Friday, 25 July 2014

Blood, Fire and Steel : The Armistice of 1918 and the ensuing Issues that have arisen till date.


Meanwhile the Allied peace terms presented to the German delegation were stiff. The Germans were required to evacuate Belgium, Northern France and Alsace – Lorraine, in fact all territories acquired since the war began.

 German troops in East African together with the German Colonies were to surrender, the German forces in Eastern Europe were to withdraw to the prewar boundaries while the treaties of Brest – Litvosk and Bucharest were to be annulled and the Germans were to repatriate all prisoners of war and a substantial quantity of their war materials.

These included 5,000 artillery pieces, 25,000 machine guns, 1,700 aircraft, 5,000 locomotives and 150,000 … cars alongside the ongoing Allied block side. The German delegation pleaded for respite to save the nation from being overrun by Bolshevik forces.

In view of this, the Allies mitigated their terms concerning the blockade, a reduction in the quantity of arms to be handed over and a permission for the German forces in Eastern Europe to remain for the time being. While the negotiations were going on, the Allied advances continued albeit slowly because of the German destruction of the railways and supply routes.

 By November 11 the Allied lines actually ran through Sedan, Mezieres and Mons to Ghent. Foch’s forces this time numbered a Franco – US force of 28 divisions and 60 French in the south ready to strike through Metz into northeastern Lorraine. By this time also US forces in France had risen to over 42 divisions. The Allies were actually on the verge of commencing a fresh offensive when the German delegation capitulated and yielded to the Allied peace terms.

 By 5:00 am on November 11, the German delegation signed the Allied peace terms in Foch’s railway carriage at Rethondes. At 11:00 am the same day the war came to an end. In the dying days of World War 1, Mathias Erzberger a civilian led the German delegation that signed the armistice.

  A myth soon spread in Germany that these men were traitors who signed away an undefeated Germany and worse still Ludendorff who superintended the whole process of the armistice came to join with the Nazis and other proponents of this theory that the armistice was a stab in the back by civilian collaborationists to undermine Germany’s military effort.

This turn of events and the branding of these men as November criminals was to let loose a tide that would soon culminate in the outbreak of another conflict 20 years later when Adolf Hitler’s Socialists and workers party will use this event as an excuse  to seek revenge and  a fresh expansionist policy for Germany in Europe.

The peace of 1918 as the armistice came to be known played a key role in re-shaping the map of Europe as it is today and in bringing forth a number of nations in western and Eastern Europe whose very existence came to depend on the terms of the armistice being honored and upheld.

 The latter challenge of the armistice and its terms of settlements by totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy and Russia were to lay a foundation for another round of discord, wars and privations leading to yet a further redrawing of the map of Europe in 1945.

The unresolved issues arising from the political settlement of 1918, persisted till 1945 and continues to be the bedrock for agitations in Europe up till today, and these center around the legitimacy of the big powers Great Britain, France, Italy and the United States to determine the fate, boundaries and political realities of defeated Germany and the annulment of the treaty of Brest – Litvosk.

Whereas Russia benefited enormously from the Germany defeat, it took another round of conflict and war with Poland for Russia to come to terms with the idea of an independent Poland, the respect for the independent states that made up the USSR and the quest for political independence for the Slav – succession states that emerged from the Austro – Hungarian empire.

 The defeat of the Ottoman Turks changed the political power base of the Middle East, Arabia and Mesopotamia as the British and French gained an upper hand in the region. World War 1 had truly come to an end but four nations were not entirely satisfied with the terms of settlements that spawned a whole new set of nations; these were Germany, Russia, Japan and Italy.

The US the main proponent of the peace proposals that saw to the end of the conflict and the beginning of this new world order was soon to retreat to its home base far across the Atlantic after the failure of the US Senate to ratify Wilson’s proposals concerning the League of Nations which was Wilson’s main platform for upholding the new order.

It would soon become obvious that Britain and France alone were not sufficiently powerful enough to defend the new world order and the world would soon simmer on the verge of conflicts that would soon again implode into a new world war that severely tested the ability of the existing world order to withstand the challenges of the dissatisfied nations. 

