Allegory Unveiled: Medieval Florentine Affairs and its Modern Age Global Replications

 

When world growing darker around you, great men reached out to ancient knowledge which became refuge to them, a private freedom to feel and candle to see new world unfold. Very rarely, you read a book or article that inspires you to see a familiar story in an entirely different way. Florence at the dawn of the 15th century was extremely unusual, major trading center at the heart of Tuscany and as a scaled down version of the 20th century globalized world. She was in many respects one of the first of modern states. As her painters and savants stood at the head of the Renaissance as the earliest artists and thinkers of the modern world, so her politics were now emerging from medievalism and taking a modern complexion.

 

With no king, prince or duke, the city was an independent republic, run by the people, for the people. It was not a perfect democracy but it worked and was responsible for creating a group of powerful families, dynasties who vied with each other for political control of this thriving city. The Florentine system did encourage an oligarchy of rival families to attain positions of power, proving critical to the development of an enterprising, peace-loving city, and fueling the competition which lay behind much of the Renaissance. If I see our world with this renaissance era in mind and try to contextualize the 20th century world from the Florentine historical point of view I find many similarities between the our modern world and 15th century Florence. As we have world certainly not unipolar but kind of oligarchy with multipolar world in which powerful nations as those Florentine families influencing the world, world is quite peace-loving too relative to our history, fueling competitions of course as space race between USA and USSR is best example of it and I do believe we are in the second renaissance phase as in less than a single lifespan, we went from first manned flight to first man on the moon. So 15^th century Florence as a scaled down version of the 20th century globalized world. Medici family’s Rise and contribution in 15^th century Florence city and the same of USA in 20^th century world has some parallel implications.

Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici: USA before World War One

In Florence 1389 a boy was born into a medieval world, Cosimo de Medici. He was not of noble birth but the son of a local wool merchant, Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici who had risen from rural poverty through a combination of aggressive salesmanship and financial caution. It was Giovanni's founding of the family bank that truly initiated the Medici family's rise to power in Florence.

 

Despite his growing wealth, Giovanni was diligent in his efforts not to separate the Medici family from the other citizens in Florence. He did so by continuously ensuring that he and his sons dressed and behaved like the average working-class citizens of Florence. This was in part due to his desire not to draw undue attention to himself and his family, and to ensure that, unlike other wealthy families as one which the Albizzi of Florence, the Medici remained in the favor of the population. The Albizzi were the de facto leaders of an oligarchy of wealthy families that ruled Florence and led the republican government, complex political system which was ‘democratic’ only on paper for two generations. By 1427, they were the most powerful family in the city, and far richer than the Medici. They had been the patrons of genius and cultural icons, but the family was more interested in waging war than sustaining commercial viability. Rinaldo degli Albizzi was the son of Maso degli Albizzi, a soldier and politician at the head of an ancient and powerful their family. At the time when the Giovanni and his son Cosimo were increasing their wealth and their popularity in Florentine circles, the Albizzi became their fiercest opponents. It was clear that the Medici were threatening their supremacy, stealing influence and power. Giovanni’s hopes were to build a positive reputation of his family by avoiding conflicts with the law and keeping the people of Florence happy. Giovanni offered his son Cosimo a warning be wary of going to the palace of government wait to be summoned, then show your selves obedient and never display any pride always keep out of the public eye. His attitude is exemplified in his writings to his son Cosimo, saying, "Strive to keep the people at peace, and the strong places well cared for. Engage in no legal complications, for he who impedes the law shall perish by the law. Do not draw public attention on yourselves yet keep free from blemish as I leave you."

 

The same can be related to the USA’s attitude of the neutrality as US President George Washington issued formal announcement, Proclamation of Neutrality that declared the nation neutral in the conflict between France and Great Britain. This was a longstanding idea at the heart of American foreign policy that the USA would not entangle itself with alliances with other nations which lasted even during world war one. In fact USA was not part of Vienna system, the concert of powers when the great powers of the time which were France, Russia, United Kingdom, Prussia (historically prominent German state), first spark of international cooperation in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars to coordinate their ambitions and activities avoiding future wars which broke later down through the Crimean War. The US had historically steered clear of foreign engagements, and the only war with a European power in generations had been the Spanish-American war of 1898, which had not been widely supported popularly. The industrial revolution produced explosive economic growth, and the bigger US economy required a more centralized state and bureaucracy to manage the growing economy. Power became concentrated in the federal government, making it easier for expansionist presidents, like William McKinley, to unilaterally push United States influence abroad dragged the country into war with Spain over the island of Cuba despite intense opposition at home.

Giovanni stayed at arm’s length from politics for much of his life, but he was urged to reluctantly accept various positions of high office throughout his life in the Signoria of Florence because of the prestige and universal popularity he enjoyed in the city. World War I showed how much America’s influence had grown. Not only was American intervention a decisive factor in the war's end. But President Wilson attended the Paris Peace Conference which ended the war and attempted to set the terms of the peace. He spearheaded America’s most ambitious foreign policy initiative yet, an international organization, called the League of Nations, designed to promote peace and cooperation globally. The League, a wholesale effort to remake global politics, showed just how ambitious American foreign policy had become. Yet isolationism was still a major force in the United States. Congress blocked the United States from joining the League of Nations, dooming Wilson’s project, like the same way as Giovanni’s reluctance towards getting involved in Florentine politics.

Original Sin: Astute Decision: Rise to Power

 America’s role in the early stages of the World War I was immediate, and not surprisingly it was economic. The United States became the chief external source of supply for the food, raw materials, and munitions that fed the British and French war machines. In October 1914 the British had already ordered 400,000 rifles. Munitions and war materiel exports would rise from 40 million dollars in 1914 to 1.29 billion two years later. In 1916, Britain bought more than a quarter of the engines for its new air fleet, more than half of its shell casings, more than two-thirds of its grain, and nearly all of its oil from foreign suppliers, with the United States heading the list. Britain and France paid for these purchases by floating larger and larger bond issues to American buyers denominated in dollars, not pounds or francs. The US also became the allies’ banker, and though strict rules of neutrality, the Wilson administration would lend over 2 billion dollars to the allies, but only 27 million to the Central Powers. At the same time, the president resisted all efforts by German Americans for an arms embargo on the ground that such a measure would be grossly un-neutral toward the Allies. One US Congressman described America as “the arch hypocrite among nations... praying for peace... while furnishing the instruments of murder to one side only. As World War I entered its third year, the balance of power was visibly tilting from Europe to America. The belligerents could no longer sustain the costs of offensive war. Cut off from world trade, Germany hunkered into a defensive siege, concentrating its attacks on weak enemies like Romania. The Western allies, and especially Britain, outfitted their forces by placing larger and larger war orders with the United States. By the end of 1916, Those 2 billion dollar wagered by American investors on an Entente victory was relative to America’s estimated GDP of $50 billion in 1916, the equivalent of $560 billion in today’s money. By 1917 the United States was no longer a debtor nation but the world’s greatest creditor. U.S. firms also inherited many overseas markets, especially in Latin America, which the British and Germans could no longer serve.

Wilson’s Republican opponents men like Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Elihu Root wished to see America take its place among the powers of the earth. They wanted a navy, an army, a central bank, and all the other instrumentalities of power possessed by Britain, France, and Germany. These political rivals are commonly derided as “isolationists” because they mistrusted the Wilson’s League of Nations project. That’s a big mistake. They doubted the League because they feared it would encroach on American sovereignty. It was Wilson who wished to remain aloof from the Entente, who feared that too close an association with Britain and France would limit American options. This aloofness enraged Theodore Roosevelt, who complained that the Wilson-led United States was “sitting idle, uttering cheap platitudes, and picking up [European] trade, whilst they had poured out their blood like water in support of ideals in which, with all their hearts and souls, they believe.” Wilson was guided by a different vision: Rather than join the struggle of imperial rivalries, the United States could use its emerging power to suppress those rivalries altogether. Wilson was the first American statesman to perceive that the United States had grown into a power unlike any other. USA had emerged, quite suddenly, as a novel kind of ‘super-state,’ exercising a veto over the financial and security concerns of the other major states of the world.

