TIME NOW TO STOP THE SLIDE TO WW3, UKRAINE IS COMING UP ONLY AS A CAUSAL BELLE !

For students of history in the 20th century, it is pretty obvious that history is hell bent on repeating itself unless discerning world leaders can read the trend and take appropriate action accordingly. Unfortunately as the world ruminates on the sad events that triggered the great war of 1914, we are watching a repeat of the kinds of events beginning in 1936 that inexorably led to the Second World War, when the Nazi Dictator began a dangerous gamble in Europe that eventually led to a global conflict from which the world is yet to fully recover from.

The world is once more confronted by a set of events albeit reminiscent of another long-past era that is boiling up and which can explode if not when handled. The fact remains that NATO as it is today had its roots in the desire of the Western European Bloc that escaped Soviet occupation after WW2 to protect itself from a feared Soviet invasion after World War 2 on account of the huge armies that the Soviet Union had built in the course of the war and which could easily by 1948 overrun the rest of Europe if the Soviet leadership  was willing to risk another war.

The British , French, Belgians , Dutch, Italy and the new West German State that emerged in 1949 saw sense in the wisdom of collective security together with the United States serving as a hedge against any adventurism by the Soviet leaders into Western Europe. Even at the height of its power NATO could scant contain the Soviets if they chose to invade and that is where American nuclear deterrent came in handy and that ultimately led to the nuclear arms race between Russia and America that dominated the second half of the 20th century. Detente became acceptable when the two super powers finally attained the status of [MAD]  mutually assured destruction in the late sixties and early seventies.

That state of affairs kept Europe in peace until the early eighties when the sheer burden of the unequal struggle with the United States and Western Europe led to an implosion that saw the USSR disintegrating in 1989 despite the heroic efforts of Mikhail Gorbachev to save the union through Glasnost and Perestroika. The Soviet Union came off unhinged and NATO declared victory in the 45 year old Cold War. That notwithstanding even though Russia the sole heir to the assets and liabilities of the now dissolved Soviet Union was in a seriously weakened state and gasping for breathe to survive, The West still felt obliged to maintain the Defensive alliance that was formed out of fear of the now defunct Soviet Union.

The Soviet created military alliance known as the Warsaw pact was dissolved in 1991alongside its economic and political pact known as COMECON. NATO however remained and in fact began an East- ward expansion leading to the genuine psychological fear in Russia that NATO's new vision was to see Russia permanently crippled as a great power.That to me was begging the question of whether NATO had not deviated from its vision of protecting Europe to becoming a threat to European security. The question of the Eastern expansion of the alliance to incorporating the component states of the defunct Warsaw Pact and finally to including the former states of the old USSR was to me a very dangerous and unwholesome provocation to Russia which was still desperately trying to find its feet.  

The NATO gamble in expanding  to the East could have succeeded if the West was sure that Russia as a giant could never find its feet again as it seemed to appear for about two decades. But then the rise of nations like China, India, Brazil, Indonesia , Mexico and growth else where furnished ground for the huge rise in energy prices as well as demand for natural gas in Europe and elsewhere of which Russia is well endowed. With huge earnings pouring down its coffers , it was only natural for the now revived giant to seek a restoration in its fortune especially as its nuclear stock pile, the largest in the world for that matter was still intact.

The dynamics of resurgence in Russia today is not limited to Putin as an individual, because the nationalist sentiments that Putin has stirred in his second coming has resonated with the average Russian and that is why he has continued to enjoy record support not only in Russia but among Russian speaking people in Eastern Europe. The idea taking root in Russia today is that our time has come again and obviously the desire to settle scores again was becoming very obvious among the Russian populace. The Russian people have also never forgotten that none of the old Soviet Republics worked harder to unsettle the union than Ukraine.The fact also remains that in 24 years of independence Ukraine has not been able to find its feet economically.

Ukraine's umbilical cord still remained tied to Russia up till 2013, and that is why the ousted Ukrainian leader still looked to renewing its economic dependence on Moscow . The decision to cut that umbilical cord was a decision Ukraine alone ought to take without the rancorous interference of the West as was orchestrated during the Maidan uprising late last year. In other words it was a tragic mistake for Europe and America to come forward boldly to offer their 'surgical knife' to Ukraine to sever a relationship and a dependence syndrome on Russia that had spanned over three hundred years. Naturally Russia was bound to react and that they have done unabashedly ,sparking this latest round of needless confrontation.