Demonstration Against the Versailles Treaty
On June 22, 1919, the government of Weimar Germany, under international pressure, accepted the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty held Germany solely responsible for World War I, and accordingly imposed harsh conditions on Germany. A fundamental revision of the “Dictat of Versailles,” as the peace treaty was referred to in Germany, became the pressing goal of a wide cross-section of German society. Mass demonstrations and rallies against the Treaty of Versailles, like this one in Berlin, were the order of the day.



AFTERMATH OF WORLD WAR 1 (The Russian Revolution)



The war hit Russia hardest, as by 1917 amongst the comity of belligerents, Russia lost its will to fight. After three years of warfare, mobilizing 10% of its population and losing about half of that number in battle, the home economy stretched to its limit and its internal transportation and supply system in shambles, food shortages widespread and fuel in short supply, the patience of the Russian people snapped.

On March 12th 1917, the parliament at Petrograd and Soviet (workers and soldiers council) came together to form a provisional government. Three days later Tsar Nicholas II abdicated his imperial throne and titles. The new regime included two key figures Aleksandra Kerensky and Pavel Malenkov who as leading ministers and statesmen pledged to keep Russia in the alliance on the side of Britain and France in the war.
Nicholas II, the Last Russian Emperor
Nicholas II was an autocrat but a weak ruler. He was forced to abdicate in 1917. Nicholas is shown second from the left. Next to him are his four daughters: Tatiana, Olga, Marie, and Anastasia. At right is his hemophiliac son, Alexis. The family, including Nicholas’s wife, Alexandra (not pictured), was later killed by Bolsheviks.
The commitment of Russia to remain in the war on the side of the Allies however met with stiff resistance from the local Soviets and leftist parties which pressured the government to adopt a policy of a free Russia renouncing the right to dominate other nations and territories.

 When Prince Gorgy Lvov, the Prime Minster declared his willingness to follow the revolutionary demand of no annexations, no indemnities, on May 15th Malenkov stepped down as foreign minister.
Russia’s democratic moves, especially appealed to President Wilson in his campaign to make the world safe for democracy as opposed to militarism and imperialism.

 Russia’s ability however, to continue in the war deteriorated rapidly as the morale of its troops sagged, partly as a result of the political crisis at home. The Petrograd Soviets had called for the abolishment of court – martial’s and issued a declaration of soldiers’ rights.

The decision of the new provisional government was a bitter disappointment to the hopes of the German government that had been subtly campaigning for Russia’s withdrawal from the war through both a secret program of internal subversion and collaboration with the Finns, Baltic peoples, poles, Ukrainians and Georgians and support for Russian’s revolutionary groups.

As part of the plan, the German government had sought to collaborate with Lenin the leader of the most radical group of Marxists whose antiwar disposition was well known, even though Lenin had been arrested and detained in Kharkov in Poland. The Austrian government was persuaded to release Lenin on grounds that he was an ally of Austria in the fight against Russia. As a result he was released into Switzerland.
Lenin Addresses Crowd in 1917
Vladimir Ilich Lenin was the first dictator of the USSR. Lenin led the Bolshevik takeover of the provisional Russian government in what was known as the October Revolution of 1917. (The revolution took place on November 6-7 according to the modern calendar adopted in 1918. According to the Julian Calendar, which was used in Russia up to that time, the revolution took place in October). The first Soviet leader hoped the revolution would set off other socialist revolts in Western countries.

Another Russian émigré and socialist Alexander Helphand had convinced the German government to invest in the revolutionary movement in the hope of engendering Russia’s withdrawal from the war. As a result, the German government set aside a sum of 2 million marks to be spent in internal subversion in Russia in March 1915.

These efforts had been stepped up particularly shortly after Germany’s first victories over Russia in order to help ease Russia out of the war. The communist therefore had German government help in subverting and undermining the Russian provisional government. After the provisional government determined to continue with the war, Lenin was released and sent to Russia aboard a secret special train prepared by the Germans to help to fan the flames of Bolshevik revolution.

This he achieved as the Russian army was already a disillusioned bunch of disgruntled men. In a series of deft moves, the leftist segments of the polity namely the communists and socialists had infiltrated the army with their propaganda campaign against the unjust capitalist war to a point of threatening a coup d’état.

