...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...
correct.
dang, after i posted it, i realized it was too easy for a 500 question.
Does anyone know why the other attendees were not heads of state?
Posted by: annika trebek on Jul. 18, 2005Because, hehehehe, Stalin was the head of the Party, not the President. Who the fuck knows who the President was. Churchill was the outgoing PM, and that fuckstick Atlee was the incoming, and as such, not the heads of state. The King/Queen are the heads of state in England. BTW, I'm playing drunk to give Victor a chance.
Posted by: Casca on Jul. 18, 2005Make it Military History for four.
Posted by: Casca on Jul. 18, 2005(Signaling device backfires after short circuiting from extreme heat in annikaheartland then spontaneously combusts creating various steam whistle-like sounds).
umm - who are Churchill and Stalin??
Posted by: d-rod on Jul. 18, 2005i think d-rod's a few drinks ahead of you, lol.
Stalin was "first among equals." Neither Atlee nor Churchill were heads of state, the king was.
According to David McCullough, Stalin asked Truman to preside over the conference because he was the only head of state present. Churchill seconded the idea.
Posted by: annika trebek on Jul. 18, 2005that's enough for tonight, more tomorrow.
Posted by: annika trebek on Jul. 18, 2005Chuh, you ought to be working as a pit boss. A fellow gets a hot hand and you close the game.
Posted by: Casca on Jul. 18, 2005A great example of de jure vs. de facto. In those days, the Soviet head of government appointed the head of state. Bizarre system.
At least George VI was the head of state in the UK. Imagine if Edward had remained.
Posted by: Ontario Emperor on Jul. 18, 2005Darn right that was too easy for a $500 question-and I think the east coast/west coast thing is starting to play a factor.
Posted by: Victor on Jul. 19, 2005