The game endeth. Here be the answers...
1.
Why did Japan offer unconditional surrender to the Allies in 1945?Cliche: 'Because they were intimidated by American nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.'
Real answer:
Because the Soviet Union entered the war in the Pacific on the side of the Allies, despite earlier promises that they would remain neutral outside Europe. While they'd been in the European war for four years - arguably longer - they'd assured the Japanese they would remain neutral in the East. When they changed their minds and started moving forces against Japan in 1945, the Emperor realised he had the USA, the Anzacs and the USSR surrounding him and decided to surrender.
Indeed, further researches in recent years even suggest that the USA had gotten wind of Japan's impending capitulation, and decided to launch the nuclear strikes in order to take the credit for the 'decisive' blow. The long-running argument that the nuclear attacks were justified because it 'prevented five years more war' is completely unproven, and without recognisable foundation. (Search
www.medialens.org for an account of the evidence.)
2.
Who was at the head of the Protestant army from the British mainland that massacred three thousand natives when storming an Irish town in the 1640's?Cliche: 'Oliver Cromwell.' His army slaughtered a garrison about three thousand-strong at Drogheda in 1649, but a great many of the garrison were not natives. They were principally an army of Royalists, many of whom were English - including their Governor, Sir Arthur Aston - and it wasn't even an anti-Catholic slaughter, as most of the victims were Protestants. As the victims were all soldiers, who'd spent the previous two days fighting Cromwell's army, after refusing his initial offer of peaceful surrender, it's even an exaggeration to refer to the slaughter as an atrocity or war-crime; by contemporary laws of war, it was acceptable to slaughter a garrison that had refused a prior offer of quarter. (This is not to say that I think the slaughter was justified, certainly not, merely that it cannot be classed as a war-crime.)
Real answer:
General Monroe, whose army of Scots-Presbyterians slaughtered three thousand at Island Magee in 1642. Unlike Cromwell's 'crime', Monroe's was an indiscriminate slaughter, clearly far worse than any act committed by Cromwell, even though hardly anyone has ever heard about it. (This highlights how absurdly wrapped-up in Anglophobia that Nationalist propaganda has become.)
3.
Who was formally crowned King of England in 1272?First off, I gave a bonus to Thanatos for spotting a mistake in my wording of this question. It should read 1274, not 1272. This is because when Henry III died in 1272, his son was on Crusade and couldn't return to England for his coronation for two years. Anyway, to the answer...
Cliche: 'Edward I'.
Real answer:
Edward IV. Believe it or not, English history has two Edward IV's in its Royal line, and not just the Yorkist from the Wars Of The Roses. This is because Edward Plantagenet, AKA 'Longshanks', wished to acknowledge the Anglo-Saxon line of Kings from before the Norman Conquest as part of the same succession, meaning that, formally, Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor were counted before him. This practise was not overturned until after his grandson succeeded over fifty years later, when 'Longshanks' became generally referred to as Edward I.
4.
With which battle did the Wars of the Roses come to an end?Cliche: 'Battle of Bosworth' in 1485. This was the battle that ended the reign of Richard III, and with him it ended the supremacy of the House of York, bringing Henry Tudor, the last Lancastrian claimant, to the throne. However, remnants of the House of York still existed, and they would continue to rebel for much of Henry's reign.
Real answer: There are a few possible answers to this in fact, but the best one is
The Warbeck Uprising of 1498. Although Perkin Warbeck was an impostor, falsely claiming to be Richard, second son of Edward IV, he led the last Yorkist military campaign, thirteen years after Henry VII took the throne.
5.
Why did Edward I choose John Balliol to be King of Scotland in 1292?Cliche: 'Because he wanted a Quisling sitting on the Scottish throne.' This is another of those notions that Scottish historians never seem able to let go of. (I'm really having a pop at the Nationalists with this quiz, ain't I?
) Now there has never been the slightest evidence for the idea that Balliol's succession was a premeditated trick on Edward's part, and if you think about it, the theory doesn't even make a lot of sense. Given that Balliol's chief rival was Robert Bruce, who had a long history of close, loyal service to the King south of the border (including in the war against Simon de Montfort's barons, and in the conquest of Wales), surely if Edward really wanted a Quisling, he would have opted for Bruce, who was more English than Scottish.
Real answer:
Because Balliol had been selected by the aristocrats and clergy of Scotland as the one with the best claim to the throne (through his descent from David I of the House of Canmore). Indeed, it's debatable whether the choice was truly Edward's at all. He was simply putting a 'Royal Seal of Approval', so to speak, on the decision of the Scottish nobility.
6.
How long was Charles II's reign as King of Great Britain?Cliche: '25 years'. This was how long he ruled as King
after the Restoration, until his death in 1685.
Real answer: Two are acceptable;
thirty-five years, or
thirty-six years, depending on how formally you wish to look at it. The Scottish Presbyterians crowned him King of Great Britain, France and Ireland at Scone in 1650, triggering the third and final stage of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which supports the thirty-five-year theory. After the Restoration of 1660, his reign was formally back-dated to the day after his father, Charles I, was beheaded in 1649, which supports the thirty-six-year theory.
7.
How many female rulers of England were there between the Norman Conquest and the succession of the House of Stuart?Cliche: 'Two, Mary I and Elizabeth I'.
Real answer: At least
three, arguably as many as
five. The one who counts for definite is Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I and mother of Henry II. She was briefly ruler of England in 1141, and by rights would have been made Queen were it not for being usurped by her cousin Stephen. A weaker case can be made for Lady Jane Grey as well. She was also never acclaimed or crowned, but she was ruler for nine days in 1553. The doubt over her status is because her father was Regent during those nine days. Between times, a very strong argument can also be made for Margaret of Anjou, the wife of Henry VI during the Wars of the Roses. She was effectively ruler for long periods of Henry's fragmented reigns, due to his weak will and mental illness.
Incidentally, no real case can be made for Queen Isabella, mother of Edward III. Isabella headed the successful overthrow of her husband Edward II, but from there, Government was taken up by her lover, the French aristocrat Roger de Mortimer, until he was in turn overthrown and executed by Edward III.
8.
Why was Edward VIII forced to abdicate over his marriage to Wallis Simpson?Cliche: 'Because she was a two-time divorcee'.
Cliche: 'Because she was a commoner'.
Cliche: 'Because she was a foreigner'. These were all just the pompous excuses the Government came up with in public.
Real answer: Not revealed until the last few years, the real reason is rather more dramatic, and, I have to say, eminently more justified (if a little too paranoid to be sure). It turns out that Simpson was a security risk, as
she had links to the SS in Nazi Germany, and was therefore suspected of being a spy.
9.
What is the Duke of Edinburgh's surname?Cliche: 'Mountbatten'.
Real answer:
He doesn't have one. When the Prince married the future Queen in the 1930's, the idea of not having a surname still seemed a very foreign idea to the British, or at least that's what the Government believed people would feel, so in a rather unnecessary attempt to put the public's mind at rest, they persuaded the Prince to adopt the surname 'Mountbatten' (a name from a distant branch of his family) for the Royal Wedding service. It's not really his surname at all, and this is why the Royal Family remains the House of Windsor and not the House of Mountbatten.
10.
Which premier of the Soviet Union was responsible for the Red Terror?Cliche: 'Josef Stalin'. Stalin was responsible for the purges, but they didn't happen until the 1930's.
The correct answer is in fact
Vladimir Lenin. People who harp on about what a much better place the USSR would have become had Lenin lived longer, or had Leon Trotsky stayed in power, fail to notice that they were both pretty ruthless b*stards in their own right. Lenin himself ordered the Terror, which happened as far back as October 1918. (Strictly speaking, the Red Terror happened in Soviet
Russia rather than the Soviet Union, which didn't fully come into being until 1922. But then Lenin had been Premier of both in his time, so the question is valid as it stands.)
So there you have it. Thanatos is the champion with minus-14, and wins our sparkling prize of a lifetime's supply of alphabetti spaghetti with all the letters pre-organised into columns in alphabetical order. Modeski with another resounding score of minus-59 was the only other contestant, and wins the runner-up prize of a full-colour 478-page hardback edition of
The Definitive History Of 1200 Watt Halogen Heaters, Volume IV. A priceless guide for surviving the height of any summer in the Outback.
If anyone else fancies running a
QI contest on the forum, please e-mail everyone to let them know, and I for one will gladly take part. Keep an eye on the blog from time to time, as I will occasionally post new articles there. But other than that, I reckon that's about it from me on this forum. Sad, but them's the breaks.
See y'all in cyberspace.