2013 NBA draft. He was projected as a top-15 pick by ESPN and CBS Sports. Oladipo was invited to sit in the "green room" during the draft and was selected second overall by the Orlando Magic, later signing his rookie-scale contract with the Magic on July 8. |
610_8 | When the 2013 rookie class convened for its annual photo shoot and filled out its NBA.com Rookie Survey, the class voted Oladipo as the best defender, the co-favorite 2013–14 Rookie of the Year (with C. J. McCollum), the co-favorite to have the best career (with Kelly Olynyk) and second-most athletic (behind Tony Mitchell). |
610_9 | 2013–14 season
On December 3, 2013, Oladipo recorded his first career triple-double with 26 points, 10 rebounds and 10 assists in a double overtime loss to the Philadelphia 76ers. Rookie Michael Carter-Williams of the 76ers also recorded his first career triple-double in the same game, marking the first and only time in NBA history that two rookies have recorded triple-doubles in the same game. The last time that two players had recorded their first career triple-doubles in the same game was when Detroit Pistons' pair Donnie Butcher and Ray Scott did it on March 14, 1964 (they were not rookies). It was also the first time that two opponents had recorded triple-doubles in the same game since Caron Butler and Baron Davis had done so on November 23, 2007. During the month of February, Oladipo participated in the BBVA Rising Stars Challenge and the Taco Bell Skills Challenge. Oladipo went on to finish second in the Rookie of the Year voting behind Carter-Williams.
2014–15 season |
610_10 | On October 24, 2014, Oladipo was ruled out indefinitely after suffering a facial fracture in practice the previous day. Two days later, the Magic exercised their third-year team option on Oladipo's rookie scale contract, extending the contract through the 2015–16 season. He made his return from injury on November 14 wearing a facial protection mask as he made his season debut against the Milwaukee Bucks. In 25 minutes off the bench, he recorded 13 points, 3 rebounds and 2 assists in a 101–85 win. On January 12, he recorded 33 points against the Chicago Bulls and two days later recorded 32 points against the Houston Rockets to record his first career back-to-back 30-point games.
During the 2015 NBA All-Star Weekend, Oladipo competed in the Rising Stars Challenge and the Slam Dunk Contest, finishing second in the dunk contest behind Zach LaVine.
On March 4, 2015, Oladipo scored a career-high 38 points on 15-of-25 shooting in a loss to the Phoenix Suns. |
610_11 | 2015–16 season |
610_12 | On October 25, 2015, the Magic exercised their fourth-year team option on Oladipo's rookie scale contract, extending the contract through the 2016–17 season. Five days later, he recorded his second career triple-double with 21 points, 13 rebounds and 10 assists in a double-overtime loss to the Oklahoma City Thunder. He also hit a buzzer-beating three-pointer to send the game into double overtime. Oladipo averaged just 12.8 points per game over his first 12 games of the season. Head coach Scott Skiles moved Oladipo to a bench role for the Magic's November 25 game against the New York Knicks. Oladipo continued coming off the bench following this performance, averaging 17.0 points, 5.4 rebounds, 4.5 assists, 1.0 steals and 1.4 blocks over his first eight games off the bench. On January 4, he started for the Magic for the first time since November 23. In 34 minutes of action, he recorded a team-high 18 points, 7 rebounds, 5 assists and 2 steals in a loss to the Detroit Pistons. On March |
610_13 | 18, he scored a career-high 45 points in a 109–103 loss to the Cleveland Cavaliers, becoming the ninth player in franchise history score 40 and the first Magic player to do so since Arron Afflalo in December 2013. Oladipo missed the final three games of the season with a concussion. |
610_14 | Oklahoma City Thunder (2016–2017)
On June 23, 2016, Oladipo was traded, along with Ersan İlyasova and the draft rights to Domantas Sabonis, to the Oklahoma City Thunder in exchange for Serge Ibaka. He made his debut for the Thunder in their season opener on October 26, scoring 10 points in 26 minutes as a starter in a 103–97 win over the Philadelphia 76ers. On October 31, he signed a four-year, $84 million contract extension with the Thunder. A right wrist injury in mid-December forced Oladipo to miss nine straight games. He returned to action on December 31 and scored 15 points against the Los Angeles Clippers. On March 7, 2017, Oladipo returned to the starting lineup after missing six games with back spasms and scored 16 points in a 126–121 loss to Portland.
Indiana Pacers (2017–2021)
2017–18 season |
610_15 | On July 6, 2017, Oladipo and Sabonis were traded to the Indiana Pacers in exchange for Paul George. In his debut for the Pacers in their season opener on October 18, Oladipo had 22 points, five rebounds, four steals and four assists in a 140–131 win over the Brooklyn Nets. On October 25, he scored a game-high 35 points on 11 for 18 shooting in a 114–96 loss to his former team, the Oklahoma City Thunder. On October 29, he had 23 points and five assists and knocked down a step-back 3-pointer with 10 seconds left to propel Indiana a 97–94 victory over the San Antonio Spurs. He was subsequently named Eastern Conference Player of the Week for games played October 23–29. On December 10, he had a career-high 47 points and added seven rebounds and six assists to lead the Pacers to a 126–116 overtime win over the Denver Nuggets. He was subsequently named Eastern Conference Player of the Week for games played December 4–10. On January 23, 2018, he was named an Eastern Conference All-Star |
610_16 | reserve. On March 23, in a 109–104 win over the Los Angeles Clippers, Oladipo extended his streak of games with at least one steal to 56 games, breaking a tie with Chris Paul and Gary Payton for the sixth-longest such streak in NBA history. |
610_17 | In Game One of the Pacers' first-round playoff series against the Cavaliers, Oladipo scored 32 points in a 98–80 win. He became the fourth player in Pacers history with at least 30 points and six 3-pointers in a postseason game, joining Reggie Miller, Chuck Person and Paul George. In Game 6, Oladipo recorded his first career postseason triple-double with 28 points, 13 rebounds and 10 assists in a 121–87 win, helping the Pacers force a Game 7. The Pacers went on to lose Game 7 to bow out of the playoffs despite Oladipo's 30 points, 12 rebounds, six assists and three steals.
On June 25, Oladipo was named the NBA Most Improved Player for the 2017–18 season. Oladipo averaged 23.1 points per game (ninth in the NBA), 5.2 rebounds, 4.3 assists and led the NBA in steals at 2.4 per game. He set career highs in nearly every statistical category. Also in 2018, Oladipo was named to the NBA All-Defensive First Team. |
610_18 | 2018–19 season
On November 3, 2018, Oladipo's 3-pointer with 3.4 seconds remaining gave Indiana a 102–101 comeback victory over the Boston Celtics, as he finished with 24 points and 12 rebounds. On November 17, against the Atlanta Hawks, Oladipo left the game in the first quarter with a right knee injury. He missed 11 games with the injury, returning to action on December 12. On January 4, he scored 36 points and made a 3-pointer from just above the top of the arc with 0.3 seconds left in overtime to lift the Pacers to a 119–116 win over the Chicago Bulls. On January 23 against the Toronto Raptors, Oladipo suffered a ruptured quad tendon in his right knee, which ruled him out for the rest of the season. He underwent successful surgery five days later. Despite the injury-riddled season, Oladipo was selected as an Eastern Conference All-Star reserve. |
610_19 | 2019–20 season
On November 12, 2019, the Indiana Pacers announced that they had assigned Oladipo to the Fort Wayne Mad Ants while waiting for his knee to heal; he was recalled to the Pacers the same day, following practice with the Mad Ants.