A decision by Ukraine to severe ties with Russia ought to be Ukraine's only and ought not to be influenced by a riotous mob as was seen in the disturbances that racked the country late last year until this year. The decision of the West to boldly 'help' Ukraine severe ties with its past master was not only unwise but needlessly provocative and has brought the world to the brink of a new Cold war as it is today. The situation in Ukraine is evocative of the conflict that persisted between The United States and the Soviet Union over Cuba in the sixties and seventies .

 The United States felt Cuba belonged in its sphere of influence , considering their historic ties especially when America fought the Spanish-American war just to free Cuba at the turn of the 19th century only to have the Soviet Union make attempts to use Cuba as a staging ground for targeting the US with short -range nuclear missiles. It was completely unacceptable to the Kennedy Administration in the early sixties and America was ready to go to war to press its point .

In the same way Western dabbling in the affairs of Ukraine and its Russian speaking people to me is needlessly provocative. Let the Ukrainian people and Russia settle their differences themselves without outside interference for the sake of world peace. In any case, NATO is not under any obligation as it is to intervene in Ukraine militarily as emotional as the events may look. Secondly NATO must desist from its provocation of Russia by its eastern expansionist tendencies. Hard choices are often times needed to keep the peace without the evocation of any sentiments no matter how idealistic they may appear. What Russia is doing today is what the United States has done countless times in the past to protect its 'vital interests'.

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 12^th 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 15^th 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 8^th 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 17^th, 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.

.

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.

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

Freddy John Jnr's Pages

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. 

Posted by FREDENEMAKU OKOLO at 06:27 No comments:

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

CONCLUSIONS

In the immediate aftermath of the EU currency reforms and the adoption of the Euro as the single currency for the whole of the Euro zone and the issues of national debts and financial problems that have rocked the Euro zone since then, issues have arisen concerning the viability of the whole concept of European unity and of the whole continent moving towards cohesion as one entity politically and economically.

 Nations like Great Britain and Denmark have shunned the monetary union and have chosen to pursue an independent path monetarily. Events involving the Greek and Italian debt crises have also tended to cast the whole idea of European unity as an unworkable idea between strange bedfellows dragged together by economic and political forces that have not taken cognizance of the lingering differences that persist in the socio-cultural dispositions of the various states of Europe that makes the idea of political and monetary union implausible on the long-run.

The British seem to be keenly aware of this and have long held the view that the peculiar character and make up of each nation should not be overlooked in the dash towards European Union especially the political and monetary union.

 France in particular and Germany have maintained their stand that the European union ought to be a peculiarly European institution without undue interference from external powers notably the United States and Russia. American attempts to tie the EU as an institution to NATO has met with the stern refusal of the EU states particularly France which sees in the EU a competing and alternate power base to the US and Russia.

Great Britain which remains tied to the United States by virtue of the long ties developed in the course of resolving the two major conflicts of the 20^th century, essentially sees her future linked more with her trans- Atlantic relationship with Canada and the US rather than her neighbors on the European continent.

The health and future of the European Union project has more or less come to depend on the strength of the strategic partnership being cultivated by both France and Germany the erstwhile antagonistic neighbors whose long years of protracted rivalry and conflict necessitated the idea of the European Union in the first place.

The future of Europe and as it were of the EU no doubt will depend largely on the ability of both France and Germany to shoulder the weight and responsibilities involved in upholding the EU and its constituent institutions such as the Euro and the common market.

 As the present European financial crisis is showing, the burden of maintaining an alliance of unequal partners is definitely the equal of maintaining European unity on the long run. This the British have shied away from, and this, the French and Germans are courageously endeavoring to shoulder for now.

EPILOGUE

This writing was meant to cover the issues in European history over a period of 150 years i.e 1850-2000, but 14 years beyond the detailed period of coverage, events in Eastern Europe have shown that post-cold war Europe can still be very volatile as events in the Ukraine and other parts of Eastern Europe have shown and are still showing. The hasty dismantling of the structures that kept Europe in peace for the past 70 years is proving to be a big mistake on the part of  the EU leaders and the US. The haste to move on as though the concept of a one- Europe is an idea whose time has passed needs to be seriously revisited as events in Russia and China are showing that a united and powerful Europe working in concert with the United States is still desperately needed to maintain the existing global order that has kept the world in peace for close to the better half of the 20th century and the beginnings of the 21st century.