Giovanni befriended the Neapolitan cardinal Baldassare Cossa, a former pirate who had embarked on an alternative career in the church and had ambitions to enter the Vatican even to become Pope himself, all he needed was a campaign fund. During the Western Schism of 1378, also called Papal Schism which was a split within the Catholic Church lasting from 1378 to 1417 in which two men simultaneously claimed to be the true pope, and each excommunicated the other. It was resulted during the returning of papacy back to Rome again from Avignon which was there for 67 years. The pair of elections threw the Church into turmoil. There had been rival antipope claimants to the papacy before, but most of them had been appointed by various rival factions; in this case, a single group of leaders of the Church had created both the pope and the antipope. In May 1408 Baldassare was one of the seven cardinals who deserted Pope Gregory XII, and convened the Council of Pisa. Cossa became the leader of a group whose objective was to finally end the schism.  The result was silly beyond belief as they deposed Pope Gregory XII and Anti-Pope Benedict XIII and elected a third Pope Alexander V in 1409.  As the two existing popes Gregory and Benedict who clearly enjoying their current positions of power simply ignored this decision and there were now not just two Popes but three. So at the beginning of the 15th century the papal curia was divided amongst three centers, Avignon, Pisa and Rome, with popes in each city. Anti-Pope Alexander V was not long for this world and died soon after his promotion leaving the way clear for Baldassare himself, only made an ordained priest on 24th May 1410, to be consecrated as Pope John XXIII on 25 May 1410.

Giovanni knew that the church was in chaos, papacy itself was up for grabs and with enough money even Cossa stood a chance of success Giovanni dared to back the unlikely outsider. As a supporter of Baldassare Cossa, Giovanni had loaned his money in an astute way at an important point, it was an enormous gamble for their local business. Baldassare Cossa was elected Pope John XXIII and the first thing he made the Medici Bank the bank of the papacy, contributing considerably to the family's wealth and prestige. This reward from his friend in 1413 was for the Medici Bank to get the Curia, a near monopoly of the bank account of the Papal Estates. All the tithes and taxes that flow to the Curia from London to Tunisia would pass through Medici Bank. In a stroke, Medici bank became the most successful bankers in Europe. The Rome branch of the Medici bank became easily the most profitable (+50% of their revenues). Although Pope John XXIII was himself deposed in 1415 on this 2-year papal gift was built the financial infrastructure that made the Medici family the most powerful family in Florence city.

Neither Giovanni caused Western Schism nor did USA start World War one but with their astute decision that helped pave the way for Power in the 15^th century Florence City for Medici and in the 20^th century world for USA.

War and The Collapse of the old order

Florence in the 15th century was a city unlike anywhere else new this major trading center the heart of Tuscany and the manufacture of textiles became a major industry. Before Medici arrival in banking, the most prominent of financial houses to extend their operations beyond the Alps were The Florentine houses of the Acciaiuoli (with 53 branches throughout Europe), the Peruzzi (83 branches), and the Bardi (even larger than the Peruzzi). These firms traded in agricultural commodities and industrial products, especially woolen textiles, for which Florence was a major center of production, but they drew much of their profit from fees levied on exchange of currency. These fees also served as a legal screen behind which they concealed the practice of usury (charging interest on loans), a practice outlawed by canon law. Conducting large-scale commercial and credit business over great distances was risky. The Florentine banks flourished because they had better and more current economic information than those they did business with.

In the 14th century, Italian states raised these troops in ever larger numbers not by hiring individuals but by drawing up a condotta (contract) with a condottiere (contractor), who would engage to bring a band of up to several thousand soldiers in time of war to the aid of a commune or kingdom. Given the difficulties of securing political control over Italian military leaders (who might, it was feared, take over the state), it became common, beginning in the 1330s, to negotiate with non-Italian condottieri. Their forces rapidly grew to immense size. In the 1350s “The Great Company,” founded by Werner of Urslingen, comprised some 10,000 troops and 20,000 camp followers and had its own government, consultative council, bureaucracy, and foreign policy. Throughout the 1360s these “mobile states”, for example, the companies of the Englishman Sir John Hawkwood and the Germans Albrecht Sterz and Hannekin Baumgarten dominated war in Italy, and in times of peace they were all too likely to subject their former employers to a variety of blackmailing threats.

These changes in the practice of war went hand in hand with a considerable expansion in the power of governments. The weak, decentralized communes of the 13^th century, with comparatively primitive administration and very light taxation, gave way in the 14th century to republics and signorie with much stronger political control and exclusive new means of fiscal exploitation. States raised revenues through property taxes, gabelle (e.g., taxes on contracts, sales, transport of goods into and out of town), and forced loans (prestanze), while they developed sophisticated measures, including the consolidation of state debts into a form of national debt, to service long-term deficit financing. At Florence, for example, where from 1345 state debtors were issued securities at 5 percent interest, negotiable in the open market, revenues rose from around 130,000 florins in the 1320s to more than 400,000 florins in the 1360s. These innovations allowed war to be waged on a larger scale, and states increasingly diverted productive wealth into war. That is, these innovations helped cause the setbacks that occurred in many sectors of the economy during the 1340s. In that decade, with trade already disrupted by the beginning of the Hundred Years’ War in France, the overextension of Florentine banks became clear. In 1343 the Peruzzi company collapsed, in 1345 the Acciaiuoli, and in 1346 the Bardi.

Extension of credit was the most risky activity of all, and Florentine banks discovered this to their sorrow. They made the mistake of lending vast sums to King Edward III of England during the 1330s as he prepared for the conflict with France that became the Hundred Years’ War. The bankers soon realized that they had extended too much credit, but since they had already lent so much, they felt compelled to lend more, lest they lose what they had already lent. By 1343, when it became obvious that King Edward III was not going to score a speedy victory, the king repudiated his debts to the unpopular foreign bankers. He borrowed 600,000 gold florins from the Peruzzi banking family and another 900,000 from the Bardi family. While the banks perished, Florentine literature flourished, and Florence was home to some of the greatest writers in Italian history: Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio. Banks come and go, after 500 years people remembers Medici than other bankers for their patronage to art, science and philosophy which still influences us today. Some economic historians have concluded that this collapse of the early Florentine banks was a major cause of a great depression that lasted beyond the 1340s. The trouble was their commitment to King Edward III had grown so much to borrow a phrase from 20^th century world “too big to fail”.

Centuries of prosperity ruined by a single unpaid loan to the King of England. The Medici banned loans to princes and kings, who were notoriously bad investments. The Medici also kept ahead of their banking rivals because of the invention of limited liability and set up a franchise system, where regional branch managers shared a stake in the business. Consequentially, the Medici business remained in the black while its competitors lost fortunes. On the other hand, for The Albizzi regime war was the instrument of their power and they prosecuted them endlessly. They contributed to Florence’s expansion over Tuscany, which since the mid-14th century had transformed the city-state into a territorial state like Milan and Venice. The city had absorbed Volterra in 1361 and Arezzo in 1384; then it went on to conquer Pisa, with its port, in 1406 and to purchase Livorno from Genoa in 1421.  Beginning in 1389, Gian Galeazzo Visconti of Milan expanded his dominion into the Veneto, Piedmont, Emilia and Tuscany. During this period Florence, under the leadership of Maso degli Albizzi was involved in three wars with Milan (1390–92, 1397–98, and 1400–02). The Florentine army, commanded by John Hawkwood, contained the Milanese during the first war. The second war started in March 1397. Milanese troops devastated the Florentine contado, but were checked in August of that year. The war expenses exceeded one million florins and necessitated tax raises and forced loans. A peace agreement in May 1398 was brokered by Venice, but left the struggle unresolved. Over the next two years Florentine control of Tuscany and Umbria collapsed. Pisa and Siena as well as a number of smaller cities submitted to Gian Galeazzo, while Lucca withdrew from the anti-Visconti league, with Bologna remaining the only major ally.