This internal disorder so weakened the provisional government that by the time the government was trying to revalidate its mandate in a fresh election by December, the communists led an uprising that succeeded in bringing down the government and transferring power to Lenin. On November 8th 1917, I.V Lenin made a speech denouncing the war and proclaiming a message of liberation for the working class and peasants calling for an armistice and an end to the war.
Women's Battalion in Petrograd
Promising women an equal share of power in the new government, the Petrograd Soviet formed a women’s battalion. As part of the military reforms introduced by Soviet military and political leaders, the battalion played an active role in the October Revolution.
Hulton Deutsch

The trio of Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Karl Radek thereby hoped to inflame revolutionary passion among the other belligerents but met with little success. The Bolshevik regime however signed the Brest – Litvosk armistice terms on Dec. 15 1917 in order to shore up the support base of its own regime and seek reprieve from the burden of the war.



RUSSIA’S WITHDRAWAL FROM THE WAR


The Brest Litvosk peace compounded issues for the Allies as the two front wars had become a one front war in which Germany was expected to gain an upper hand. Allied assurances had failed to persuade Russia to remain in the war and the Bolsheviks were determined to maintain their pledge of peace, bread and land.

In the humiliating treaty signed by a government that was desperate for peace in order to consolidate its hold on power, the communist government signed away in real terms, 34% of Russia’s population, 32% of Russia’s farmland 54% of Russia’s industrial plants, 89% of Russian coal mines plus almost all of its cotton and oil.

This reversal of Russia’s fortunes in the east raised German hopes of all–out victory before the United States could make a significant impact. The impasse in this case forced the Allies to think of the possibility of intervention in Russia with anti – revolutionary forces sympathetic to the aspiration of Britain and France.

 The Russian collapse forced the British, French, and Americans and eventually the Japanese to send small units of troupes called military advisers to liaise with the white forces (or counter – revolutionary) forces who were opposed to the Bolshevik government.

As a result a mixed contingent of British, French and American forces totaling 28,000 men were docked at Murmansk. An Anglo – French force occupied Arkhangelsk together with 4,500 Americans under British command. In April 1918, Japanese forces occupied Vladivostok.

 American forces were also stationed in Siberia to keep an eye on the Japanese and make contact with Czech legionaries who numbering over 30,000 were released by the provisional Russian government to help fight the cause of Czech independence. The legionnaires whilst initially declaring neutrality however resisted Bolshevik attempts to disarm them and eventually sought to take over the control of the Trans – Siberian railway line 6,000 miles long.
Kerensky Salutes his Troops
Aleksandr Kerensky (left) was the socialist leader of the provisional government in Russia after Emperor Nicholas II was deposed in February 1917. Kerensky’s term as head of government was short, however. The Bolsheviks, whom he had tried to suppress, seized power in October, and Kerensky fled to Paris.

The Allies also invariably got tangled in the brewing war between the Reds and the Whites for the control of Russia with the Reds controlling Moscow, Petrograd and most of the inner regions while the Whites under Admiral Aleksandra Kolchak controlled Omsk and General Anton Denikin in Odessa.


The Versailles Debacle



The Paris peace conference opened on January 18, 1919 on an optimistic note. Over 27 nations were involved and many of the demands made proved politically impossible to accomplish and the Great Powers had a hectic time trying to achieve order out of chaos.

Each of the Great Powers had over ten delegates with an accompanying team of experts, historians, economists, geographers and eventually, the conference was bogged down with too many delegates and contrasting issues. To create sense and order, the five leading powers created a council of ten, comprising their heads of states and foreign ministers. Even then, decisions were eventually taken by an informal meeting of the French, British and American leaders.

Wilson insisted that issues touching on the League of Nations be addressed first in order to ensure that the institution gains recognition as a legitimate platform for settling international disputes as common debates and haggling of personal interests had became the dominant feature of the conference. The French were suspicious about the whole basis of the league hoping it would become an umbrella body for protecting the new European order.

The British and Americans however were not willing to make any long term commitment to defending the new order being fashioned out. The British view was not a league of nations determined to repel an aggressor as much as a league of nations working to devise strategies to ensure that war never breaks out.

The league covenant provided for a plenary assembly of all members and a council of the great powers while outlining a system of sanctions against aggressive nations. The British view of sanctions tended to be moralistic in view rather than aggressive. To compound things, participation in military sanctions was made voluntary. The covenants also made provisions for the settlement of boundary disputes establishing the peace – making credentials of the league.

With the rejection of a Franco – Italian initiative far tougher stands on security alongside an international force equipped to enforce decisions, French newspapers scorned the league as a toothless debating society. With Germany’s exclusion from the league for the meantime, German newspapers cast the league as a league of victors.