On January 29, 2020, he made his return to the NBA, 371 days after being injured. Coming off the bench for the Pacers, he scored 9 points in 21 minutes of playing time, including a game-tying three-pointer, in an overtime win over the Chicago Bulls. After the game, an emotional Oladipo dedicated the shot to Kobe Bryant and eight other lives lost in a California helicopter crash, three days prior.
Oladipo initially announced that he would sit out during the restart of the NBA season, but ultimately committed to play after continued rehab of his quadriceps tendon. |
610_20 | Houston Rockets (2021)
On January 16, 2021, Oladipo was traded to the Houston Rockets as a part of a four-team deal that sent James Harden to the Brooklyn Nets; the Pacers acquired Caris LeVert from the Nets and a 2023 second-round pick from the Rockets. Two days later, he made his debut and recorded 32 points and 9 assists in a 125–120 loss against Chicago Bulls. He only played 20 games in total with the Rockets, averaging 21 points, 5 rebounds, and 5 assists.
Miami Heat (2021–present)
On March 25, 2021, Oladipo was traded to the Miami Heat in exchange for Avery Bradley, Kelly Olynyk and a 2022 draft pick swap. On April 1, he made his debut in a 116–109 win over Golden State Warriors and recorded 6 points, 3 rebounds, and 5 assists in 23 minutes. On May 13, Oladipo had season-ending surgery to repair his right quadriceps tendon.
Career statistics
NBA
Regular season |
610_21 | |-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"|Orlando
| 80 || 44 || 31.1 || .419 || .327 || .780 || 4.1 || 4.1 || 1.6 || .5 || 13.8
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"|Orlando
| 72 || 71 || 35.7 || .436 || .339 || .819 || 4.2 || 4.1 || 1.7 || .3 || 17.9
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"|Orlando
| 72 || 52 || 33.0 || .438|| .348 || .830 || 4.8 || 3.9 || 1.6 || .8 || 16.0
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"|Oklahoma City
| 67 || 67 || 33.2 || .442 || .361 || .753 || 4.3 || 2.6 || 1.2 || .3 || 15.9
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"|Indiana
| 75 || 75 || 34.0 || .477 || .371 || .799 || 5.2 || 4.3 || style="background:#cfecec;"|2.4* || .8 || 23.1
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"|Indiana
| 36 || 36 || 31.9 || .423 || .343 || .730 || 5.6 || 5.2 || 1.7 || .3 || 18.8
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"|Indiana |
610_22 | | 19 || 16 || 27.8 || .394 || .317 || .814 || 3.9 || 2.9 || .9 || .2 || 14.5
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"|Indiana
| 9 || 9 || 33.3 || .421 || .362 || .730 || 5.7 || 4.2 || 1.7 || .2 || 20.0
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"|Houston
| 20 || 20 || 33.5 || .407 || .320 || .783 || 4.8 || 5.0 || 1.2 || .5 || 21.2
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|
| style="text-align:left;"|Miami
| 4 || 4 || 27.8 || .372 || .235 || .667 || 3.5 || 3.5 || 1.8 || .5 || 12.0
|- class="sortbottom"
| style="text-align:center;" colspan="2"|Career
| 454 || 394 || 33.0 || .438 || .347 || .791 || 4.6 || 4.0 || 1.6 || .5 || 17.5
|- class="sortbottom"
| style="text-align:center;" colspan="2"|All-Star
| 1 || 0 || 15.0 || .375 || .167 || .000 || 2.0 || 3.0 || 3.0 || .0 || 7.0 |
610_23 | Playoffs
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|2017
| style="text-align:left;"|Oklahoma City
| 5 || 5 || 36.2 || .344 || .240 || 1.000 || 5.6 || 2.0 || 1.4 || .6 || 10.8
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|2018
| style="text-align:left;"|Indiana
| 7 || 7 || 37.3 || .417 || .404 || .732 || 8.3 || 6.0 || 2.4 || .4 || 22.7
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|2020
| style="text-align:left;"|Indiana
| 4 || 4 || 30.8 || .393 || .364 || .938 || 3.3 || 2.5 || 2.3 || .0 || 17.8
|- class="sortbottom"
| style="text-align:center;" colspan="2"|Career
| 16 || 16 || 35.3 || .393 || .357 || .810 || 6.2 || 3.9 || 2.1 || .4 || 17.8
College |
610_24 | |-
| style="text-align:left;"|2010–11
| style="text-align:left;"|Indiana
| 32 || 5 || 18.0 || .547 || .308 || .612 || 3.7 || .9 || 1.1 || .2 || 7.4
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|2011–12
| style="text-align:left;"|Indiana
| 36 || 34 || 26.7 || .471 || .208 || .750 || 5.3 || 2.0 || 1.4 || .6 || 10.8
|-
| style="text-align:left;"|2012–13
| style="text-align:left;"|Indiana
| 36 || 36 || 28.4 || .599 || .441 || .746 || 6.3 || 2.1 || 2.2 || .8 || 13.6
|- class="sortbottom"
| style="text-align:center;" colspan="2"|Career
| 104 || 75 || 24.6 || .538 || .338 || .716 || 5.2 || 1.7 || 1.5 || .5 || 10.7
Player profile
Oladipo is a shooting guard who is also capable of playing point guard. Indiana coach Tom Crean would frequently attribute Oladipo's success to his extreme work ethic and pre-game preparation of reviewing film. Oladipo is known for entertaining fans with exciting dunks. As announcer Clark Kellogg noted, "Victor Oladipo is like a baby's bottom, smooth and sometimes... explosive." |
610_25 | On offense, Oladipo is capable of aggressively and quickly driving to the basket, aided by his leaping ability. Following a victory by Indiana over #1 ranked Michigan, coach John Beilein remarked, "I've seen a lot of players. I don't know whether I've seen one quicker or faster, more athletic, than Oladipo. It's tough to stay in front of him." His offensive proficiency improved as his outside shooting range improved each year of his collegiate career.
On defense, Oladipo has been described as a "lockdown off-ball defender who can defend multiple positions". He has the quickness to guard point guards and the strength and athleticism to guard a forward if caught in a mismatch. His athleticism and anticipation makes it hard to set a screen on him. He also rebounds well at his position.
Personal life
Oladipo is a devout Catholic.