Gabriele Maria Visconti sold Pisa to the Republic of Florence for 200,000 florins. Since the Pisans did not intend to voluntarily submit to their long-time rivals, the army under Maso degli Albizzi took Pisa on 9 October 1406 after a long siege, which was accompanied by numerous atrocities. The state authorities had been approached by the Duchy of Milan in 1422, with a treaty, that prohibited Florence's interference with Milan's impending war with the Republic of Genoa. Florence obliged, but Milan disregarded its own treaty and occupied a Florentine border town. The conservative government wanted war, while the people bemoaned such a stance as they would be subject to enormous tax increases. The republic went to war with Milan, and won, upon the Republic of Venice's entry on their side. The war was concluded in 1427, and the Visconti of Milan was forced to sign an unfavorable treaty.

The debt incurred during the war was gargantuan, approximately 4,200,000 florins. To pay, the state had to change the tax system. The current estimo system was replaced with the catasto. In the sphere of politics, Giovanni di Bicci de’ Medici stayed true to his reputation and the tradition of the Medici family as champions of the people and intractable opponents of the nobility of Florence. In 1426, he exerted his considerable personal influence in the Signoria to replace Florence's inequitable and oppressive poll tax with the Catasto. This was a more regular property tax devised by Giovanni, which lifted the tax burden from the poorer classes in Florence and made it more difficult for the nobility to evade their share. The catasto was based on a citizen's entire wealth, while the estimo was simply a form of income tax.

Rinaldo degli Albizzi was a soldier and a diplomat from an early age. His main goals were to keep the oligarchy in power and defeat Florence’s enemies at all costs. When his father died in 1417, Rinaldo took his place at the head of the Albizzi family and started a war to conquer Lucca Seeking further expansion. But this enterprise turned out to be more difficult than he thought, and cost Florence dearly. He failed to conquer Lucca in a war fought between 1429 and 1433. By 1430, Albizzi’s military policy had cost the Florentine taxpayer a fortune and much of their support. War of Lucca and its failure was largely responsible for the fall of the oligarchy dominated by the Albizzi and its replacement with an oligarchy subordinate to Cosimo de’ Medici. During this campaign, Rinaldo, while serving as War Commissioner under the Ten of war, was accused of attempting to increase his own wealth through sacking. He was eventually removed from his position and recalled to Florence. Pragmatic pacifists marshaled around Cosimo de’ Medici.

 

The German delegates just like Albizzi were presented with a fait accompli during the treaty of Versailles which was drafted during the Paris Peace Conference in the spring of 1919 in a politically charged atmosphere after World War I. The five leading victors created a Council of Ten the heads of government and their foreign ministers. The population and territory of Germany was reduced by about 10 percent by the treaty. The war guilt clause of the treaty deemed Germany the aggressor in the war and consequently made Germany responsible for making reparations to the Allied nations in payment for the losses and damage they had sustained in the war. To make sure that Germany would never again pose a military threat to the rest of Europe, and the treaty contained a number of stipulations to guarantee this aim. The German army was restricted to 100,000 men; the manufacture of armored cars, tanks, submarines, airplanes, and poison gas was forbidden. All of Germany west of the Rhine and up to 30 miles (50 km) east of it was to be a demilitarized zone. The forced disarmament of Germany, it was hoped, would be accompanied by voluntary disarmament in other nations. The treaty included the Covenant of the League of Nations, in which members guaranteed each other’s independence and territorial integrity. Economic sanctions would be applied against any member who resorted to war.

The four years’ carnage of World War I was the most intense physical, economic, and psychological assault on European society in its history. The damage wrought by war would live on through the erosion of faith in 19th-century liberalism, international law. Whatever the isolated acts of charity and chivalry by soldiers struggling in the trenches to remain human, governments and armies had thrown away. World War I subordinated the civilian to the military and the human to the machine. France, which suffered more in material terms than any World War I belligerent except Belgium. Northeastern France, the country’s most industrialized region in 1914, had been ravaged by war and German occupation. Millions of men in their prime were dead or crippled. On top of everything, the country was deeply in debt, owing billions to the United States and billions more to Britain. France had been a lender during the conflict too, but most of its credits had been extended to Russia, which repudiated all its foreign debts after the Revolution of 1917 (Yes, Same story like Bardi bank with King of England in 1340 as Lenin regime repudiated the tsarist debts to Britain and France). The French solution was to exact reparations from Germany. Britain was willing to relax its demands on France. But it owed the United States even more than France did. Unless it collected from France, Italy and all the other smaller combatants as well, it could not hope to pay its American debts. The foundation stone of prewar financial life, the gold standard, was shattered, and prewar trade patterns were hopelessly disrupted. The war weakened the European powers vis-à-vis the United States and Japan, destroyed the prewar monetary stability, and disrupted trade and manufactures. World War I also overthrew the power structure in East Asia and the Pacific. Before 1914 six imperial rivals had struggled for concessions on the East Asian coast. But the war eliminated Germany and Russia from colonial competition and weakened Britain and France, leaving the United States, Japan, and China in an uncomfortable triangular relationship that would persist until 1941. And the empires like Hohenzollern, Habsburg, Romanov, and Ottoman had fallen. The old was bankrupt. It remained only to decide which newness would take its place.

World War I was a significant turning point in the political, cultural, economic, and social climate of the world. The war and its immediate aftermath sparked numerous revolutions and uprisings. The Big Four (Britain, France, the United States, and Italy) imposed their terms on the defeated powers in a series of treaties agreed at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, the most well-known being the German peace treaty: the Treaty of Versailles. Ultimately, as a result of the war, the Austro-Hungarian, German, Ottoman, and Russian Empires ceased to exist, and numerous new states were created from their remains. However, despite the conclusive Allied victory (and the creation of the League of Nations during the Peace Conference, intended to prevent future wars), a second world war followed just over twenty years later.

Salvestro de’ Medici and Ciompi Revolt: USA before independence and Age of Revolution 

