sentence-transformers/squad huggingface dataset:
Passage: The principal battles of the stalemate include the Battle of Bloody Ridge (18 August–15 September 1951), the Battle of the Punchbowl (31 August-21 September 1951), the Battle of Heartbreak Ridge (13 September–15 October 1951), the Battle of Old Baldy (26 June–4 August 1952), the Battle of White Horse (6–15 October 1952), the Battle of Triangle Hill (14 October–25 November 1952), the Battle of Hill Eerie (21 March–21 June 1952), the sieges of Outpost Harry (10–18 June 1953), the Battle of the Hook (28–29 May 1953), the Battle of Pork Chop Hill (23 March–16 July 1953), and the Battle of Kumsong (13–27 July 1953).

Question: When was the Battle of White Horse?

Question: What year was the Battle of Bloody Ridge?

Question: What was the shortest of the major battles fought during the stalemate?
Passage: Chinese troops suffered from deficient military equipment, serious logistical problems, overextended communication and supply lines, and the constant threat of UN bombers. All of these factors generally led to a rate of Chinese casualties that was far greater than the casualties suffered by UN troops. The situation became so serious that, on November 1951, Zhou Enlai called a conference in Shenyang to discuss the PVA's logistical problems. At the meeting it was decided to accelerate the construction of railways and airfields in the area, to increase the number of trucks available to the army, and to improve air defense by any means possible. These commitments did little to directly address the problems confronting PVA troops.

Question: Did the UN troops or Chinese troops experience more war casualties?

Question: What did Zhou Enlai do as a result of the significant amount of Chinese casualties?

Question: What was the purpose of the Shengyang meeting?

Question: Did the actions of the Chinese fix their problems?
Passage: In the months after the Shenyang conference Peng Dehuai went to Beijing several times to brief Mao and Zhou about the heavy casualties suffered by Chinese troops and the increasing difficulty of keeping the front lines supplied with basic necessities. Peng was convinced that the war would be protracted, and that neither side would be able to achieve victory in the near future. On 24 February 1952, the Military Commission, presided over by Zhou, discussed the PVA's logistical problems with members of various government agencies involved in the war effort. After the government representatives emphasized their inability to meet the demands of the war, Peng, in an angry outburst, shouted: "You have this and that problem... You should go to the front and see with your own eyes what food and clothing the soldiers have! Not to speak of the casualties! For what are they giving their lives? We have no aircraft. We have only a few guns. Transports are not protected. More and more soldiers are dying of starvation. Can't you overcome some of your difficulties?" The atmosphere became so tense that Zhou was forced to adjourn the conference. Zhou subsequently called a series of meetings, where it was agreed that the PVA would be divided into three groups, to be dispatched to Korea in shifts; to accelerate the training of Chinese pilots; to provide more anti-aircraft guns to the front lines; to purchase more military equipment and ammunition from the Soviet Union; to provide the army with more food and clothing; and, to transfer the responsibility of logistics to the central government.

Question: Who believed that neither side would see a victory at the end of the Korean War?

Question: What meeting was conducted to discuss the PVA's problems?

Question: What actions were taken to help the PVA?

Question: Who ended up in charge of logistics as a result of the restructuring of the PVA?
Passage: The on-again, off-again armistice negotiations continued for two years, first at Kaesong, on the border between North and South Korea, and then at the neighbouring village of Panmunjom. A major, problematic negotiation point was prisoner of war (POW) repatriation. The PVA, KPA, and UN Command could not agree on a system of repatriation because many PVA and KPA soldiers refused to be repatriated back to the north, which was unacceptable to the Chinese and North Koreans. In the final armistice agreement, signed on 27 July 1953, a Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission, under the chairman Indian General K. S. Thimayya, was set up to handle the matter.

Question: How long did the armistice talks last?

Question: What issues stalled the armistice talks?

Question: What was deemed unacceptable to North Koreans and the Chinese during POW negotiations?

Question: When was the armistice agreement finally signed?