 The French strongly argued that the league set up an international force to permanently occupy the Rhineland stressing that the security of France and Belgium lay in a security fence around the Rhineland from where German forces hand invaded French four times in the last hundred years, 1814, 1815, 1870, 1914.

The duo of Britain and American strongly resisted any attempts to dismember Germany or detach the Rhineland believing that, that would only be sowing the seeds of a new conflict in creating a new Alsace Lorraine. An Anglo – American offer to support France in case of a future German aggression met a muted response in France when Germany might well have overrun France as indeed happened   twenty years later.
 
Paris Peace Conference
After defeating Germany in World War I, the victorious parties found it difficult to agree on the price Germany should pay in war reparations. Leaders from the United States, Britain, France, and Italy met at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 and drafted the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty mandated a number of restrictive and compensatory measures for Germany, including massive demilitarization and financial reparations. Representatives at the conference included, left to right, British prime minister Lloyd George, Italian foreign minister Giorgio Sonnino, French premier Georges Clemenceau, and U.S. president Woodrow Wilson.
UPI/THE BETTMANN ARCHIVE
reserved.

The French eventually on March 17th, 1919 settled for a mixed bag of compromise, the guarantee treaties, safeguards involving German disarmament, demilitarization and Allied occupation of the Rhine.

The issue of the war debts set an emotional tone to the debates with the French insisting that Germany and not her victims should pay the cost of reconstruction and that French debts to the Allies should be waived in the light of her hefty contribution to the war effort; especially as France was indebted to her citizens to a tune of 26 billion dollars as against the 3.6 billion dollars owed to Britain and America.

In the light of the refusal of the US to forgive British and French war debts, and an insistence on the part of France that Germany bear all the burden of reconstruction because the exact figure concerning the damages and German reparations could not be immediately resolved, a commission to resolve these issues was set up while Germany was immediately taxed 20 billion gold marks which was to be paid immediately without any concern for her immediate economic needs.

The final draft treaty consigned the Saar to joint control of the Allies for 15 years pending a plebiscite to determine its future, loss of the German colonies, limited army and navy and no air force and submarines.

 Germany was to deliver 20 million tons of coal per year to France and Belgium. Alsace – Lorraine to France, most of upper Silesia and West Prussia to Poland including a corridor to the Baltic that partitioned Germany and league of nations control of the free part of Danzig (to grant Poland access to the sea).

Prohibition of an Anchluss (union) between Austria and Germany and abrogation of the treaty of Brest – Litvosk and finally article 231 demanded that Germany accept full responsibility for the war as an act of aggression by Germany and her allies.

The treaty met with stiff opposition from the German people even though its term were milder than the Brest – Litvosk treaty and left Germany intact and unoccupied. The German delegation pleaded for the mitigation of the terms without any success.
Demonstration Against the Versailles Treaty
On June 22, 1919, the government of Weimar Germany, under international pressure, accepted the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty held Germany solely responsible for World War I, and accordingly imposed harsh conditions on Germany. A fundamental revision of the “Dictat of Versailles,” as the peace treaty was referred to in Germany, became the pressing goal of a wide cross-section of German society. Mass demonstrations and rallies against the Treaty of Versailles, like this one in Berlin, were the order of the day.

However to obtain the lifting of the sanctions and blockade and to prevent further revolutionary upheavals and further allied military advance. The German delegation made up of mainly suited civilians rather than the military hierarchy whom the allies had intended to punish on the June 28 1919 affixed their signatures to the final treaty.

German extremist groups immediately denounced the treaty and those who signed it as traitors, conspirators brandishing them as the November criminals. They were particular irked with the war guilt clause which revisionist historians tended to see as undermining the legitimacy of the entire Versailles treaty and it came to be a powerful element in the emergence of the anti-Versailles parties and politics that was to soon emerge in Germany.

The Allied delegations in any case were not any happier or even fulfilled concerning the terms of the treaty. Many were apathetic as to whether the fundamental issues that touched on peace in Europe had been dealt with. British economist Maynard Keynes expressed his deep reservations as to the policy of reparations and its likely effect on the German people and economy.

Marshall Ferdinand Foch’s comments were the most prophetic in dimension. He was quoted as saying that “this is not peace but a truce for 20 years. French premier Clemenceau had to summon his entire political prowess to win its ratification in the French parliament and even then he lost the presidential election that followed.