The conflict of religious and political ideology emerged chiefly in the second half of the 13th century, but later debates often hearkened to the vituperative papal-imperial propaganda of the 1240s. The emergence of papalist and imperial parties that later in the century called themselves Guelf and Ghibelline, respectively. The Ghibellines were supporters of the noble rulers of Florence, whereas the Guelphs were populists. In 1304, the war between the Ghibellines and the Guelphs led to a great fire which destroyed much of the city. The communes of the 13th century had become increasingly dominated by the conflicts of the nobility who controlled their governments. These divisions, though often moved by the Guelf and Ghibelline parties, in fact largely reflected personal, economic, or quite local political rivalries—all inflamed by ideals of chivalric honor and an everyday acceptance of the traditions of vendetta. In large part as a response to these conflicts, there had arisen within the communes the movement of the popolo i.e., of associations of non-nobles attempting to win a variety of concessions from the nobility. Within the ranks of the popolo were, in the first place, those who had gained wealth through trade, banking, exercise of a profession, or landholding and sought membership in the ruling noble oligarchies. The second group comprised prosperous members of the artisan or shopkeeping classes who, while not normally seeking a direct position in government, sought a more satisfactory administration of the finances of the commune (particularly a more equitable distribution of taxation), a greater voice in matters that most directly concerned them (for example, the licensing of the export of food), and, in particular, the impartial administration of justice between noble and non-noble. Above all, the popolo (like many of the nobility themselves) desired a civic order that would end violent party conflicts and lessen the effects of noble vendettas. In some towns the popolo movement succeeded in bringing about constitutional change. In those communes where the nobility did not monopolize all wealth and where the development of trade, industry, and finance had created a complex social structure, the existing oligarchies agreed to come to terms. This came about more easily when the popolo succeeded in ending party struggles so violent that they could be described as a form of civil war. Up to the beginning of the 1340s, Florence reigned supreme in long-distance trade and in international banking. From that time, grave shocks struck its economy, and these, combined with failure in war, led to another brief experiment in signorial rule; as Florence requested for support in protecting Guelph interests in 1342 a protégé of King Robert of Naples, Walter of Brienne, titular duke of Athens, was appointed signore for one year. Almost immediately on his accession, Walter changed this grant to that of a life dictatorship with absolute powers. But his attempt to ally himself with the men of the lower guilds and disenfranchised proletariat, combined with the introduction of a luxuriant cult of personality, soon brought disillusion. An uprising in the following year restored, though in a rather more broadly based form than hitherto, the rule of the popolo grasso (“fat people”). Florentine ruling class of wealthy merchants called upon him to rule the city. Since 1339, Florence had been in the grip of a severe economic crisis brought about by immense English debts to Florentine banking houses, and by astronomical public debts incurred in trying to obtain the nearby city of Lucca. The Florentine nobility looked to foreign powers to solve the city's seemingly impossible financial problems, and found an ally in Walter of Brienne. Although the ruling class invited Walter to rule for a limited time, the lower classes, who were fed up with the ineptitude of Walter's predecessors, unexpectedly proclaimed him signore for life. Walter VI ruled despotically, ignoring or directly opposing the interests of the very same merchant class that had brought him to power. The "Duke of Athens" imposed harsh economic correctives on the Florentines, including the flat tax estimo, and prestanze, postponements of the city's repayment of loans forced from the wealthier citizens. These measures both angered the Florentines, and helped alleviate the fiscal crisis that had been stewing for years. After only ten months, Walter of Brienne's Signoria was cut short by conspiracy. Walter VI was not only forced to resign from office, but barely escaped Florence with his life.

The American Revolution was an ideological and political revolution which occurred in colonial North America between 1765 and 1783. The American in the Thirteen Colonies defeated the British in the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), gaining independence from the British Crown and establishing the United States of America, the first modern constitutional liberal democracy. The opening shots of the American Revolution on Lexington Green in the Battle of Lexington and Concord is referred to as the “shot heard ‘round the world”, which were fired on 19^th April 1775. The American Revolution not only established the United States, but also ended an age of monarchy and began a new age, an age of freedom. It inspired revolutions around the world. The United States has the world’s oldest written constitution, and the constitutions of other free countries often bear a striking resemblance to the US Constitution – often word -for-word in places. After the Revolution, genuinely democratic politics became possible in the former American colonies. The rights of the people were incorporated into state constitutions. Concepts of liberty, individual rights, equality among men and hostility toward corruption became incorporated as core values of liberal republicanism. The greatest challenge to the old order in Europe was the challenge to inherited political power and the democratic idea that government rests on the consent of the governed. The example of the first successful revolution against a European empire, and the first successful establishment of a republican form of democratically elected government, provided a model for many other colonial peoples who realized that they too could break away and become self-governing nations with directly elected representative government. The American Revolution was the first wave of the Atlantic Revolutions: the French Revolution, the Haitian Revolution, and the Latin American wars of independence. Aftershocks reached Ireland in the Irish Rebellion of 1798, in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and in the Netherlands. A revolutionary wave followed, resulting in the creation of a number of independent countries in Latin America. The Haitian Revolution lasted from 1791 to 1804 and resulted in the independence of the French slave colony. The Peninsular War with France, which resulted from the Napoleonic occupation of Spain, caused Spanish Creoles in Spanish America to question their allegiance to Spain, stoking independence movements that culminated in various Spanish American wars of independence (1808–33), which were primarily fought between opposing groups of colonists and only secondarily against Spanish forces. At the same time, the Portuguese monarchy relocated to Brazil during Portugal's French occupation. After the royal court returned to Lisbon, the prince regent, Pedro, remained in Brazil and in 1822 successfully declared himself emperor of a newly independent Brazil. From 1807 to 1830, you have a series of revolutions in Latin America, many of which were led by Simon Bolivar, who was a Creole, Venezuelan. Once Spain and Portugal are fighting Napoleon coupled with the ideas of the Enlightenment and the examples of the United States and Haiti, it inspires a whole other series of revolts in Latin America, many of which were led by Simon Bolivar. And so by the time we get to 1850, much of the European imperialism in the Americas has come to an end. Spain would lose all three of its remaining Caribbean colonies by the end of the 1800s. The most severe blow to Great Britain’s 18th-century dreams of empire, however, came from the revolt of the 13 American colonies. These contiguous colonies were at the heart of the old, or what is often referred to as the first, British Empire, which consisted primarily of Ireland, the North American colonies, and the plantation colonies of the West Indies. The shock of defeat in North America was not the only problem confronting British society. Ireland—in effect, a colonial dependency—also experienced a revolutionary upsurge, giving added significance to attacks by leading British free traders against existing colonial policies and even at times against colonialism itself. But such criticism had little effect except as it may have hastened colonial administrative reforms to counteract real and potential independence movements independencies such as Canada and Ireland. The aftermath of American independence was a diversion of British imperial interests to other areas such as Australia and India. The Marāthās, the main source of resistance to foreign intrusion, were decisively defeated in 1803, but military resistance of one sort or another continued until the middle of the 19thcentury. The financing and even the military manpower for this prolonged undertaking came mainly from India itself.

At the Congress of Vienna, Prince Metternich and his allies tried to extinguish the fires of social ferment and prevent another French Revolution. But despite the Congress of Vienna’s determined efforts to prevent them, reform and activism heated up after 1815 alongside industrialization. In the 19th century, people were looking inward at the domestic policies of each kingdom or state, which was a sharp difference from the early modern period when kingdoms were constantly fighting one another with domestic issues being much less of a concern. But much of what was happening outside of Europe did affect Europe, of course. In the 1810s and 1820s, for instance, North, Central, and South American people gained their independence from Portugal and Spain. By 1830, colonists’ victories put mainland Spain at its weakest in three centuries. So, while distant ferment liberated much of the Spanish and Portuguese empires, within post-Napoleonic Europe, citizens’ groups of all sorts blossomed across the continent and reformist uprisings against rulers flourished. In Naples the victorious powers made sure that the Bourbons would not repeat the reprisals of 1799. Thus, the restoration appeared to begin well under the balanced policies of a government led by Luigi de’ Medici, who absorbed part of Murat’s capable bureaucracy. Many judicial and administrative reforms of the French era survived, but concessions made to the church in a concordat concluded in 1818, as well as financial retrenchment, hampered the progress of the bourgeoisie. Especially among the galantuomini, who had profited from French legislation, strong discontent found an outlet in a widespread secret society, I Carbonari (“The Charcoal Burners”). So in Italy, the Carbonari, a secret society aiming for constitutional government in parts of Italy, directed uprisings in 1820 and 1830. But the forces of the Holy Alliance of Austria, Prussia and Russia put down both revolts. Also during these decades, Hungarian nobility, also operating in Metternich’s orbit, lobbied for separation from the Austrian empire, but without much luck. Serbia and Greece had more success in pulling away from the Ottomans. The Serbs became an independent principality under the Ottomans in 1817 after an uprising in 1815. And the Greeks won complete independence from the Ottomans in 1831. On 27^th, 28^th and 29^th July 1830, Known as the “Three Glorious Days” of July 1830, the rioters erected barricades in the streets and confronted the army in bloody combat, resulting in more than one thousand dead, Charles X and the royal fled from Paris. They installed Charles’s cousin Louis-Philippe as king and created a constitutional monarchy. The new king Louis-Philippe expanded voting rights, known as suffrage, to around 170,000 men, but that was still a tiny fraction of the 30 million French citizens. Social unrest remained high as France became a more industrialized economy with more people living in cities. Both living and working conditions for common people were often terrible. After adopting reforms in the 1830s and the early 1840s, Louis-Philippe of France rejected further change and thereby spurred new liberal agitation. Artisan concerns also had quickened, against their loss of status and shifts in work conditions following from rapid economic change; a major recession in 1846–47 added to popular unrest. Some socialist ideas spread among artisan leaders, who urged a regime in which workers could control their own small firms and labor in harmony and equality. A major propaganda campaign for wider suffrage and political reform brought police action in February 1848, which in turn prompted a classic street rising that chased the monarchy (never to return) and briefly established a republican regime based on universal manhood suffrage.