References
External links
Indiana Hoosiers bio |
610_26 | 1992 births
Living people
African-American basketball players
African-American Catholics
All-American college men's basketball players
American men's basketball players
American sportspeople of Nigerian descent
Basketball players from Maryland
DeMatha Catholic High School alumni
Houston Rockets players
Indiana Hoosiers men's basketball players
Indiana Pacers players
National Basketball Association All-Stars
Oklahoma City Thunder players
Orlando Magic draft picks
Orlando Magic players
Shooting guards
Twin people from the United States
Twin sportspeople
21st-century African-American sportspeople |
611_0 | Ji or Jicheng was an ancient city in northern China, which has become the longest continuously inhabited section of modern Beijing. Historical mention of Ji dates to the founding of the Zhou dynasty in about 1045BC. Archaeological finds in southwestern Beijing where Ji was believed to be located date to the Spring and Autumn period (771–476BC). The city of Ji served as the capital of the ancient states of Ji and Yan until the unification of China by the Qin dynasty in 221BC. Thereafter, the city was a prefectural capital for Youzhou through the Han dynasty, Three Kingdoms, Western Jin dynasty, Sixteen Kingdoms, Northern Dynasties, and Sui dynasty. With the creation of a Jizhou during the Tang dynasty in what is now Tianjin Municipality, the city of Ji took on the name Youzhou. Youzhou was one of the Sixteen Prefectures ceded to the Khitans during the Five Dynasties. The city then became the southern capital of the Liao dynasty and then main capital of the Jin dynasty |
611_1 | (1115–1234). In the 13th century, Kublai Khan built a new capital city for the Yuan dynasty adjacent to Ji to the north. The old city of Ji became a suburb to Dadu. In the Ming dynasty, the old and new cities were merged by Beijing's Ming-era city wall. |
611_2 | Pre-Imperial history
The city-state of Ji was inhabited by the tribe of the Yellow Emperor in the Shang dynasty, and became one of the founding vassal states of the Zhou dynasty. According to Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian, King Wu of Zhou, in the 11th year of his reign, deposed King Zhou of Shang and conferred titles to nobles within his domain, including the rulers of the city states Ji and Yan. According to the Book of Rites, King Wu of Zhou was so eager to establish his legitimacy after his battle victory over the Shang that before dismounting from his chariot, he named the descendants of the Yellow Emperor to the State of Ji. The 11th year of the reign of King Wu of Zhou approximates to 1145BC. The Beijing Municipal Government designates 1045BC as the first year of the city's history. |
611_3 | At some time in the late Western Zhou dynasty or the early Eastern Zhou dynasty, the neighboring State of Yan conquered Ji and made the city its capital. The Yan state eventually became one of the seven powers of the Warring States period (476–221BC). The rulers of the Yan built several capitals and moved their seat of power in response to threats from the nomadic tribes from the north and neighboring kingdoms from the south. Ji was referred to historians as Shangdu (上都) or the "Upper Capital." Other Yan capitals include: (1) the Liulihe Site in southern Fangshan District of Beijing, which served as the Yan capital prior to Yan's conquest of Ji, (2) Linyi (临易) in present-day Rongcheng and Xiong Counties of Hebei Province to which the seat of Yan moved in 690sBC, (3) the ancient city of Doudian in Liangxiang of Fangshan District, known as Zhongdu (中都), or the "Middle Capital" and (4) Xiadu (下都) or the "Lower Capital", a larger settlement south of Linyi, in modern-day Yi County, Hebei |
611_4 | Province, that was built in the 300sBC. By the time, the State of Qin invaded Yan in 226BC, the capital of Yan was back in Ji. |
611_5 | The city of Ji is believed to be located in the southwestern part of present-day urban Beijing, just south of Guang'anmen in Xicheng and Fengtai Districts. Historical accounts mention a "Hill of Ji" northwest of the city, which would correspond to the large mound at the White Cloud Abbey, outside Xibianmen about 4 km north of Guang’anmen. South and west of Guang’anmen, archaeologists have unearthed remnants of concentrated human habitation dating back to at least the 400sBC. In 1956, during the construction of the Yongding River viaduct, 151 ancient wells dating to the Spring and Autumn, Warring States and Han dynasty were discovered. In 1957, a rammed earth platform was found south of Guang’anmen along with tiles used for palace construction. Since then more wells and tiles have been discovered, and the wells are most densely concentrated in south of Xuanwumen and Hepingmen. Archaeologists have yet to discover remnants of city walls from the Zhou dynasty that have been found at |
611_6 | the other four capitals. In 1974, excavations around the White Cloud Abbey uncovered remnants of city walls but three tombs from the Eastern Han dynasty found underneath the walls indicate the walls post-date the tombs. The fact that the other four capitals were buried beneath farmland and the Guang’anmen area is a densely populated section of urban Beijing accounts for the greater difficulty of searching for Ji's ruins. In 2008, city authorities in Beijing announced that archaeological efforts would accompany urban renewal constructions projects in southern Bejiing to search for more artifacts of Ji in the pre-imperial era. |
611_7 | Early Imperial Era |
611_8 | Qin dynasty |
611_9 | Qin general Wang Jian conquered Ji in 226BC and the First Emperor completed his unification of China in 221BC. The country was organized into 48 commanderies. Ji was the capital of the Guangyang Commandery. To prevent the Warring States from regaining their power, the First Emperor ordered the walls of the old capitals be destroyed and Ji's walls were torn down in 215BC but later rebuilt. The Qin removed defensive barriers dividing the Warring States, including the southern wall of the Yan, which separated the Beijing Plain from the Central Plain, and built a national roadway network. Ji served as the junction for the roads connecting the Central Plain with Mongolia and Manchuria. The First Emperor visited Ji in 215BC and, to protect the frontier from the Xiongnu, had the Qin Great Wall built north of Ji and fortified Juyong Pass. The Qin conscripted men from throughout the country to be garrisoned at the forts north of Ji. In 209BC, a group of conscripts who were delayed in their |
611_10 | march to the north by flooding in central China and faced penalty by death, rose in rebellion under the leadership of Chen Sheng and Wu Guang. The rebellion spread to Ji, where Han Guang revived the Yan Kingdom. Han Guang sent his subordinate Zang Tu to help rebel leader Xiang Yu, who succeeded in capturing the Qin capital at Xianyang in 207BC. Xiang Yu then divided the country into Eighteen Principalities, appointing Zang Tu as the lord of Ji and Han Guang as the lord of nearby Liaodong. Han Guang refused to cede Ji to Zang Tu, who seized the city and killed Han Guang. Zang Tu then sided with Liu Bang, the lord of Sichuan, in the war against Xiang Yu. After Liu Bang prevailed and founded the Han dynasty, Zang Tu was appointed the Prince of Yan, and governed the Principality of Yan from Ji. |
611_11 | Han dynasty
When the Han court began to purge former supporters of Xiang Yu, Zang Tu became fearful and rebelled. Liu Bang as the Emperor Gaozu personally led a campaign against Zang Tu in Ji. Zang Tu was defeated and killed in 206BC. Emperor Gaozu appointed his childhood friend Lu Wan as the Prince of Yan. In 195BC, he became distrustful of Lu Wan and invaded Ji. Lu Wan fled to the Xiongnu in the steppes. To tighten control of the region, the Emperor Gaozu sent his son Liu Jian to Ji as the Prince of Yan. After Liu Jian died in 181BC, Gaozu's widow, the Empress Lü Zhi controlled the Han court, and made her nephew Lü Tong as the Prince of Yan. When Empress Lü Zhi's regency ended in 179BC, Liu Ze became the Prince of Yan and his family ruled Ji for three generations. |
611_12 | In 117BC, Emperor Wu of Han appointed his son Liu Dan as the Prince of Yan. Liu Dan held the title for 38 years. In 106BC, Emperor Wu of Han organized the Western Han dynasty into 13 province-sized prefectures, each administered by a cishi (刺史) or inspector. The city of Ji was the prefectural seat for Youzhou, which governed roughly the same territory as the State of Yan during the Warring States period. Youzhou was composed of the Shanggu, Zhuo, Guangyang, Bohai, Yuyang, Right Beiping, Liaoxi, Liaodong, Xuantu and Lelang Commanderies. After Emperor Wu died, Liu Dan conspired with the Empress Gaichang and Sang Hongyang to subvert the throne. When the plot was foiled, Liu Dan was forced to commit suicide in 80BC and the Principality of Yan was converted to Guangyang Commandery. In 73BC, Liu Jian's son, Liu Jian was appointed the Prince of Guangyang and the Guangyang Commandery became the Guangyang Principality. Liu Jian's tomb is now Dabaotai Western Han Dynasty Mausoleum in Fengtai |
611_13 | District of Beijing. His grandson Liu Jia was ousted from the principality after Wang Mang's seized the Han throne. During the Wang Mang interregnum, Guangyang Principality became the Guangyou Principality. |
611_14 | During the Eastern Han dynasty, Youzhou was as one of 12 prefectures and contained a dozen subordinate commanderies, including the Guangyang Commandery. In AD24, Liu Xiu moved Youzhou's prefectural seat from Ji County (in modern-day Tianjin) to the city of Ji. In AD96, the city of Ji served as the seat of both the Guangyang Commandery and Youzhou.