Great Britain in paticular has to come to terms with the fact that a united and powerful Europe is in her better interest as the last two world wars have shown that the stirrings of any global conflict begins in Europe , just as well as the sustenance of global peace and the preservation of Western civilization as we know it today rests on the platform of a united Europe working in concert with the United States of America. Neither Europe on its own or the United States acting unilaterally can maintain the present World order. Both China and Russia will be brought to order if they can clearly see a united and powerful Europe linking hands with the United States, Canada and Japan standing in their way.

To act otherwise would be an open invitation to the next opportunist to try and forcefully covet the role of pride master as seen in the feline kingdom of the Lions. We do all remember what it cost the whole world to hold back the last opportunist in the World War that raged from 1939-1945. A word is reputed to be enough for the wise!

BLOOD,FIRE AND STEEL 150 YEARS OF EUROPEAN HISTORY; THE FORGING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, EUROPE AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

EUROPE AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

President Woodrow Wilson’s hopes for a permanent association to adjudicate peace amongst nations took shape in the League of Nations that was birthed in 1920. The League was fashioned around its covenant or constitution as the basis for its operations and binding agreements.

With its headquarters in Geneva, it consisted of an assembly in which members had an equal vote, alongside the right of veto and a smaller council of four permanent members and four (later rising to six and eventually nine) members chosen on a rotating basis by the assembly.

The vision of the League was hinged on security; individual and collective. Its members were pledged to seeking peaceful solutions to disputes and to assist one another against aggression. The vision was far reaching and could have become a practical platform for maintaining world peace but for a few shortcomings found in its covenants and in the attitude of some key members.

The League did resolve disputes between nations such as Finland and Sweden, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, Poland and Germany, Albania and Yugoslavia. There were specialized agencies dealing with issues related to the status of Danzig and the Saar, refugees and global trade on narcotics. Out of the league’s initiative came the international labor organization and the international court of justice with its headquarters in The Hague.

That the league eventually floundered in its bid to impose and promote world peace lay with the instruments and mechanisms guiding its operations. To start with because every decision had to be unanimous or set aside, this cast a huge burden on the decision making process. Secondly, not many nations were willing to surrender part of their sovereignty to the collective body in order for its decisions to be binding and far – reaching.

Infractions and disobedience to its covenants were not rigorously sanctioned and enforced. The decision by the US senate not to ratify America’s membership of the league by ratifying the Versailles treaty left the league without the support of one of its most important founding fathers. The membership tenure of some key nations was chequered and tenuous at best.

  The US did not join. Russia only from 1934 to 1939, Germany from 1926-1933, Turkey joined only in 1932 while Brazil withdrew in 1926, Japan in 1933 and Italy in 1937. Its dependence on sanctions as a means of enforcing its covenant was at best illusory and at other times, outrightly counterproductive.

For instance in sanctioning Italy for its invasion of Ethiopia, the economic boycott called for, was rendered ineffective when iron, steel and oil were excluded from the list and before a year could expire, they were lifted.

 Worse still the league was ineffectual when Germany sent troops into the demilitarized Rhine land in violation of the Versailles treaty; and there was never a coordinated response to any of Nazi Germany’s infractions against the Versailles treaty like its re-armament programs and re – occupation of the Saar and even the outright invasion and annexation of Austria. 

The impunity of the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler in violating the terms of the Versailles treaty and the lack of coordinated and determined response on the part of the league members spelled its death knoll.

Anschluss

German troops cross the Austrian border in March 1938. Anschluss, the union of Austria and Germany, was achieved without Austrian resistance.

Corbis

 Other nations like Japan and Italy soon took a cue from Germany in rendering the League of Nations impotent. The appeasement policies of Neville Chamberlain the British Prime Minister compounded the problems of the league.

Even its founding members hardly took the League of Nations and its covenants into consideration in taking major political decisions involving global peace and respect for the territorial integrity of nations whose boundaries were being violated like Austria, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Poland etc.

A positive notable development however sprang forth in course of the existence of the League of Nations when the new French foreign minister Aristide Briand in taking office in 1925 pledged to work for a United States of Europe and on September 9, 1929, he made a speech to the then 27 members of the league in which he suggested the forming of a European Federal Union.

On May 1^st 1930, the French foreign minister actually presented a memorandum from the French government on the organization of a system of European Federal Union. The proposal was well articulated and he pressed the need for Europe to adopt steps for enforcing collective security and economic collaboration. The idea was that European unity could bury the nationalistic agitations that were threatening the peace of Europe.