In June 1840 the British fleet arrived at the mouth of the Canton River to begin the Opium War. The Chinese capitulated in 1842 after the fleet reached the Yangtze, Shanghai fell, and Nanking was under British guns. The resulting Treaty of Nanking which stated that Britain got Hong Kong and five other treaty ports, as well as the equivalent of two billion dollars in cash. Also, the Chinese basically gave up all sovereignty to European spheres of influence, wherein Europeans were subject to their laws, not Chinese laws. Other countries soon took advantage of this forcible opening of China; in a few years similar treaties were signed by China with the United States, France, and Russia. The Chinese, however, tried to retain some independence by preventing foreigners from entering the interior of China. With the country’s economic and social institutions still intact, markets for Western goods, such as cotton textiles and machinery, remained disappointing: the self-sufficient communities of China were not disrupted as those in India had been under direct British rule, and opium smuggling by British merchants continued as a major component of China’s foreign trade. Western merchants sought further concessions to improve markets. But meanwhile China’s weakness, along with the stresses induced by foreign intervention, was further intensified by an upsurge of peasant rebellions, especially the massive 14-year Taiping Rebellion (1850–64). By the end of 1848, France, the Austrian Empire, Denmark, Hungary, the Italian States, and even Poland would be enmeshed in the greatest wave of revolutions Europe has ever seen. Many Europeans were experiencing the “Hungry Forties,” caused once again by bad harvests and especially in Ireland the potato blight, a mold that devastated potato crops in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe. The problem was made worse by several aspects of what might be called economic modernity—that is, standardization, one-crop agriculture, and more efficient wholesaling of food. In terms of standardization and one-crop agriculture, traditionally Peru had at least 4-5,000 types of potatoes. So if one type contracted a specific blight, there were still several thousand other varieties that might be safe. But Europe, followed by the United States, was gradually turning toward farms that focused on a single crop, and often a single strain of a crop, for efficiency. Increasingly, imperialists forced this standardization and single crop farming on other parts of the world, raising the chances for disaster. Because of the single strain of potato, blight devastated entire crops. And this resulted in death from starvation and diseases that invaded the weakened bodies of at least a million Irish farmers and their families. Another million or more emigrated, some to England and others to the United States and Canada (where in both cases, by the way, there were no laws creating a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. People simply moved in.). And as scarcity deepened in 1846 and 1847, Britain’s liberal Whig government stuck to its belief in laissez-faire, meaning that the government should let events play themselves out, and therefore offered the Irish no help at all. The system of usually English landlords requiring payment from Irish peasants to work farmland also worsened the crisis--like, throughout the Irish famine, huge amounts of food were exported from Ireland to England. Also, amid all this deprivation and death, anti-slavery and pro-freedom ideas were circulating. Britain in between 1833-1838 freed slaves across the empire, except in India. A system of slave-like indentured labor did spring up, but the rhetoric in Europe at least, was one of emancipation. In Eastern Europe, Moldavia and Wallachia began freeing several hundred thousand enslaved Roma in 1843. Later, in 1848, France also re-emancipated slaves after their re-enslavement under Napoleon. These events were accompanied by popular abolitionism, and uprisings, and the development of a language of freedom, especially freedom from governmental and structural oppression. Revolt quickly spread to Austria, Prussia, Hungary, Bohemia, and various parts of Italy. These risings included most of the ingredients present in France, but also serious peasant grievances against manorial obligations and a strong nationalist current that sought national unification in Italy and Germany and Hungarian independence or Slavic autonomy in the Habsburg lands. New regimes were set up in many areas, while a national assembly convened in Frankfurt to discuss German unity. The major rebellions were put down in 1849. Austrian revolutionaries were divided over nationalist issues, with German liberals opposed to minority nationalisms; this helped the Habsburg regime maintain control of its army and move against rebels in Bohemia, Italy, and Hungary (in the last case, aided by Russian troops). Parisian revolutionaries divided between those who sought only political change and artisans who wanted job protection and other gains from the state. In a bloody clash in June 1848, the artisans were put down and the republican regime moved steadily toward the right, ultimately electing a nephew of Napoleon I as president; he, in turn (true to family form), soon established a new empire, claiming the title Napoleon III. The Prussian monarch turned down a chance to head a liberal united Germany and instead used his army to chase the revolutionary governments, aided by divisions between liberals and working-class radicals. Despite the defeat of the revolutions, however, important changes resulted from the 1848 rising. Manorialism was permanently abolished throughout Germany and the Habsburg lands, giving peasants new rights. Democracy ruled in France, even under the new empire and despite considerable manipulation; universal manhood suffrage had been permanently installed. Prussia, again in conservative hands, nevertheless established a parliament, based on a limited vote, as a gesture to liberal opinion. The Habsburg monarchy installed a rationalized bureaucratic structure to replace localized landlord rule.

 

The American Revolution not only got rid of a king, it profoundly changed society itself. Prior to the Revolution, everyone except the king had their "betters." Society was layered, with the king at the top, then the peerage (those with titles of nobility), gentlemen, common people, and slaves at the bottom. One's life was determined by one's birth. The American Revolution got rid of this entire system of aristocracy. There is even a clause in the Constitution prohibiting the granting of titles of nobility in America. Historian Gordon Wood states: The American Revolution was integral to the changes occurring in American society, politics and culture .... These changes were radical, and they were extensive .... The Revolution not only radically changed the personal and social relationships of people, including the position of women, but also destroyed aristocracy as it'd been understood in the Western world for at least two millennia.

In the 15th century, it would not be surprising for Florentine scholars, who were part of the elite, to view the uprising negatively. Leonardo Bruni regarded the uprising as a mob out of control, whose members viciously looted and murdered the innocent. He viewed this event as a historical cautionary tale, which presented the horrendous consequence when rabbles managed to seize control from the ruling class. In the 16th century, Niccolo Machiavelli harbored a somewhat different view than Bruni. Although he echoed Bruni's perspective, also referring to them as the mob, the rabbles, preoccupied by fear and hatred, he was more favorable than Bruni in viewing the event as a whole. According to Machiavelli, the revolt was a social phenomenon between one group of people, who were determined to obtain freedom, while the other determined to abolish it.