Near the end of the Eastern Han dynasty, the commander of Fanyang was Liu Yan, better known as the governor of Yizhou Province a few years later. After Liu Yan's reposting, Liu Yu became the commander of Yizhou. His subordinate, Gongsun Zan, eventually attacked Youzhou and killed Liu Yu, becoming the commander of Fanyang.
Wei, Jin and Northern dynasties |
611_15 | During the Three Kingdoms, the Kingdom of Wei controlled ten of the Han Dynasty's prefectures including Youzhou and its capital Ji. The Wei Kingdom reorganized and decentralized the governance of commanderies under Youzhou. Guangyang Commandery became the State of Yan (燕国), which had four counties: Ji County, Changping, Jundu and Guangyang County, and was governed from the city of Ji. Fanyang Commandery was governed from Zhuo County. Yuyang Commandery was governed from Yuyuang (in modern-day Huairou District of Beijing), Shanggu Commandery was governed from Juyong (in modern-day Yanqing County of Beijing).
The Wei court instituted offices in Youzhou to manage relations with the Wuhuan and Xianbei. To help sustain the troops garrisoned in Youzhou, the governor in AD250 built the Lilingyan, an irrigation system that greatly improved agricultural output in the plains around Ji. |
611_16 | Ji was demoted to a county seat in the Western Jin dynasty (晋), which made neighboring Zhuo County, in present-day Hebei Province, the prefectural capital of Youzhou. In the early 4th century, the Western Jin dynasty was overthrown by steppe peoples who had settled in northern China and established in a series of mostly short-lived kingdoms. During the so-called Sixteen Kingdoms period, the city of Ji was successively controlled by the Di-led Former Qin, the Jie-led Later Zhao, the Xianbei-led Former Yan and Later Yan. |
611_17 | In 319 AD, Shi Le, the founder of the Later Zhao Kingdom, captured Ji from Duan Pidi, a Xianbei chieftain nominally loyal to the Jin Dynasty. In 349, Ran Min, an ethnic Han general seized control of this kingdom, which he renamed Ran Wei in 350. But before he could capture Ji, the city was taken by the Murong Xianbei, led by Prince Murong Jun who swept down from Manchuria. Murong Jun then defeated Ran Min and extinguished the Ran Wei. In 352, he declared himself emperor and made the city, the capital of the Former Yan Kingdom. Five years later, the Former Yan's capital was moved further south to Ye in southern Hebei. |
611_18 | In 369–70, the Former Qin, led by Fu Jian, a Di, defeated the Former Yan and briefly unified northern China. But after losing the Battle of Feishui in 383, the Former Qin's control crumbled as the Later Yan, Northern Wei and other kingdoms broke away. In 385, the Northern Yan, under Murong Chui and seized Ji from the Former Qin. At around 398, the Former Yan governor of Ji, Gao Hu, surrendered to the Northern Wei, led by the Tuoba clan of the Xianbei, who established the first of the Northern dynasties. Ji became the prefecture capital of Youzhou. This designation continued through the remainder of the Northern dynasties, Eastern Wei, Northern Qi and Northern Zhou.
Sui and Tang dynasties |
611_19 | During the Sui dynasty, Youzhou became Zhuojun or Zhuo Commandery and Ji remained the capital of the commandery. Emperor Yang of Sui mobilized more than million men and women to build the Grand Canal to Zhuojun, to carry men and materiale for his campaigns against Goguryeo. Outside of Ji, the Linshuo Palace was built in 609 to accommodate the emperor during his trips and to and from Korea. The brutal reign of Emperor Yang brought rebellions against the Sui dynasty. One of these, led by Dou Jiande rose from Zhuojun and besieged Ji in 620 but was defeated by Luo Yi, a Sui general who joined Li Yuan's insurrection against the Sui. Li Yuan founded the Tang dynasty.
During the Tang dynasty (618–907 CE) and Later Jin (936–947 CE), Fanyang was an important military garrison and a commercial hub. To the north of the city lay the military region of Yingzhou (营州) with Daizhou (代州) to the west. |
611_20 | The Tang dynasty reduced the size of a prefecture, as a unit of administration administrative division, from a province to a commandery and renamed Zhuojun back to Youzhou, which was one of over 300 Tang Prefectures. With the creation of a separate prefecture called Jizhou (蓟州) in present-day Tianjin in 730, the name Ji was transplanted from Beijing to Tianjin, where a Ji County (蓟县) still exists today. In Beijing, the city of Ji gradually became known as Youzhou.
The seat of the government of Youzhou remained in place but took on slightly different names. In 616, the government was called Youzhou Zongguanfu (幽州总管府); in 622, Youzhou Dazongguanfu (幽州大总管府); in 624, Youzhou Dadudufu (幽州大都督府) and in 626, Youzhou Dudufu (幽州都督府).