His proposal also centered on the need to set up a plan involving the establishment of a European conference within the frame work of the committee and a secretariat putting politics before economics in the European community while working towards the establishment of a “common market” in which “the movement of goods, capital and people” would be gradually liberalized and simplified.

The details according to the French foreign minister were to be the specific responsibility of the individual governments concerned. He however insisted that the process of dialogue and understanding must recognize the equality and sovereignty of each individual nation.

Quoting the memorandum he said “is … of each nation to be able to affirm itself still more consciously by cooperating in the collective effort within a federal union that fully respects the traditions and characteristics of each of its constituent people”. The initiative was not enthusiastically followed up by the other European members of the league and only a few countries like Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and to a point Czechoslovakia, Norway and Greece lent their support to the initiative.

The rest were openly skeptical and even out rightly indifferent to the initiative. The Netherlands however alone, argued the need for collective unity. Others felt such an initiative threatened the existence of the league and this view was held by countries like Poland, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K.

Several other countries felt that rather than set up any other parallel organization, the league should work towards recruiting nations like Russia and Turkey which were then not yet members. The Wall Street crash of October 1929 only served to accentuate the view that Europe’s pressing problems were economic rather than political.

Many countries thereafter became more conscious of the need to protect their individual economies by raising tariffs and imposing restrictions on imports, pursuing a unilateral rather than a multilateral approach to solving Europe’s economic problems. All these rather intensified the nationalistic and altruistic tendencies of the European states promoting competition, rather than co-operation.

The German foreign minister Gustav Stresemann who had helped to formulate the Locarno treaties of 1925 confirming among other things the new western frontiers of Germany, and who was also a fervent believer in European cooperation and unity unfortunately died in 1929 before the idea of European unity and collaboration could take root.

A powerful spokesman advocating Germany’s obligations to observe the Versailles treaty and promote peace in Europe, Stresemann who won the Nobel peace prize in 1926 was a potential candidate for pursuing Briand’s initiative. Unfortunately three years after Stresemann’s death, Briand himself died in 1932, and the most the European countries of the league voted to do, was to endeavor to put the plan before the assembly of the League of Nations.

To compound matters, the German Catholic Centre partly led by Chancellor Heinrich Bunning showed complete indifference to the striving for European unity even as events were pushing the Weimar Republic to the brink of collapse in the face of the growth of extreme groups such as fascists, nationalists, communists and the National socialists’ workers party.

Aristide Briand’s death in 1932 also coincided with the onset of the Great Depression that helped to undo the spirit of collective bargaining and resolution of disputes that were beginning to flower in Europe and instead, led to the entrenchment of nationalistic, sectional, racial and ethnic tensions in Europe.

GERMANY AND THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC

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.

ORF Enterprise Ges.m.b.H

Following its defeat in World War 1 and the abdication of Emperor Wilhelm II as Kaiser, Germany was proclaimed a Republic by the government of the then Chancellor prince Maximilian Von Baden who also resigned in favor of the Social Democrat leader Friedrich Ebert who formed the new government in November 1918.

The proclamation took place on November 9, and on November 11, Germany signed the armistice peace terms bringing the war to an end. The new Republic that emerged like any child of circumstances was plagued with fundamental problems bordering on its legitimacy and popular support from the word- go.

For a government conceived in defeat, that signed the unpopular armistice agreement coupled with the even more unpopular Versailles treaty, the Weimar Republic came to bear the brunt of the blames and reproach concerning defeat in World War 1.

 With the nationalist socialist party of Adolf Hitler branding the signatories to the peace of 1918, ‘November criminals’ the stigma of illegality, betrayal and conspiracy came to hang heavy on the fortunes of the Weimar republic. The government was not only unpopular but also unstable, having to contend with revolutionary forces from the left, extreme right and centre left.

 That it was democratic did not strengthen its support base either, partly because the culture of democracy and freedom were still an alien concept in the early 20^th century Germany. The idea of a strong government that imposed its will on the people were what the German people were accustomed to, not one that had its roots and foundation in a peace treaty prepared by foreign powers and signed by Germany in a moment of defeat.

Crises dogged the footsteps of the Weimar Republic right from its inception. The new Republic came first under pressure from both left wing and right wing politicians particularly the left wing socialists and Marxists “Sparta cists” led by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg who organized strikes and founded Soviet model workers and soldiers’ councils. The insurrection however was crushed by the army in January 15, 1919 when both leaders were arrested and killed violently.