 

In Florence Guild rule then continued virtually unchallenged until 1378. Then there was a movement in the city to check the disastrous consequences of this tyrannical power, and to widen the Government; the leader of the movement was a respectable citizen of the middle class, Salvestro de' Medici. In order to obtain their desire, the supporters of the new movement called in the aid of the lower classes, and suddenly all the discontent of the disenfranchised class, oppressed both politically and industrially, broke into flame, and Florence was involved in a bloody war between labor and capital. In that year the regime was overthrown not by signore but by factions within the ruling class, which in turn provoked the remarkable proletarian Revolt of the Ciompi. In the wool-cloth industry, which dominated the manufacturing economy of Florence, the lanaioli (wool entrepreneurs) worked on the putting-out system: they employed large numbers of people who worked in their own homes with tools supplied by the lanaioli and received wages by the piece. Largely unskilled and semiskilled, these men and women had no rights within the guild and in fact were subjected to harsh controls by the guild. In the Arte della lana (the wool-cloth guild), a “foreign” official was responsible for administering discipline and had the right to beat and even torture or behead workers found guilty of acts of sabotage and theft. The employees, who were often in debt (frequently to their employers), subsisted precariously from day to day, at the mercy of the trade cycle and the varying price of bread. With them, among the ranks of the popolo minuto (“little people”), were day laborers in the building trades as well as porters, gardeners, and poor and dependent shopkeepers. In effect, the poor rose to revolt only at the prompting of members of the ruling class. So it was in the Revolt of the Ciompi of 1378. In June of that year Salvestro de’ Medici, in an attempt to preserve his own power in government, stirred up the lower orders to attack the houses of his enemies among the patriciate. That action, coming at a time when large numbers of ex-soldiers were employed in the cloth industry, many of them as Ciompi (wool carders), provoked an acute political consciousness among the poor. In their clamor for change, the workers were joined by small masters resentful of their exclusion from the wool guild, by skilled artisans, and by petty shopkeepers. Expectation of change and discontent fed upon each other. In the third week of July, new outbreaks of violence, probably fomented by Salvestro, brought spectacular change: the appointment of a ruling committee (Balia) composed of a few patricians, a predominating number of small masters, and 32 representatives of the Ciompi. The leaders of the original movement and their aims were swept aside; for some months Florence was in the hands of a turbid mob, which would not be content without obtaining a full share in the management of politics as a means to economic reform. They wanted industrial equality for all the Guilds, and suggested a sliding scale of taxation as a means to equalize wealth. In their six-week period of rule, the men of the Balia sought to meet the demands of the insurgents.

The outward movement of European peoples in any substantial numbers naturally was tied in with conquest and, to a greater or lesser degree, with the displacement of indigenous populations. In the United States, where by far the largest number of European emigrants went, acquisition of space for development by white immigrants entailed activity on two fronts: competition with rival European nations and disposition of the Indians. During a large part of the 19th century, the United States remained alert to the danger of encirclement by Europeans, but in addition the search for more fertile land, pursuit of the fur trade, and desire for ports to serve commerce in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans nourished the drive to penetrate the American continent. The U.S. government feared the victorious European powers that emerged from the Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) would revive monarchical government. France had already agreed to restore the Spanish monarchy in exchange for Cuba. As the revolutionary Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) ended, Prussia, Austria, and Russia formed the Holy Alliance to defend monarchism. In particular, the Holy Alliance authorized military incursions to re-establish Bourbon rule over Spain and its colonies, which were establishing their independence. Ever since the 17 republics of mainland Latin America emerged from the wreck of the Spanish Empire in the early 19th century, North Americans had viewed them with a mixture of condescension and contempt that focused on their alien culture, racial mix, unstable politics, and moribund economies. The Western Hemisphere seemed a natural sphere of U.S. influence, and this view had been institutionalized in the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 warning European states that any attempt to “extend their system” to the Americas would be viewed as evidence of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States itself. On the one hand, the doctrine seemed to underscore republican familiarity, as suggested by references to “our sister republics,” “our good neighbors,” our “southern brethren.” On the other hand, the United States later used the doctrine to justify paternalism and intervention. This posed a quandary for the Latin Americans, since a United States strong enough to protect them from Europe was also strong enough to pose a threat itself. When Secretary of State James G. Blaine hosted the first Pan-American Conference in 1889, Argentina proposed the Calvo Doctrine asking all parties to renounce special privileges in other states. The United States refused. The American Anti-Imperialist League was an organization established on June 15, 1898, to battle the American annexation of the Philippines as an insular area. The anti-imperialists opposed expansion, believing that imperialism violated the fundamental principle that just republican government must derive from "consent of the governed." The League argued that such activity would necessitate the abandonment of American ideals of self-government and non-intervention—ideals expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence, George Washington's Farewell Address and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. The Anti-Imperialist League was ultimately defeated in the battle of public opinion by a new wave of politicians who successfully advocated the virtues of American territorial expansion in the aftermath of the Spanish–American War and in the first years of the 20th century. Around the year 1900, most of those colonial possessions in North and South America were independent but something dramatic happened in Africa and in much of Asia. Africa had now been carved up by the colonial powers.

The Balia approved the formation of guilds for the wool carders and other workers to give standing to their members, established more-equitable taxation between rich and poor, and declared a moratorium on debt. Yet, angry at the slow pace of change, the poor remained restive. On August 27 a vast crowd assembled and proceeded to the election of the “Eight Saints of God’s People.” Then they marched on the Palazzo Vecchio with a petition that the Eight Saints should have the right to veto or approve all legislation. But by now all the temporary allies of the poor were alienated from the spirit of revolt. The rich resisted, won over “standard-bearer of justice.” with a bribe, called out the guild militias, and drove the protesters from the scene. The revolt was crushed, its principal leaders banished, and the oligarchy became almost as powerful and narrow as before. The lower classes were utterly excluded from the Government; the share of the Minor Arts in the Government offices was fixed at one-quarter, the Parte Guelph nominally restored. Yet the real changes wrought by this "Ciompi" rebellion were very great. The power of the Guilds as political associations was really gone; the Parte Guelph never recovered its authority, and in the fifteenth century it was nothing but a name. The main effect of the revolt was to introduce at the top of society a regime that was narrower and more oligarchic than that which had ruled for the previous 30 years. Following the collapse of the Revolt of the Ciompi, Florence itself had come under the rule of a narrow oligarchic government under the personal domination of Maso degli Albizzi (1382–1417).

By the 17th century there was already a tradition and awareness of Europe: a reality stronger than that of an area bounded by sea, mountains, grassy plains, steppes, or deserts where Europe clearly ended and Asia began—“that geographical expression” which in the 19th century Otto von Bismarck was to see as counting for little against the interests of nations. In the two centuries before the French Revolution and the triumph of nationalism as a divisive force, Europe exhibited a greater degree of unity than appeared on the mosaic of its political surface. With appreciation of the separate interests that Bismarck would identify as “real” went diplomatic, legal, and religious concerns which involved states in common action and contributed to the notion of a single Europe. King Gustav II Adolf of Sweden saw one aspect when he wrote: “All the wars that are afoot in Europe have become as one.” Otto von Bismarck was a conservative German statesman who masterminded the unification of Germany in 1871 and served as its first chancellor until 1890, in which capacity he dominated European affairs for two decades. He had previously been Minister President of Prussia (1862–1890) and Chancellor of the North German Confederation (1867–1871). He provoked three short, decisive wars, against Denmark, Austria, and France. Following the victory against Austria, he abolished the supranational German Confederation and instead formed the North German Confederation as the first German national state, aligning the smaller North German states behind Prussia, and excluding Austria. Receiving the support of the independent South German states in the Confederation's defeat of France, he formed the German Empire – which also excluded Austria – and united Germany. With Prussian dominance accomplished by 1871, Bismarck skillfully used balance of power diplomacy to maintain Germany's position in a peaceful Europe. To historian Eric Hobsbawm, Bismarck "remained undisputed world champion at the game of multilateral diplomatic chess for almost twenty years after 1871, [and] devoted himself exclusively, and successfully, to maintaining peace between the powers". However, his annexation of Alsace- Lorraine (Elsaß-Lothringen) gave new fuel to French nationalism and Germanophobia. Bismarck's diplomacy of Realpolitik and powerful rule at home gained him the nickname the "Iron Chancellor". German unification and its rapid economic growth was the foundation to his foreign policy. He disliked colonialism but reluctantly built an overseas empire when it was demanded by both elite and mass opinion. Juggling a very complex interlocking series of conferences, negotiations and alliances, he used his diplomatic skills to maintain Germany's position.