The most astonishing response came from the United States whose president Wilson single handedly dictated the peace terms in his fourteen point peace initiative that became the basis for the conclusion of the armistice with German on Nov 11 1918. He was also singularly responsible for the imposition of the institution of the League of Nations on the European nations, prescribing its covenants and structures.

Political groups in America and in the Congress however felt uncomfortable with the constraints placed on the US in fulfilling its obligations under the league covenants for a nation whose foreign policy was fashioned around not intervening in European affairs, nor allowing European affairs to weigh heavily on American domestic policy.

 Among these groups of isolationists were nationalists republicans, some democrats, Monroe doctrines exponents, regionalists, xenophobes and tariff protectionists. The concern of the American politicians was over the obligations and capacity for foreign interventions the league would impose on the U.S. The fear was centered on article 10 of the league covenant and its potentials for getting the US involved in foreign quarrels.

As a measure of conciliation, the senate committee on foreign relations led by Senator Henry Cabot lodge proposed ratification subject to 14 reservations, which Wilson unwisely rejected insisted on an all or nothing approach without taking into consideration the strength of Republican opposition.
Woodrow Wilson in the White House
In the presidential election of 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, who was unhappy with some of President William Taft’s policies, entered the presidential race as head of the new Progressive Party. As a result, the Republican Party vote was split between Taft and Roosevelt, and Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson won the election. During his two terms in office, Wilson carried out significant reforms to laws governing tariffs, trusts, labor, agriculture, and banking.

To overcome Senate objections, Wilson embarked on a national speaking tour to mount support for the treaty only to be brought down by a debilitating stroke in October 1919 and on November 19, the Senate voted against the treaty.

A further compromise vote scheduled for March 19 1919 also failed to carry the day because the president instructed his followers to reject any compromise and in the event the 49 – 35 vote fell short of the constitutional 2/3 majority required to ratify the treaty.

The failure of the United States to ratify the Versailles treaty also meant that the US had failed to recognize the League of nations which was one of the offspring’s of the treaty alongside the security guarantee given to France which was the pillar of the new world political order which the European statesmen had so skillfully crafted to create a balance of power on the European scene.

The League of Nations thus became a toothless bulldog imposing sanctions and penalties that it lacked the muscle to enforce. The result was a feeling of betrayal on the part of France and a resolve to deal more firmly in issues concerning Germany.



.



Thursday, 24 July 2014

Revisiting the Heroics of the US First Army in WW2 in the Centenary memorial of WW1

 As about a hundred years has elapsed since the start of World War 1, it is important for this generation most of whom were born in the 20th Century to do a recap of events of the past  in order to avoid the trap of re-enacting events simply because we have failed to learn from history. After about 37 years of personally closely following and studying the conflicts of the 20th Century which have given the 20th Century the dubious distinction of being the bloodiest century in the known history of the world, it has become imperative in my own observation for this generation to study the trend of events in that generation and learn some useful lessons that we can pass down to the next generation.

For instance the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff drew an interesting conclusion never before held in any previous military council after reviewing America's involvement in Vietnam that it is not every conflict that military power on its own can usefully resolve, and that the nation should never ask the Army for more than it can deliver. It drew a set of criteria that needed to be considered before dabbling into any fresh military adventure abroad. For instance among many points were these that were pointedly stated. Can the use of conventional forces bring about victory in the situation? Can the enemy be effectively subjected to conventional military operations without violating the norms of conventional warfare ? But more importantly will the campaign carry the support of the people on a long term basis were it to become protracted?

It is very obvious that the Bush administration did not seriously give thought to these considerations before launching 'operation enduring freedom' A well thought out campaign has failed in the eye of the public because the politicians who launched it did not take time to prepare the public for the cost of what i call or describe as 'enduring victory'.

This generation has to learn the bitter truth that enduring freedom is not the result of a 'sausage or spaghetti' investment. A quick fix approach which seems to be popular with politicians looking for short term returns   cannot in many instance produce a durable return. The American GI''s who hit the beaches of France from the US First Army and who have remained my lifetime heroes did not consider a quick fix on Omaha beach in the face of the most determined adversary many of the inexperienced conscripts had ever seen. There was no timeline fixed for events nor a spending cap as to how much the country was willing to spend for victory.