In 645, Tang Emperor Taizong launched another war against Goguryeo using Ji as the base of forward operating base. He was defeated badly and retreated to the city, and built the Fayuan Temple in the western suburbs to commemorate the war dead. |
611_21 | From 710, the head of the government in Youzhou became a jiedushi, a military regional commander. In 742, Youzhou was renamed Fanyang Commandery (范阳郡). In 759, during the An–Shi Rebellion, Shi Siming declared himself emperor of the Great Yan dynasty and made Fanyang, Yanjing (燕京) or “the Yan Capital.” After the rebellion was suppressed, the seat of government became Youzhou Lulong Dudufu (幽州卢龙都督府).
The Tang dynasty Goguryeo general Gao Juren ordered a mass slaughter of Sogdian Caucasians, identifying them through their big noses. Lances were used to impale Caucasian children when he stormed Beijing (Fanyang) from An Lushan when he defeated An Lushan's rebels. |
611_22 | Liao dynasty
Under the Liao dynasty (907–1125), the city was renamed Nanjing (南京) and was the southern capital of Liao. It was also called Yanjing. In the following Jin dynasty (1115–1234), the city was called Zhongdu (中都), the central capital of the Jin. After the Mongols took the city, it was renamed Yanjing. After the Mongols razed it, a new city called Dadu was built adjacent to the former Jin capital which was the capital of the Yuan dynasty (1279–1368).
Modern significance
In 2002, the then-Xuanwu District government erected a commemorative pillar in Binhe Park along the western 2nd Ring Road, just south of the Tianning Temple to mark the location of Jicheng and its importance to the history of Beijing. In 2009, the Beijing Administration for Cultural Heritage made the study and discovery of Ji during the Western Zhou, Spring and Autumn, Warring States, Qin and Han eras a priority in the city's archaeological work.
See also
History of Beijing
References
Citations |
611_23 | Sources
Ancient Chinese capitals
History of Beijing
Yan (state) |
612_0 | Ideational apraxia (IA) is a neurological disorder which explains the loss of ability to conceptualize, plan, and execute the complex sequences of motor actions involved in the use of tools or otherwise interacting with objects in everyday life. Ideational apraxia is a condition in which an individual is unable to plan movements related to interaction with objects, because they have lost the perception of the object's purpose. Characteristics of this disorder include a disturbance in the concept of the sequential organization of voluntary actions. The patient appears to have lost the knowledge or thought of what an object represents. This disorder was first seen 100 years ago by Doctor Arnold Pick, who described a patient who appeared to have lost their ability to use objects. The patient would make errors such as combing their hair with the wrong side of the comb or placing a pistol in his mouth. From that point on, several other |
612_1 | researchers and doctors have stumbled upon this unique disorder. IA has been described under several names such as, agnosia of utilization, conceptual apraxia or loss of knowledge about the use of tools, or Semantic amnesia of tool usage. The term apraxia was first created by Steinthal in 1871 and was then applied by Gogol, Kusmaul, Star, and Pick to patients who failed to pantomime the use of tools. It was not until the 1900s, when Liepmann refined the definition, that it specifically described disorders that involved motor planning, rather than disturbances in the patient’s visual perception, language, or symbolism. |
612_2 | Signs and symptoms |
612_3 | Liepmann was the first to actually conduct tests on these patients in his laboratory. These tests are known as multiple-object tasks or MOT. Each task requires the patient to use more than one object; the researcher describes a task to the patient and asks them to execute that task as described. Liepmann gave the patients all the necessary articles, such as a candle and a matchbox, which were placed before the patient. He then observed the patients to see how they interacted with each object. In the case of the matchbox, one patient brought the whole box up next to the wick, instead of just one match. Another opened the box and withdrew a match, then brought it to the wick unlighted. Still another patient struck the candle against the striking surface on the matchbox. Thus Liepmann was able to witness the discontinuity of the patients' actions with respect to everyday objects and to categorize the errors that the patients made, namely: mislocation of actions, object misuse, |
612_4 | omissions, perplexity, and sequence errors. |
612_5 | Even though afflicted persons are unable to correctly perform simple tasks using multiple items as provided, they are able to accurately identify the objects involved in simple tasks. For example, they are able to match a given sequence of photographs with the correct label, such as: the process of making coffee, buttering bread, or preparing tea. These patients are also able to successfully identify objects when a researcher verbally describes the function of the tool. Another test involves matching the appropriate object with its function. Finally, the fact that patients can identify the actions of a given tool from a sequence of photographs, shows that they completely understand object usage. |
612_6 | The deficit is therefore not that patients lack the knowledge of how to use an object; they fully understand the function of each tool. Rather, the problem lies in that, when they attempt to interact with the tools (in a multiple-object task) in order to execute those functions, that execution is flawed. |
612_7 | Cause |
612_8 | The cause of IA is still somewhat of a mystery to most researchers because there is no localized focal point in the brain that shows where this deficit will occur. Since 1905 Liepmann proposed a hypothesis of an action processing system that is found in the left hemisphere of the brain, which is dedicated to skilled, motor planning that guides the movement of the body. Yet, he still was never able to produce two patients with the same brain damage that showed ideational apraxia. The major ideas of where IA is found are in the left posterior temporal-parietal junction. Possibly damage to the lateral sulcus also known as Sylvian fissure may contribute to an individual’s deterioration of object recognition. Another possible area of damage leading to IA is the submarginal gyrus, which is located in the parietal lobe of the brain. Overall, IA is an autonomous syndrome, linked to damage in the left hemisphere involving semantic memory disorders rather than a defect in motor control. |
612_9 | Several severe injuries or diseases can cause IA in a wide range of patients. Alzheimer's patients are the largest cohort groups that express IA. Other groups that are often seen with this dysfunction are stroke victims, traumatic brain injuries, and dementia. The damage is almost always found in the dominant hemisphere (i.e. usually the left hemisphere) of the patient.
Pathophysiology
Ideational apraxia is characterized by the mechanism that the patient loses the “idea” of how they should interact with an object. Norman and Shallice came up with the dual-systems theory of the control of routine and willed behavior. According to this theory one system –contention scheduling is responsible for the control of routine action, while – supervisory attention is able to bias this system when willed control over the behavior is required. |
612_10 | Contention scheduling is a complicated set of processes that involve action schemas. These action schemas are what are used in the sequence of actions involved in making a cup of tea and situation specific factors such as whether a glass of lemonade is too bitter. Even simple tasks need the monitoring of goals: e.g., has sugar been added to a cup of coffee. |
612_11 | But as we learn new activities we are also learning new schemas. We all know how to open a jar of jelly or how to light a match. Schemas are needed in everyday life because they give purpose and goal to our behaviors. In each schema there are subgoals or components that make up the schema. An example would be the schema of lighting a match. There are three subgoals found in this schema: holding the match, holding the matchbox, and holding a lit match. More subgoals could be applied but those are the most obvious when the overall goal wanted is to light a match. That is why schemas form a hierarchy, with the more complicated and complex action sequences corresponding to high level schemas and low level schemas correlating with simple single object tasks. |
612_12 | As said earlier from Norman and Shallice the other component used in voluntary action is supervisory attention. Schemas cause the activation of behaviors; the greater the excitation of the activity the more easily it is to achieve the subgoals and complete the schema. Either top-down fashion activates schemas, where intentions are governed by some type of cognitive system, or by bottom-up fashion where features or an object in the environment trigger a schema to begin. The bottom-up feature is what is seen in ideational apraxia because an object appears to capture the attention of the patient. However, the schema that corresponds to the object cannot be fulfilled. For some reason there is a disconnect in the brain that does not allow the individual to produce the sequence of actions that they know should be happening with the object that is in their visual pathway. It is this area that is still an area of ambiguity to physicians and researchers alike. They are not sure where in |
612_13 | the brain the action schema pathway is severed. |
612_14 | Diagnosis
Ideational apraxia is difficult to diagnose. This is because the majority of patients who have this disorder also have some other type of dysfunction such as agnosia or aphasia. The tests used to make an IA diagnosis can range from easy single-object tasks to complex multiple-object tasks. When being tested, a patient may be asked to view twenty objects. They then have to demonstrate the use of each single object following three different ways of presenting the stimuli. The patient must then perform a complex test in which the examiner describes a task such as making coffee and the patient must show the sequential steps to make a cup of coffee. The patients are then scored on how many errors are seen by the examiner. The errors of the patients in performing the MOT were scored according to a set of criteria partly derived from De Renzi and Lucchelli.