Once Albizzi oligarchic regime set in Florence, The oligarchy had therefore to find means both to keep the executive entirely within its own control and to perform its functions for it; and so weak was it that the oligarchs, as long as they were united amongst themselves, found little difficulty in managing it. First it was necessary to make sure that no person could obtain any office of importance who was not a member of the ruling party, or could not be thoroughly trusted by it. For many years the oligarchy ruled Florence successfully. During the latter years of the fourteenth century the strength of the Republic was strained to the uttermost in her conflict with Gian Galeazzo Visconti, the powerful and unscrupulous Duke of Milan. The strong executive needed to resist him successfully was found in the oligarchy. After his death the Republic accomplished one of the most brilliant feats in her history, the conquest of Pisa; and during the earlier years of the fifteenth century she was involved in another life and death struggle with Ladislas of Naples. At the death of Ladislas in 1414, the oligarchy was at the summit of its power. "One may rightly say," declares Guicciardini, the most impartial of all authorities, "that it was the wisest, the most glorious, the most happy government that our city has ever had." All foreign enemies were crushed; the territory of the Republic was increased by the addition of Pisa and Cortona; while the possession of Pisa gave Florence a new access to the sea, and filled her with ambitions to succeed to the naval power of the captured city. The oligarchs had so far been held together by the pressure of foreign wars, and the fear of a repetition of the "Ciompi" rebellion, in which so many of their relatives perished. They were becoming an hereditary clique, to which certain families alone were admitted, and a tendency towards the descent of a position in the Government from father to son was beginning to gain ground. Thus, on the deaths of Maso degli Albizzi and of Matteo Castellani their eldest sons, Rinaldo and Francesco, the latter only a child, were knighted with great ceremony by the Commune, as if to take their fathers' places. " The city of Florence," wrote a contemporary, "was at this time in the most happy condition, full of men gifted in every direction, each one trying to surpass the other in merit." Supreme amongst these were half a dozen men whose wealth, wisdom, and political experience enabled them to lead the others. These were Gino Capponi, the “Conqueror of Pisa,” Lorenzo Ridolfi, Agnolo Pandolfini, Palla Strozzi, Matteo Castellani, Niccolo Uzzano all men who took part in the Pratiche, conducted foreign embassies, sat in the Dieci, and frequently held other offices. But the chief of all was Maso degli Albizzi, whose ability and energy had enabled him to gain so commanding a position that it almost seemed as if before long the Rule of the Few might be converted into the Rule, of One.

On the 18th of January 1871, at the Palace of the side, the German leaders declared the creation of the German Empire, with Wilhelm I as emperor. A unified Germany quickly became a great power. Bismarck negotiated an alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and managed to secure some African colonies by calling the Berlin Conference with the other European powers. It experienced a population boom alongside rapid industrialization and urbanization, and also became a global center of science. Advances in ship construction (steamships using steel hulls, twin screws, and compound engines) made feasible the inexpensive movement of bulk raw materials and food over long ocean distances. Under the pressures and opportunities of the later decades of the 19th century, more and more of the world was drawn upon as primary producers for the industrialized nations. Self-contained economic regions dissolved into a world economy. Germany was a latecomer in the Empire Race, which was already well underway when the country was unified in 1871. Germany, like other European powers, wanted the honor and prestige of having a colonial empire. German foreign policy in that period was intensely nationalistic; it changed from Realpolitik to the more aggressive Weltpolitik in an effort to expand the German Empire. When the German Empire came into existence in 1871, none of its constituent states had any overseas colonies. Only after the Berlin Conference in 1884 did Germany begin to acquire new overseas possessions, but it had a much longer relationship with colonialism dating back to the 1520s. Before the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, various German states established chartered companies to set up trading posts; in some instances they also sought direct territorial and administrative control over these. After 1806, attempts at securing possession of territories overseas were abandoned; instead, private trading companies took the lead in the Pacific while joint-stock companies and colonial associations initiated projects elsewhere, although many never progressed beyond the planning stage. It was in Africa that Germany made its first major bid for membership in the club of colonial powers: between May 1884 and February 1885, Germany announced its claims to territory in South West Africa (now Namibia), Togoland, Cameroon, and part of the East African coast opposite Zanzibar. Two smaller nations, Belgium and Italy, also entered the ranks, and even Portugal and Spain once again became active in bidding for African territory. The increasing number of participants in itself sped up the race for conquest. And with the heightened rivalry came more intense concern for preclusive occupation, increased attention to military arguments for additional buffer zones, and, in a period when free trade was giving way to protective tariffs and discriminatory practices in colonies as well as at home, a growing urgency for protected overseas markets. Not only the wish but also the means were at hand for this carving up of the African pie. Repeating rifles, machine guns, and other advances in weaponry gave the small armies of the conquering nations the effective power to defeat the much larger armies of the peoples of Africa. Although there are sharp differences of opinion over the reasons for, and the significance of, the “new imperialism,” there is little dispute that at least two developments in the late 19th and in the beginning of the 20th century signify a new departure; first that notable speedup in colonial acquisitions and an increase in the number of colonial powers. The annexations during this new phase of imperial growth differed significantly from the expansionism earlier in the 19th century. While the latter was substantial in magnitude, it was primarily devoted to the consolidation of claimed territory (by penetration of continental interiors and more effective rule over indigenous populations) and only secondarily to new acquisitions. The new imperialism was distinguished particularly by the emergence of additional nations seeking slices of the colonial pie: Germany, the United States, Belgium, Italy, and, for the first time, an Asian power, Japan. Indeed, this very multiplication of colonial powers, occurring in a relatively short period, accelerated the tempo of colonial growth. Unoccupied space that could potentially be colonized was limited. Therefore, the more nations there were seeking additional colonies at about the same time, the greater was the premium on speed. Thus, the rivalry among the colonizing nations reached new heights, which in turn strengthened the motivation for preclusive occupation of territory and for attempts to control territory useful for the military defense of existing empires against rivals.