Question: What was established to deal with the issues surrounding prisoners of war?
Passage: In 1952, the United States elected a new president, and on 29 November 1952, the president-elect, Dwight D. Eisenhower, went to Korea to learn what might end the Korean War. With the United Nations' acceptance of India's proposed Korean War armistice, the KPA, the PVA, and the UN Command ceased fire with the battle line approximately at the 38th parallel. Upon agreeing to the armistice, the belligerents established the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has since been patrolled by the KPA and ROKA, United States, and Joint UN Commands.

Question: Who did the US elect as president during the Korean War?

Question: Who approved the Korean War armistice that officially declared a ceasefire?

Question: What area was created by the parties involved in the Korean conflict?

Question: Along with the Joint UN Commands, ROKA and KPA, what country also still patrols the demilitarized zone?

Question: What was one of the first things that the newly-elected Dwight Eisenhower did after the election?
Passage: The Demilitarized Zone runs northeast of the 38th parallel; to the south, it travels west. The old Korean capital city of Kaesong, site of the armistice negotiations, originally was in pre-war South Korea, but now is part of North Korea. The United Nations Command, supported by the United States, the North Korean People's Army, and the Chinese People's Volunteers, signed the Armistice Agreement on 27 July 1953 to end the fighting. The Armistice also called upon the governments of South Korea, North Korea, China and the United States to participate in continued peace talks. The war is considered to have ended at this point, even though there was no peace treaty. North Korea nevertheless claims that it won the Korean War.

Question: Where is the capital city of Kaesong now located?

Question: What area is directly north and south of the 38th parallel?

Question: When was the Armistice Agreement signed?

Question: Was there ever an official peace treaty after the war?

Question: Who believes that they were victorious in the war?
Passage: After the war, Operation Glory was conducted from July to November 1954, to allow combatant countries to exchange their dead. The remains of 4,167 U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps dead were exchanged for 13,528 KPA and PVA dead, and 546 civilians dead in UN prisoner-of-war camps were delivered to the South Korean government. After Operation Glory, 416 Korean War unknown soldiers were buried in the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific (The Punchbowl), on the island of Oahu, Hawaii. Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office (DPMO) records indicate that the PRC and the DPRK transmitted 1,394 names, of which 858 were correct. From 4,167 containers of returned remains, forensic examination identified 4,219 individuals. Of these, 2,944 were identified as American, and all but 416 were identified by name. From 1996 to 2006, the DPRK recovered 220 remains near the Sino-Korean border.

Question: What was the point of Operation Glory?

Question: How many US service members were exchanged during this operation?

Question: Where are the remains of the 416 unidentified soldiers who died in the Korean War?

Question: How many remains were recovered from the Sino-Korean border between 1996 and 2006?
Passage: After a new wave of UN sanctions, on 11 March 2013, North Korea claimed that it had invalidated the 1953 armistice. On 13 March 2013, North Korea confirmed it ended the 1953 Armistice and declared North Korea "is not restrained by the North-South declaration on non-aggression". On 30 March 2013, North Korea stated that it had entered a "state of war" with South Korea and declared that "The long-standing situation of the Korean peninsula being neither at peace nor at war is finally over". Speaking on 4 April 2013, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, informed the press that Pyongyang had "formally informed" the Pentagon that it had "ratified" the potential usage of a nuclear weapon against South Korea, Japan and the United States of America, including Guam and Hawaii. Hagel also stated that the United States would deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-ballistic missile system to Guam, because of a credible and realistic nuclear threat from North Korea.

Question: Why is North Korea insisting that the 1953 armistice was violated?

Question: When did North Korea call an end to the armistice?

Question: In 2013, who what country did North Korea declare war on?

Question: What weapon does North Korea claim it now has the ability to use?