On the other hand right wing ex-army officers came together to form the paramilitary Freidkorps who also sought to besiege the government. In the bid to give the new Republic constitutional footing, elections were held on January 19, 1919 to elect delegates to the 163 seats, the Catholic centre party won 89 seats and the Progressive party won 75 seats.

The coalition of these three parties formed the government; to the exclusion of the old conservatives now called the National people’s party with 42 and the new people’s party with 21 seats. On the left the independent socialists held 22 seats.

This assembly met on February 6, 1919 at Weimar an ancient city on the Weimar River, basically to avoid the predictable opposition that sitting in Berlin would have exposed the gathering to, as feelings were still running high in Germany over the defeat in the war and humiliating peace treaty that ensued.

The new parliament (Reichstag) did not reconvene in Berlin until the spring of 1920 and even then the Republic was named the Weimar Republic. The new constitution was modern, democratic and embraced the concept of representative government and democratic rights which were yet to be firmly etched in the psyche of the average German.

 The constitution was inaugurated on July 31 1919. In March 1920, the new republic was shaken by an attempted coup d’état coupled with an election in June that resulted in serious defeat for the republicans.

The centrist Democrats and the Social democrats both lost considerable seats in the parliaments shifting the momentum to the forces of the extreme right, made up of right – wing parties and the left wing socialists and other smaller parties that made considerable gains. 

The original coalition that formed the new Republic suddenly found themselves in the minority and the new groups, violent in expression dominated the new parliament. On the streets, political violence was widespread. Things got to a head when on August 26 1921, two former officers of the German armed forces shot and killed Mathias Erzberger, a Catholic centre party deputy who had negotiated the peace terms.

 On June 24 1922 three right wing students shot and killed Walter Ratheneau, the newly appointed foreign minister who was Jewish. And to cap it all on November 8 1923, an abortive putsch involving elements of Adolf Hitler’s National socialist party and other right wing extremists was crushed and Adolf Hitler, Herman Goering and Erich Ludendorff were implicated and charged to court.

In the midst of these all, the Weimar Republic continued and even recorded some remarkable success in the economic arena as the German economy flourished and the revived economic fortunes of Germany helped partially to stabilize the polity. Germany was even able to make substantial reparations payment and grow its economy substantially; increasing its share of European and world trade.

Germany at a time stood next to the United States in terms of economic performance boasting of more per capita income than any other nation in Europe. As the 20’s progressed, more and more Germans began to fantasize the issue of national rebirth, extreme nationalism and the glory of the fatherland.

The rise of National Socialism and its extreme doctrines built around the myth of the superiority of the Aryan race, the manifest destiny surrounding Germany’s ascendancy in Europe, the need to uproot the Jews as the main obstacles to Germany’s nationalistic aspirations, the need to re-unite Germans wherever they may be found, began to resonate with a cross section of the German people and fan the flames of racial, ethnic and nationalistic bigotry.

Midnight SS Ceremony

The Schutzstaffel, or SS, was the most feared organization within Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist Party. During World War II (1939-1945), the SS was responsible for running the Nazi concentration camps and extermination centers at which many hundreds of thousands of people were systematically killed. Shown here, new members of the SS are sworn in at a midnight ceremony.

Bruce Coleman,

The German people under the influence of the teachings and propaganda of the Nazi party and other extreme right wing groups were encouraged to see themselves more as Germans, the Aryan race destined to rule the whole world while other European races and peoples were presented as racially inferior and destined to be subjugated and conquered.

Adolf Hitler while in prison over the Munich Putsch wrote his thoughts in his book ‘Mein Kampf’ in which he set out his beliefs, thoughts and vision for Germany. By appealing to the altruistic tendencies in the people, reminding them of their inherent racial supremacy, Hitler created a consciousness in Germans of their innate superiority that made his national socialist party extremely popular and appealing.

He conveniently labeled the defeat of 1918 as the work of Jews, fifth columnists, communists and other enemies of Germany. In convincing the nation that Germany did not really suffer a defeat on the battlefield, he began to prepare the people for another re-match, a contest of wit and muscle for a people whom he convinced did not lose the war but were rather stabbed in the back.

 Germany thus entered the 1930s initially hesitant, undecided but gradually yielding, as successive elections showed to the rhetoric’s and propaganda of the national socialist workers party. The Nazi’s kept improving their electoral fortunes in election after election until by 1930 no party could form a coalition government without the support of Hitler’s national socialists’ workers party.

 In the 1932 elections, the Nazis had become the single largest party in Germany’s parliament and were now in a position to form a coalition government of their own.

The Emergence of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party