Error classes
Two classes of errors are used to develop a diagnosis: |
612_15 | Class I: Sequence errors
Action addition (AA) is a meaningful action step that is not necessary for accomplishing the goal of the MOT action (e.g., removing the filter of the orange squeezer in order to pour the liquid);
Action anticipation (A) is an anticipation of an action that would normally be performed later in the action sequence (e.g., blowing the match out before using it);
Step omission (SO) is an omission of a step of the multiple-actions sequence (e.g., inserting the filter in the coffee machine without pouring some water);
Perseveration (P) is a repetition of an action step previously performed in the action sequence. |
612_16 | Class II: Conceptual errors
Misuse (Mis) errors, which can be differentiated into two subtypes:
(Mis1) involves a well-performed action that is appropriate to an object different from the object target (e.g., hammering with a saw);
(Mis2) involves an action that is appropriate at a superordinate level to the object at hand but is inappropriately specified at the subordinate level (e.g., cutting an orange with a knife as if it were butter).
Mislocation (Misl) errors, which can be differentiated into two subtypes:
(Misl1) is an action that is appropriate to the object in hand but is performed in completely the wrong place (e.g., pouring some liquid from the bottle onto the table rather than into the glass);
(Misl2) involves the correct general selection of the target object on which to operate with the source object or instrument in hand but with the exact location of the action being wrong (e.g., striking the match inside the matchbox). |
612_17 | Tool omission (TO) is an omission in using an obligatory tool where the hand is used instead (e.g., opening a bottle without using a bottle opener);
Pantomiming (Pant) is when the patient "pantomime shows" how the object should be used instead of using it;
Perplexity (Perpl) is a delay or hesitation in starting an action or subcomponents of an action;
Toying(T) consists of brief but repeated touching of an object or objects on the table. |
612_18 | As the examiner observes the patient for each task they mark off which errors were committed. From this criteria the examiner will be able to focus on severity of the dysfunction. It is important to express that the motor movement is not lost in patients with IA. Yet, at first glance their movements may appear to be awkward because they are unable to plan a sequence of movements with the given object.
Therapy |
612_19 | Since the underlying cause of the disorder is damage to the brain, at present ideational apraxia is not reversible. However, Occupational or Physical Therapy may be able to slow the progression and help patients regain some functional control, with the treatment approach being the same as that of ideomotor apraxia. Some recovery may occur in younger patients after stroke, because brain plasticity may allow the functions of these damaged regions to be remapped. As patients develop new behaviors to cope with their apraxia, their brain's functioning neurons may take on some of the functions of the dead or damaged regions.
In the context of dementia, apraxia is a major cause of morbidity, and progresses with the underlying disease sometimes to the extent that patients may be unable to feed themselves or use simple utensils. Patients often become highly dependent or require nursing home placement because of their inability to properly use objects. |
612_20 | Brain imaging techniques such as fMRI, EEG, and PET scans may help in understanding the neuroanatomical and computational basis of ideational apraxia. Understanding these mechanisms is likely to be crucial in developing new modes of therapy to help patients cope with their disorder.
References
Neurological disorders
Dementia |
613_0 | Operation Safehaven (1944–48) was an intelligence program developed by the United States during the Second World War as a form of economic warfare against Germany and its Axis partners. The program was designed and carried out by the US partnered with Great Britain and France. The program began in 1944 with Nazi defeat looming and evidence that Germany was covertly transferring sources of capital to neutral countries to escape war reparations and potentially aid a resurgence of the regime in the post-war period. |
613_1 | The central goal of Operation Safehaven was to ensure Germany would not be able to start another war, with the specific aims of the program articulated in the Spring of 1944. The short-term aims focused on identifying and locating German assets and blocking the transfer of German assets to neutral countries, and the long-term aims involved persuading neutral countries to turn over German assets as war reparations to ensure the restoration of Europe. The overall objective of the operation was to dissipate Nazi wealth in order to render any possible post-war resurgence controllable and to make it impossible for Germany to start another war. |
613_2 | Operation Safehaven begun with communications in May 1944 between the Foreign Economic Administration (FEA) to the Department of State and the Department of Treasury where an interagency program was put forward. Interagency conflict was present between the Foreign Economic Administration, Department of State and Department of Treasury throughout the course of the Safehaven program with respect to which agency controlled the program.
The Bretton Woods Conference, which took place in New Hampshire in July 1944, assisted in building a legal base for the Safehaven program. The Bretton Woods Resolution VI was officially accepted on July 22. Resolution VI outlined aims stating that neutral nations were to take immediate action to prevent the transfer and concealment of assets from Axis locations to neutral countries |
613_3 | Negotiations took place between the Allied forces and the neutral nations concerning the Safehaven programs objectives. Germany depended on trade with neutral nations throughout the Second World War, importing numerous goods and raw materials from Sweden, Turkey, Switzerland, Spain and Portugal Bargaining over trade with Allied nations with the neutral nations was one of the economic warfare instruments used by the Allied nations to prevent the transfer of German assets to neutral countries.