Question: How does the United States view North Korea's threats?
Passage: The initial assault by North Korean KPA forces were aided by the use of Soviet T-34-85 tanks. A North Korean tank corps equipped with about 120 T-34s spearheaded the invasion. These drove against a ROK Army with few anti-tank weapons adequate to deal with the Soviet T-34s. Additional Soviet armor was added as the offensive progressed. The North Korean tanks had a good deal of early successes against South Korean infantry, elements of the 24th Infantry Division, and those United States built M24 Chaffee light tanks that they encountered. Interdiction by ground attack aircraft was the only means of slowing the advancing Korean armor. The tide turned in favour of the United Nations forces in August 1950 when the North Koreans suffered major tank losses during a series of battles in which the UN forces brought heavier equipment to bear, including M4A3 Sherman medium tanks backed by U.S. M26 heavy tanks, along with the British Centurion, Churchill, and Cromwell tanks.

Question: What form of attack was an effective measure of slowing Korean armor?

Question: What weapon did the the KPA use that was successful early in the Korean conflict?

Question: What helped the UN forces and shifted the war in their favor?

Question: What actions of the UN also helped them improve their results during the war?

Question: How many tanks were in the North Korean tank corps?
Passage: Because neither Korea had a significant navy, the Korean War featured few naval battles. A skirmish between North Korea and the UN Command occurred on 2 July 1950; the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Juneau, the Royal Navy cruiser HMS Jamaica, and the frigate HMS Black Swan fought four North Korean torpedo boats and two mortar gunboats, and sank them. USS Juneau later sank several ammunition ships that had been present. The last sea battle of the Korean War occurred at Inchon, days before the Battle of Incheon; the ROK ship PC-703 sank a North Korean mine layer in the Battle of Haeju Island, near Inchon. Three other supply ships were sunk by PC-703 two days later in the Yellow Sea. Thereafter, vessels from the UN nations held undisputed control of the sea about Korea. The gun ships were used in shore bombardment, while the aircraft carriers provided air support to the ground forces.

Question: Why were naval skirmishes not really seen in the Korean War?

Question: Who pretty much gained and maintained control of the sea?

Question: Who dominated any battles that may have taken place at sea?

Question: Where was the last sea battle of the Korean War?
Passage: During most of the war, the UN navies patrolled the west and east coasts of North Korea, sinking supply and ammunition ships and denying the North Koreans the ability to resupply from the sea. Aside from very occasional gunfire from North Korean shore batteries, the main threat to United States and UN navy ships was from magnetic mines. During the war, five U.S. Navy ships were lost to mines: two minesweepers, two minesweeper escorts, and one ocean tug. Mines and gunfire from North Korean coastal artillery damaged another 87 U.S. warships, resulting in slight to moderate damage.

Question: What type of ships did the US spend most of its time sinking?

Question: What weapon posed a significant threat to US navy ships?

Question: How many US warships were damaged by gun fire and mines?

Question: Where were the majority of US naval patrols of Korea?
Passage: The Chinese intervention in late October 1950 bolstered the Korean People's Air Force (KPAF) of North Korea with the MiG-15, one of the world's most advanced jet fighters. The fast, heavily armed MiG outflew first-generation UN jets such as the F-80 (United States Air Force) and Gloster Meteors (Royal Australian Air Force), posing a real threat to B-29 Superfortress bombers even under fighter escort. Fearful of confronting the United States directly, the Soviet Union denied involvement of their personnel in anything other than an advisory role, but air combat quickly resulted in Soviet pilots dropping their code signals and speaking over the wireless in Russian. This known direct Soviet participation was a casus belli that the UN Command deliberately overlooked, lest the war for the Korean peninsula expand to include the Soviet Union, and potentially escalate into atomic warfare.

Question: Who denied having anything more than an advisory role in the Korean War?

Question: Who ignored the direct participation of the Soviet Union to prevent expanding the Korean War to the Soviet Union?

Question: What may have occurred if the war was expanded to the Soviet Union?

Question: What did the Soviet pilots start doing when accused of playing an integral role in the Korean War?