The D-Day landings in Europe had already cost the American taxpayers an estimated 5 Billion dollars  by the 6th of June 1944 and yet the events of that day seemed to suggest that the spending were far from adequate.
On that day it was not the cost but the morality of the issue that was at stake. The men on the beach knew it. They also knew that day was not a day to trade blames but rather one that called for ingenuity on the part of the men to ensure that the Great Crusade did not fail. News week magazine special issue of the 6th of June 1944 said boldly on the cover page that the first 1,000 yards were the most difficult on that beach that day for the troops.

If you could hold out and not give up and push beyond the 1000 yards you would soon discover a fresh perception of the enemy. Many GI's on that day learnt that truth albeit at a bitter cost that would also set a new parameter for victory. Many of the men testified that nothing they experienced in the subsequent push to Berlin would come close to the terror of those first 1,000 yards of Omaha beach.Truly as Bill Clinton said while campaigning for the presidency in 1992, that 'there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with something that is right with America'.

As we look back at the centenary of WW1, I still commend the courage of the men of the US First Army particularly on D-DAY to the people of this generation as we tackle seemingly intractable problems which have dodged our footsteps as they also dodged the footsteps of our fore bears. Found in this blog are over 100 posts from The US FIRST ARMY, THE FORGOTTEN HEROES OF WW2 to the story of 150 YEARS OF EUROPEAN HISTORY, THE FORGING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION. Wishing you a happy voyage of fruitful discoveries as you peruse these pages.

Wednesday, 9 July 2014

BLOOD, FIRE AND STEEL, 150 YEARS OF EUROPEAN HISTORY, THE FORGING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION




Friday, 28 February 2014


BLOOD, FIRE AND STEEL , 150 years of European History; PREFACE CHAPTER ONE

 August 1, 2014 will mark the Centenary or 100 years since World War 1 began. Back then it was known as the Great War. As students of history and political scientists will disclose after a thorough perusal of past events in the world in the last 100 years, 1914 marked a watershed in the political evolution of the contemporary world, because World War 2, which was to ensue barely 21 years post WW1 was simply a postscript of events thrown up by WW1. In the words of then French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau
the peace of 1918 was simply a 'truce' pre-dating the next great conflict.

Then he was regarded as a pessimistic prophet of doom , but his prediction uncannily proved to be true barely 21 years later. 100 years after the events of that era we still live in a simmering world tethering on the edge of conflicts some generated by events that predated the beginning of the Great War. The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-5 obviously gave birth to the island acquisitions that are at the root of the present conflict between China and Japan over the Shenyang Islands.

Similarly issues of land settlements that spawned the creation of new nations in Eastern Europe following the treaty of Versailles are still brewing conflicts  and tensions that require settlement till date. In my own nation Nigeria, even the very legitimacy of the 1914 amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates are still a subject of dispute till date with the British Government still reassuring the Nigerian people that the amalgamation still serves the very best interest of Nigeria.

One hundred years have since passed since the events of August 1914, several generations have since grown up and moved on, and hundreds of books and publications have since been written about these events but the dawn of the digital age and the revolutionary technological changes spawned by this information technologies have raised the case for the revisiting of these events particularly for many young people in this digital age who find it difficult to devote time and attention to reading the large volumes required in the traditional books to have a knowledgeable grasp of the events that have helped to shape the world we live in today.

For instance many young people particularly in the developing world cannot understand why only five particular countries  sit as permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations and why this group of countries individually possess the veto power, able to overrule a resolution of the Security Council even when it is endorsed by the General Assembly. More baffling to them is why the combination of these five countries remain inexplicably unchangeable and no new permanent members regardless of the changing World order has been added since 1945.

While this writings encapsulated in the ensuing blog is not offering any final answers to these posers it simply will attempt to enlighten the average blog reader who will make the effort to remain committed to these pages in the upcoming days as to the trend of events beginning from 1850 in Europe in particular. that began the dawn of the industrial age and the modern era of nation states, nationalism, alliances and power blocs that have shapened the world to what it is today.

The face of the modern world began to take shape in Europe in the 19th century and by the middle of the 19th century quickened in pace and the fate of the modern world began to be decided then. For the sake of brevity and clarity , to save time and space we decided to begin in the middle of the 19th Century when the pace of events really took a quick turn. Remain on Board as we commence the journey. 
No comments: