L'Asse Tripartito Italia-Germania- Giappone e la Cina

Germany, Italy and Japan were engaged in China from the turn of the 20th century to WWII. However, they formed an anti-Chinese alliance only at the final stage of their presence there, when Japan assumed an undisputed role of leader in the region. Despite its alliance with the Axis powers, Japan never implemented racial laws against the Jews in China. All of them took part in the Boxer Upraising suppression and received as a consequence extraterritorial rights and concessions. Moreover, Japan won the war against China in 1895 and transformed itself from a tributary country of China into an imperialistic power. It took possession of Taiwan and in the 1930s established a puppet government in Manchuria.Germany followed different route obtaining as indemnity for the murders of two missionaries the control of the Shandong province, which was later expanded thanks to the anti-Boxer coalition's victory. However, Germany lost all possessions when China entered WWI. The issue of Shandong was finally resolved at the Conference for Disarmament hold in Washington in 1921-2. Japan failed to gain ex-Germany territories. Finally, Italy arrived in the Far East at the turn of the century but was not very interested in the oriental colonialism to the same extent it was interested in Africa. Tianjin was its only concession in China, and it took almost a decade before a subvention to arrive from the Italian government for its development.In the 1920s and 1930s Germany and Italy engaged in successful diplomatic, commercial and military relationships with China. In fact, both were considered China's partners thanks to their experts at the service of the Chinese government. On the other hand, Japan position was opposite to them, because of its plans of aggression towards China which was to be transformed into “the natural extension” of the mainland. In 1935 Italy declared war on Ethiopia and abandoned the seat at the League of Nations. China interpreted the Italian aggression as the endorsement of Japan's politics towards China in Manchuria, and the relations between the two countries were broken off. After that Italy supported Wang Jingwei's puppet government during the Japanese occupation of China. Germany followed the same path in 1937, when it was evident that the Japanese were playing the leading role in the region, and decided to ally with Wang Jingwei too. Both Italy and Germany decided also to recognise the Manzhuguo and established diplomatic relations, definitively turning their backs on the old Chinese ally.The Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis sealed the alliance among the three countries, and it confirmed Japan as the leading power in the region. Nevertheless Japan did not apply the racial law against the Jews in China.

The concept of transport capacity and its use in different geomorphic process domains

The notion of sediment-transport capacity has been engrained in geomorphological and related literature for over 50 years, although its earliest roots date back explicitly to Gilbert in fluvial geomorphology in the 1870s and implicitly to eighteenth to nineteenth century developments in engineering. Despite cross fertilization between different process domains, there seem to have been independent inventions of the idea in aeolian geomorphology by Bagnold in the 1930s and in hillslope studies by Ellison in the 1940s. Here we review the invention and development of the idea of transport capacity in the fluvial, aeolian, coastal, hillslope, débris flow, and glacial process domains. As these various developments have occurred, different definitions have been used, which makes it both a difficult concept to test, and one that may lead to poor communications between those working in different domains of geomorphology. We argue that the original relation between the power of a flow and its ability to transport sediment can be challenged for three reasons. First, as sediment becomes entrained in a flow, the nature of the flow changes and so it is unreasonable to link the capacity of the water or wind only to the ability of the fluid to move sediment. Secondly, environmental sediment transport is complicated, and the range of processes involved in most movements means that simple relationships are unlikely to hold, not least because the movement of sediment often changes the substrate, which in turn affects the flow conditions. Thirdly, the inherently stochastic nature of sediment transport means that any capacity relationships do not scale either in time or in space. Consequently, new theories of sediment transport are needed to improve understanding and prediction and to guide measurement and management of all geomorphic systems.

Progress and the Lack of Progress in Addressing Infant Health and Infant Health Inequalities in Ireland during the 20th Century

There is a growing literature which documents the importance of early life environment for outcomes across the life cycle. Research, including studies based on Irish data, demonstrates that those who experience better childhood conditions go on to be wealthier and healthier adults. Therefore, inequalities at birth and in childhood shape inequality in wellbeing in later life, and the historical evolution of the mortality and morbidity of children born in Ireland is important for understanding the current status of the Irish population. In this paper, I describe these patterns by reviewing the existing literature on infant health in Ireland over the course of the 20th century. Up to the 1950s, infant mortality in Ireland (both North and South) was substantially higher than in other developed countries, with a large penalty for those born in urban areas. The subsequent reduction in this penalty, and the sustained decline in infant death rates, occurred later than would be expected from the experience in other contexts. Using records from the Rotunda Lying-in Hospital in Dublin, I discuss sources of disparities in stillbirth in the early 1900s. Despite impressive improvements in death rates since that time, a comparison with those born at the end of the century reveals that Irish children continue to be born unequal. Evidence from studies which track people across the life course, for example research on the returns to birthweight, suggests that the economic cost of this early life inequality is substantial.

Session organiser/chair: The architecture of coal and other energies

Coal ignited the industrial revolution. An organic sedimentary rock that energized the globe, transforming cities, landscapes and societies for generations, the importance of ‘King Coal’ to the development and consolidation of modernity has been well-recognised. And yet, as a critical factor in the production of modern architecture, coal—as well as other forms of energy—has been mostly overlooked.

From Appalachia to Lanarkshire, from the pits of northern France, Belgium and the Ruhr valley, to the monumental opencast excavations of Russia, China, Africa and Australia, mining operations have altered the immediate social and physical landscapes of coal-rich areas. But in contrast to its own underground conditions of production, the winning of coal, especially in the twentieth-century, has produced conspicuously enlightened and humane approaches to architecture and urbanism. In the twentieth century, educational buildings, holiday camps, hospitals, swimming pools, convalescent homes and housing prevailed alongside model collieries in mining settlements and areas connected to them. In 1930s Britain, pit head baths—funded by a levy on each ton produced—were often built in the International Style. Many won praise for architectural merit, appearing in Nicholas Pevsner’s guides to the buildings of England alongside cathedrals, village manors and Masonic halls as testimonies to the public good.

The deep relationships between coal and modernity, and the expressions of architecture it has articulated, in the collieries from which it was hewn, the landscape and towns it shaped, and the power stations and other infrastructure where it was used, offer innumerable opportunities to explore how coal produced architectures which embodied and expressed both social and technological conditions. While proposals on coal are preferred, we also welcome papers that interrogate the complexity, heterogeneity and hybridity of other forms of energy production and how these have also interceded into architectural form at a range of scales.