Question: Who feared engaging in direct conflict with the United States?
Passage: The USAF countered the MiG-15 by sending over three squadrons of its most capable fighter, the F-86 Sabre. These arrived in December 1950. The MiG was designed as a bomber interceptor. It had a very high service ceiling—50,000 feet (15,000 m) and carried very heavy weaponry: one 37 mm cannon and two 23 mm cannons. They were fast enough to dive past the fighter escort of P-80 Shooting Stars and F9F Panthers and could reach and destroy the U.S. heavy bombers. B-29 losses could not be avoided, and the Air Force was forced to switch from a daylight bombing campaign to the necessarily less accurate nighttime bombing of targets. The MiGs were countered by the F-86 Sabres. They had a ceiling of 42,000 feet (13,000 m) and were armed with six .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine guns, which were range adjusted by radar gunsights. If coming in at higher altitude the advantage of engaging or not went to the MiG. Once in a level flight dogfight, both swept-wing designs attained comparable maximum speeds of around 660 mph (1,100 km/h). The MiG climbed faster, but the Sabre turned and dived better.

Question: What plane did the US send to Korea to counter the power of the MiG-15?

Question: To mitigate the loses of the B-29, what did the US Air Force do?

Question: What was the MiG designed to be?
Passage: In February 1907, the Royal Dutch Shell Group was created through the amalgamation of two rival companies: the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company of the Netherlands and the "Shell" Transport and Trading Company Ltd of the United Kingdom. It was a move largely driven by the need to compete globally with Standard Oil. The Royal Dutch Petroleum Company was a Dutch company founded in 1890 to develop an oilfield in Sumatra, and initially led by August Kessler, Hugo Loudon, and Henri Deterding. The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company (the quotation marks were part of the legal name) was a British company, founded in 1897 by Marcus Samuel, 1st Viscount Bearsted, and his brother Samuel Samuel. Their father had owned an antique company in Houndsditch, London, which expanded in 1833 to import and sell sea-shells, after which the company "Shell" took its name.

Question: When was Royal Shell Group Created?

Question: When was the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company founded?

Question: When WAS the "Shell" Transport and Trading Company founded?

Question: The Royal Dutch Shell Group was created through the merger of which two rival companies?

Question: What was the main reason for the creation of the Royal Dutch Shell Group?

Question: In what year was the Royal Dutch Shell Group created?

Question: In what year was the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company founded?

Question: Why was the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company created?
Passage: Shell was vertically integrated and is active in every area of the oil and gas industry, including exploration and production, refining, distribution and marketing, petrochemicals, power generation and trading. It has minor renewable energy activities in the form of biofuels and wind. It has operations in over 90 countries, produces around 3.1 million barrels of oil equivalent per day and has 44,000 service stations worldwide. Shell Oil Company, its subsidiary in the United States, is one of its largest businesses.

Question: Aside from biofuels what other renewable energy activities is Shell involved with?

Question: How many countries does Shell operate in?

Question: How much oil per day does Shell produce?

Question: How many services stations does Shell have?

Question: In how many countries does Shell have operations?

Question: How many barrels of oil equivalent does Shell produce per day?

Question: Shell has how many service stations worldwide?

Question: What is the name of Shell's subsidiary in the United States?

Question: Shell has minor renewable energy activities in which two areas?
Passage: For various reasons, the new firm operated as a dual-listed company, whereby the merging companies maintained their legal existence, but operated as a single-unit partnership for business purposes. The terms of the merger gave 60 percent ownership of the new group to the Dutch arm and 40 percent to the British. National patriotic sensibilities would not permit a full-scale merger or takeover of either of the two companies. The Dutch company, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij, was in charge at The Hague of production and manufacture. A British company was formed, called the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company, based in London, to direct the transport and storage of the products.

Question: What percent of ownership did the merger award the Dutch branch?

Question: What prevented a full-scale merger of the two companies?

Question: What was the primary function of the Anglo-Saxon Petroleum Company?

Question: The new firm operated as what type of company?