Background |
613_4 | Allied Victory in 1945 was the result of the co-existence of a variety of factors. The success of the attack at Normandy on D-Day was of great significance for allied victory and forced the German Wehrmacht to defend the western front , diverting German resources from the eastern front, subsequently weakening the strength of the army. The initial assault on Normandy by the allies on 6 June 1944, also known as ‘D Day’, employed 50,000 troops and 12,000 aircraft to successfully capture beaches and consolidate positions in the Normandy pocket through aerial bombardment and barrage. By mid-July 1944, the allies were firmly established in Normandy and ready to break out, allowing them to liberate Paris in just 6 weeks on 25 July. D-Day and the liberation of France as a strategy were instrumental to the success of Operation Bagration, the Russian counter-offensive, which forced Hitler to open up new fronts. By the end of February 1944 Army Group North had been defeated and the German siege |
613_5 | of Leningrad was lifted, a sign of the commencement of the Russian counter offensive. Operation Bagration, pioneered by General Zhukov was launched in June 1944 and employed 1 million men and 2 thousand aircraft to encircle and destroy the German Army Group Centre, which pushed the Germans into retreat and liberated eastern Europe. Allied bombing of Germany, which intensified in 1944, was also a successful program in the air war which forced Germany to divert soldiers and resources to the home front and focus artillery production away from offensive operations. This drained Germany's resources and weakened Germany's capacity to wage war whilst simultaneously placing the allies in a position of power. |
613_6 | Origins of the Safehaven Program
By 1944, the Allied forces had a high likelihood of defeating the German Nazis, forcing them to start preparing precautionary measures, like Operation Safehaven, against a resurgence of Nazi power. As allied victory had been secured, the United States wanted to ensure the Nazi's would never be able to regain power again. There were great fears within the US State department and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of a fourth Reich being established by the Nazis in the future. Operation Safehaven was established in response to these fears with its overall objective to conduct intelligence on the location of Nazi assets and wealth in an attempt to cease it and steer it towards allied powers. |
613_7 | The project was first proposed by the Director of the Foreign Economic Administration (FEA), Leo T. Crowley on May 5, 1944 in a letter to the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr. Then on 15 May in a letter to Livingston T. Merchant , the FEA suggested an interagency program, collaborating with the British and other US agencies with a vested interest in the aims of the program to locate and intercept the transfer of German assets into neutral nations. In the letters, Leo T.Crowley, director of the Foreign Economic Administration, proposed an active investigation take place to identify the extent to which German assets were being moved to neutral nations. |
613_8 | Samuel Klaus, special assistant to the Treasury Departments Special Counsel, led an information-gathering trip to Europe to examine the situation in neutral nations Klaus and his associates travelled to Lisbon, Stockholm, London and other countries in Europe advocating for the adoption of the programs aims. The objective of the trip was to supply information to Washington regarding German efforts to transfer assets to neutral nations, which Klaus established in his final report in 1944. Inner bureaucracies between the Foreign Economic Administration, Department of State and Department of Treasury predominated the trip, at times the Treasury Department was deliberately excluded from participation. |
613_9 | The FEA, Department of State and Department of Treasury
Discourse existed between the FEA, Department of State and Department of Treasury regarding who controlled the Safehaven program. The Special Areas Branch of the Foreign Economic Administration retained important information about the wartime economic activities of Germany and the neutral nations and proposed the initial idea of the Safehaven program. In 1944, a number of Foreign Economic Administration departments commenced formulating the program. Conflict arose between the Foreign Economic Administration and the Treasury and State Department as each agency claimed responsibility and authority over the program.
Bretton Woods Resolution VI |
613_10 | The United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, was held in July 1944 and involved forty-four countries. The conference was organised for the purpose of nations deciding upon a series of rules for the international monetary system post World War II. Three commissions made up the Bretton Woods Conference, with two commissions concerned with the final plans for the international monetary fund and with the primary interest of the Treasury and State Departments, the proposed World Bank, and the Stabilisation Fund. Commission III was concerned with residual matters, establishing various ad hoc committees, including a committee focused on enemy assets, looted goods and associated matters. |
613_11 | The French and Polish delegates submitted proposals to this third commission, with the Polish proposal calling on neutral countries to block and liquidate Axis assets and the French proposing steps be taken to prevent Germany from successfully secreting funds under false names in neutral nations. The United States presented an alternative draft proposal which incorporated features of both the French and Polish proposals, leading the Polish and French to withdraw their proposals. The British assistant undersecretary of state for foreign affairs, Sir Nigel Bruce Ronald, initially opposed the US proposal on the grounds that the subject of the proposal was outside the scope of the conference. A lack of opposition from other countries led Britain to relent in its objection. The final text was presented to the Plenary Session of the Conference and was officially adopted on July 22 as the Bretton Woods Resolution VI. The first aim of the resolution stated that neutral nations were to take |
613_12 | immediate action to prevent the transfer of assets from Axis locations to neutral countries. The second aim stated that neutral countries were to prevent the concealment of German assets. |
613_13 | Resolution VI provided Operation Safehaven with the legal base necessary to pursue its aims. In September 1944 the US sent directives to neutral countries as well as those nations that had partaken in the Bretton Woods Conference to stress the urgency in establishing procedures that would achieve the goals of Resolution VI.
Urgent action was taken by the US and Britain following the approval of Resolution VI. The British Ministry of Economic Warfare formed a Safehaven division that worked with American officials to merge the intelligence collected. The US and UK went on to direct their embassies in neutral countries to implement strategies that aligned with the goals of Resolution VI.
Methodology
Operation Safehaven was first conducted by gathering economic intelligence. In 1944 the US State Department invited the British Operations Support System (OSS) to collaborate and consolidate resources.
The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Operation Safehaven |
613_14 | The OSS Office of Strategic Services (OSS) had been collecting economic intelligence since 1942 in efforts to acquire direct information on potential methods of German evasion of post war control. The responsibility of the Office of Strategic Services was primarily to assemble and analyse information gathered from the informants under its control. The Secret Intelligence (SI) Branch of the Office of Strategic Services was tasked with project Safehaven as information collection fell within the division's scope. The Office of Strategic Services counter-intelligence branch, X-2, acquired a central role alongside SI, due to the nature of the program as both an effort to stop post-war German economic penetration in neutral countries as well as a data collection operation. |
613_15 | The addition of the Safehaven program resulted in a redirection of classified information for the Office of Strategic Services, who had been gathering information on German economic activities to comprehend the war economy from 1942. Key Office of Strategic Services foreign stations located in Portugal, Switzerland and Spain, worked to uncover German efforts to obtain assets in neutral countries.
In April 1945, X-2 was operating in Switzerland and delivered a comprehensive analysis to the Office of Strategic Services in Washington detailing currency and gold transfers by Nazi's during the war that were arranged via Switzerland. In this summary, methods of transfers were described, including smuggling, undercover exchanges, sale of valuables and various others. X-2 reported in 1945 that warehouses in Sweden held German goods that had been transformed from 100 million Swedish kronor in gold and currency. |
613_16 | The extensive information gathered by the Office of Strategic Services regarding the Safehaven program justified a formalised treatment of the program in the ranks of the Office of Strategic Services in 1945. This is evidenced in Edward Buxton, the Acting Director of Strategic Services, announcement signalling the Office of Strategic Services make a significant contribution to the program. Station Chiefs in different regions were required to document their current situation concerning the Safehaven program. An Economic Intelligence Collection Unit was established in Washington to synthesise Safehaven reports and improve the direction of Office of Strategic Services contribution. |
613_17 | Operation Safehaven leaders also researched into the escape of Nazi leaders themselves and investigated how the movement of assets correlated with the movements of Nazis in South America. Research into ratlines and the involvement of airline KLM were conducted to assist in the tracking of Nazi's and their assets.
Negotiations with neutral nations
Neutrals sustained independence during the Second World War by extending economic concessions to those engaged in war. Neutrals military strength compared to that of the belligerents was lesser and by providing concessions the likelihood of maintaining independence during WWII increased.
Throughout the Second World War Germany relied upon neutral nations to provide sources of raw materials and resources. Germany was supplied with wolfram ore from Spain and Portugal, arms and ammunition from Switzerland, cobalt ore from Turkey and ball-bearings and iron-ore from Sweden. |
613_18 | Negotiations over trade and economic relations took place between the neutral nations and the Allied forces. The London Declaration of January 1943 and The Gold declaration of February 1944 was a combined US-British approach to prevent neutral nations from trading with Germany. The declarations provided a formal warning about trading in plunder and loot to the neutral nations.
The Treasury aimed to conduct a “hard” approach towards negotiations concerning Safehaven program requirements of neutral countries, whilst the State and British counterparts encouraged a “soft” approach be taken to limit endangering the war trade agreements. |
613_19 | Switzerland
Switzerland provided Germany with considerable extended credits for their purchases during the initial stages of the war when Germany had expended majority of its economic resources. Germany utilised Switzerland for the transit of goods through the Alp-tunnels, for purchase of ammunition and machinery, for laundering of looted gold and purchase of other goods and services. |
613_20 | German assets in Switzerland were approximated by US officials to equal as much as 1 billion in 1945. The types of assets Germany transferred to Switzerland included; gold, other precious metals, bearer stocks and bonds, US dollars and Swiss francs. Majority of the German assets in Switzerland were illicitly acquired and disguised to conceal their holder. Methods of obscurement including; under-invoicing exports and over-invoicing imports, holding assets externally, rather than in financial institutions, assigning assets into third party accounts, misrepresenting original assets and falsifying residential status. Obscurement methods aimed to render the assets untraceable, ensure assets were readily movable and obtained their perceived worth.
Switzerland reduced its exports of machinery, ammunition and other goods to Germany in August 1944 as a result of negotiations with the US and UK. Further negotiations led to a total ban on war material exports to Germany and Italy in Autumn. |
613_21 | Sweden
Swedish dealings with Germany were primarily in ball-bearings and iron-ore exports. In 1944 the US and Britain called for measures to identify and prevent the transfer of German external assets be taken by Sweden, in line with the aims of the Safehaven program. The US sought Swedish support by proposing the possibility of a renewed trade agreement. The Swedish Government stated actions would be taken to assist post-war recovery in Europe in September 1944 in line with the Safehaven programs. |
613_22 | Spain
Spain were initially reluctant to cooperate in Operation Safehaven. The Spanish government refused to extradite German officials to Allied countries as it conflicted with its neutrality and sovereignty. As Spain posed the largest threat to a resurgence of Nazi power, this was particularly alarming and discouraging for the Allies. On May 3, 1948 the Allies and Spain reached an agreement over the liquidation of German property assets in Spain which became known as the Allied- Spanish Safehaven accord. This accord specified that Spain agreed to turn over 101.6 kilograms of looted Nazi gold in exchange for the allies publicly acknowledging that Spain had not been aware of their acquisition of looted gold. On November 3, 1948, in compliance with the Gold Declaration of February 22, 1944, the American embassy in Madrid reported that the gold had been deposited in the Foreign Exchange Institute, demonstrating Spain's commitment to the Safehaven accord.
Turkey |
613_23 | Safehaven negotiations with Turkey were distinct from all other neutral country negotiations with the Allies as Turkey had been neutral up until February 1945 when they joined the Allied forces for the remainder of the war. Despite an allegiance with the Allies, the US did not see this as a factor to exempt Turkey from Safehaven accords. The United States believed that Turkey was used as an epicentre for reconnaissance during the war and that the German ambassador to Turkey, Franz von Papen was hiding assets in Turkey to reduce his economic penalties at the Nuremberg Trials of 1945/1946. As a result, the United States sent notes to Turkey on November 4, 1944 warning that it should not acquire or store additional German gold. The Turkish government did not respond to this note until March 1945 and failed to implement any measures to control German assets in Turkey. |
613_24 | The Safehaven accord with Turkey was only decided on December 30, 1947. It stipulated that Turkey must agree to the January 1943 Declaration, the Gold Declaration of 1944 and the Bretton Woods Resolution VI. It also declared that Turkey would deliver to the Allies all monetary gold proven to have been looted from German victims, however only once Turkish claims against Germany had been satisfied. The Allies were under the impression that the Turkish ratification of the Safehaven agreement was only awaiting the passing of a bill in their National Assembly granting them authority to negotiate and approve the agreement. However, on March 25, 1950 when the Turkish National Assembly adjourned without passing the Safehaven agreement, the Allies, frustrated at a lack of progress, abandoned the Allied-Turkish Safehaven Accord and began exploring other negotiation avenues to achieve their diplomatic goals.
Ireland |
613_25 | In October 1944 the United States sent notes to Ireland declaring an intention to confiscate German assets from the neutral countries after the war was won and asked for cooperation in these efforts. Ireland was requested to catalogue all German assets and property within its borders.
Ireland's geographical isolation from Europe largely restricted German capacities to hide assets in Ireland during the war. This resulted in Ireland possessing the smallest number of German assets out of the neutral nations. Safehaven initiatives in Ireland were as a result not driven by the Allies’ need to secure assets but rather acted as a vehicle by which Ireland could be punished for its neutrality during the war. |
613_26 | Consistent with the views of Spain, Ireland was initially reluctant to participate in the Safehaven program due to fears of compromising its neutrality and sovereignty. After a three-year diplomatic battle with the United States Ireland sent a note in August 1948 to the Allies detailing German capital assets remaining in Ireland and offering cooperation with the Safehaven program.
Operation Safehaven after the war
After the second world war ended, the responsibility of restoring assets recovered during the war by the Allies in Germany and other neutral nations was carried out. This was a complex task as looted gold and other assets were difficult to trace.
Limitations of the Operation |
613_27 | Operation Safehaven was plagued with weaknesses from its conception. The directives given to the FEA, State and Treasury departments in 1944 regarding the aims, objectives, procedures, scope and depth of Operation Safehaven were exceptionally broad, vague and unclear. This resulted in large quantities of intelligence all being equated to have the same worth and usefulness and subsequently all pieces of intelligence were investigated into lightly and quickly, rather than deciphering the most useful intelligence and conducting an in-depth investigation into a lead. |
613_28 | The size and scope of Operation Safehaven was another contributing factor to its lack of success. By July 1944, more than 12 taskforces across 8 different agencies were involved in the operation. This included 5 FEA branches; the Office of Economic Programs, General Council Office, Special Areas Branch, Branch Blockade Division and Economic Intelligence Division. It also included the Department of State, the Department of War, The Department of Treasury, the Office of Censorship, the Office of Strategic Services, the FBI and the Office of Naval Intelligence. The operation as a result produced hundreds of files and intelligence inquires, an excessive amount of information that spanned across 6 continents. Effective communication and collaboration across this extensive network of agencies was virtually impossible and resulted in major inefficiencies. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.