Question: What percent of ownership of the new company was awarded to the British?
Passage: In November 2004, following a period of turmoil caused by the revelation that Shell had been overstating its oil reserves, it was announced that the Shell Group would move to a single capital structure, creating a new parent company to be named Royal Dutch Shell plc, with its primary listing on the London Stock Exchange, a secondary listing on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, its headquarters and tax residency in The Hague, Netherlands and its registered office in London. The unification was completed on 20 July 2005 and the original owners delisted their companies from the respective exchanges. On 20 July 2005, the Shell Transport & Trading Company plc was delisted from the LSE, where as, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company from NYSE on 18 November 2005. The shares of the company were issued at a 60/40 advantage for the shareholders of Royal Dutch in line with the original ownership of the Shell Group.

Question: In what year was it announced that the Shell Group would move to a single capital structure?

Question: What was the name of the Shell Group's new parent company?

Question: On what exchange was the Shell Group's new parent company primarily listed?

Question: Where was the Royal Dutch Shell plc headquartered?

Question: What was the cause of the period of turmoil prior to the announcement that the Shell Group would move to a single capital structure?
Passage: In February 2010 Shell and Cosan formed a 50:50 joint-venture, Raízen, comprising all of Cosan's Brazilian ethanol, energy generation, fuel distribution and sugar activities, and all of Shell's Brazilian retail fuel and aviation distribution businesses. In March 2010, Shell announced the sale of some of its assets, including its liquid petroleum gas (LPG) business, to meet the cost of a planned $28bn capital spending programme. Shell invited buyers to submit indicative bids, due by 22 March, with a plan to raise $2–3bn from the sale. In June 2010, Royal Dutch Shell agreed to acquire all the business of East Resources for a cash consideration of $4.7 billion. The transaction included East Resources' tight gas fields.

Question: In what year did Shell and Cosan form a 50:50 joint venture?

Question: What was the name of the 50:50 joint venture formed by Shell and Cosan?

Question: Why did Shell sell some of its assets in March 2010?

Question: How much did Shell plan to raise from the sale of its assets?

Question: Royal Dutch Shell agreed to acquire all the business of what entity in June 2010?
Passage: Over the course of 2013, the corporation began the sale of its US shale gas assets and cancelled a US$20 billion gas project that was to be constructed in the US state of Louisiana. A new CEO Ben van Beurden was appointed in January 2014, prior to the announcement that the corporation's overall performance in 2013 was 38 per cent lower than 2012—the value of Shell's shares fell by 3 per cent as a result. Following the sale of the majority of its Australian assets in February 2014, the corporation plans to sell a further US$15 billion worth of assets in the period leading up to 2015, with deals announced in Australia, Brazil and Italy.

Question: Which assets did the corporation begin to sell in 2013?

Question: What was the value of the cancelled gas project that was to be contstructed in Louisiana?

Question: The appointment of a new CEO in 2014 came prior to what announcement?

Question: In what year did the corporation sell the majority of its Australian assets?

Question: What was the value of assets the corporation planned to sell leading up to 2015?
Passage: The presence of companies like Shell in the Niger-Delta has led to extreme environmental issues in the Niger Delta. Many pipelines in the Niger-Delta owned by Shell are old and corroded. Shell has acknowledged its responsibility for keeping the pipelines new but has also denied responsibility for environmental causes. This has led to mass protests from the Niger-Delta inhabitants and Amnesty International against Shell and Friends of the Earth Netherlands. It has also led to action plans to boycott Shell by environmental groups, and human rights groups. In January 2013, a Dutch court rejected four out of five allegations brought against the firm over oil pollution in the Niger Delta but found a subsidiary guilty of one case of pollution, ordering compensation to be paid to a Nigerian farmer.

Question: What is a cause of severe environmental issues in the Niger Delta?

Question: Many pipelines owned by Shell in the Niger Delta are described as what?

Question: Shell has accepted responsibility for keeping its pipelines in what condition?

Question: In contrast to its acceptance of responsibility for keeping the pipelines new, Shell has denied what?

Question: Environmental and human rights groups have created action plans to do what?