Yet when the pressure, of war and the fear of a new "Ciompi" were removed,' the oligarchy began to suffer from that weakness which sooner or later causes the ruin of all oligarchies-internal dissension. The least important of its members were jealous of 'the greater, and all were jealous of Maso degli Albizzi. The party began to split up in small cliques, mainly on family lines, each struggling for the supremacy. Maso Albizzi’s strong hand was removed in 1417, but even before his death there were signs that his supreme authority was not unquestioned. Gino Capponi had headed a party which objected to the last peace signed with Ladislas in 1414; Maso had the greatest difficulty in obtaining its confirmation by the Councils; Gino was even accused of a plot against Maso's life. Rinaldo degli Albizzi, Maso's son, a young man of great talents, who had already served an apprenticeship in most of the Government offices and in numerous foreign embassies, was probably ill contented with Uzzano's supremacy, and there were others of the younger generation who showed signs of resenting the authority of the older and wiser heads. Yet for years it is impossible to find any organized opposition within the ranks of the ruling party, only there was general discontent, and constant complaints of the want of union in the Government, and of the way in which public affairs were conducted by private cabals. Even the Pratiche were becoming shams, when Uzzano and his personal friends had decided before the Pratica met what policy they meant to adopt; and, after the uninitiated had been allowed to amuse themselves by airing their several opinions, Uzzano, who had apparently been asleep throughout the discussion, woke, stood up and explained his views, to which his followers immediately expressed their adhesion. The disunion of the Government was the cause of the gradual, but steady, revival of those parties which had been crushed by the oligarchy after the suppression of the “Ciompi” rebellion. Chief amongst them were the members of the Minor Arts, who were excluded from all but a small share in the government; and also a great number of those members of the Major Arts who, though theoretically capable of office, were unable to pass the Scrutinies. Others again had passed the Scrutinies and could hold office, but yet were without influence in the Government, because they did not chance to" belong to one of the families of which the ruling party was composed. The last quarter of a century had seen a great increase in the wealth of these excluded classes; they were already as rich as, or richer than, the members of the oligarchy, and naturally wished their political position to correspond with the" social standing given them by their wealth. They were by degrees reinforced by all the elements of discontent within the city. There were the Grandi, heavily taxed, and almost unrepresented in the Government; and there were the lower classes, who also thought themselves unfairly taxed, and whose interests the Government never seemed inclined to take into the smallest account in deciding any question of policy. Maso degli Albizzi had had the wisdom to conciliate this class by a popular economic policy, and personally he was much liked, but his successors did not continue in his steps. Yet it was long before these various elements could coalesce. At present there was only a good deal of discontent, slowly and steadily spreading; but there was nothing like a united party, nor there any common leader.

Wilhelm I died in 1888. He was replaced by Friedrich III, who died 99 days later. And he was followed by Wilhelm II. Wilhelm wanted to assert his own independence, and so encouraged Bismarck to resign in 1890. Imperial German had plans for the invasion of the United States which were ordered by Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm II from 1897 to 1903. He intended not to conquer the US but only to reduce the country's influence. His planned invasion was supposed to force the US to bargain from a weak position and to sever its growing economic and political connections in the Pacific Ocean, the Caribbean and South America so that German influence could increase there. Junior officers made various plans, but none were seriously considered and the project was dropped in 1906. Unlike his predecessors, Wilhelm II was very hot-headed and prone to immediate reaction. He was also determined to increase the prestige of Germany. He did this by undertaking a major naval build-up in the early 20th century. This upset Britain. Britain had previously kept itself out of European affairs, but the large German navy posed a threat to its naval hegemony and could even threaten the British mainland. So in 1914, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist, and the established series of alliances and counter-alliances plunged Europe into World War One. Some historians prefer to divide 19th-century history into relatively small chunks. Thus, 1789–1815 is defined by the French Revolution and Napoleon; 1815–48 forms a period of reaction and adjustment; 1848–71 is dominated by a new round of revolution and the unifications of the German and Italian nations; and 1871– 1914, an age of imperialism, is shaped by new kinds of political debate and the pressures that culminated in war. The new imperialism was characterized by a burst of activity in carving up as yet independent areas: taking over almost all Africa, a good part of Asia, and many Pacific islands. This new vigor in the pursuit of colonies is reflected in the fact that the rate of new territorial acquisitions of the new imperialism was almost three times that of the earlier period. By the beginning of that World War one, the new territory claimed was for the most part fully conquered, and the main military resistance of the indigenous populations had been suppressed. Hence, in 1914, as a consequence of this new expansion and conquest on top of that of preceding centuries, the colonial powers, their colonies, and their former colonies extended over approximately 85 percent of the Earth’s surface. Economic and political control by leading powers reached almost the entire globe, for, in addition to colonial rule, other means of domination were exercised in the form of spheres of influence, special commercial treaties, and the subordination that lenders often impose on debtor nations.

 

Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, and within a decade popularizers had applied—or misapplied—his theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest to contemporary politics and economics. This pseudoscientific social Darwinism appealed to educated Europeans already demoralized by a century of higher criticism of religious scripture and conscious of the competitiveness of their own daily lives in that age of freewheeling industrial capitalism. By the 1870s books appeared explaining the outcome of the Franco-German War, for instance, with reference to the “vitality” of the Germanic peoples by comparison to the “exhausted” Latins. Pan-Slavic literature extolled the youthful vigour of that race, of whom Russia was seen as the natural leader. A belief in the natural affinity and superiority of Nordic peoples sustained Joseph Chamberlain’s conviction that an Anglo-American–German alliance should govern the world in the 20^th century. Vulgar anthropology explained the relative merits of human races on the basis of physiognomy and brain size, a “scientific” approach to world politics occasioned by the increasing contact of Europeans with Asians and Africans. Racialist rhetoric became common currency, as when the kaiser referred to Asia’s growing population as “the yellow peril” and spoke of the next war as a “death struggle between the Teutons and Slavs.” Poets and philosophers idealized combat as the process by which nature weeds out the weak and improves the human race.

By 1914, therefore, the political and moral restraints on war that had arisen after 1789–1815 were significantly weakened. The old conservative notion that established governments had a heavy stake in peace lest revolution engulf them, and the old liberal notion that national unity, democracy, and free trade would spread harmony, were all but dead. The historian cannot judge how much social Darwinism influenced specific policy decisions, but a mood of fatalism and bellicosity surely eroded the collective will to peace.

The man to whom the popular party seems later to have turned for a head was Giovanni de' Medici, whose enormous wealth gave him both social and financial predominance in a commercial city like Florence. Giovanni was connected with that Salvestro de' Medici who was leader of the Moderates in 1378. Salvestro's branch of the family had been proscribed at that time, and members of it had been implicated in various later abortive revolts against the oligarchy. Giovanni, who belonged to a branch of the family which had not fallen under the proscription, was equally cautious, and succeeded so well in avoiding all suspicion of disaffection that he obtained to the full the position to which his wealth and influence seemed to entitle him; he was admitted into the most intimate Pratiche of the Government, and held the most important offices, as Ambassador, on the Dieci, and as Gonfalonier. It was not until 1420, when the oligarchy was seriously divided within itself, that we find the least indication of any connection between him and what might be called the popular party, and then he acted together with Agnolo Pandolfini, one of the chief members of the oligarchy, as exponents of a popular" Peace Policy." Just afterwards he was Gonfalonier, but his period of office was not distinguished by any notable events. It is impossible to accuse him of having at this date any designs for supplanting the oligarchy, yet he was possibly already forming the nucleus of a personal following by means of the advantages which his wealth could confer. Salvestro was drawn as Gonfaloniere in the summer of 1378 and pursued an anti-Guelph policy, reviving laws which placed restrictions on the nobility, reducing the power of the Capitani di Parte and recalling the ammoniti (those who had been admonished). These laws encountered much opposition from the nobles, which led to their being threatened and in some cases their homes burnt in the beginning of the insurrection of the Ciompi, textile workers not represented by a guild. On 21 July 1378, Salvestro, along with 63 other citizens, were created knights and soon afterwards, he was given the revenue of shops on the Old Bridge by the newly appointed Gonfaloniere of Justice, the wool comber Michele di Lando, a privilege later removed from Salvestro by the Ciompi themselves, suspicious of di Lando's perceived favor for citizens of the middle classes. Salvestro was later crucial to the counter-revolution of the major and minor guilds and ruled in effect as a dictator before his exile in 1382, at which time the Guelph faction regained power and renewed the admonitions. Salvestro was a second cousin twice removed of Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici, founder of the Medici dynasty. By the time Giovanni died of natural causes in 1429, the 69 year old Giovanni had succeeded in redeeming the image of the Medici, and created a solid base from which the fortune of the Medici dynasty would grow. He is buried in the Church of San Lorenzo in Florence.

“Giovanni loved everyone, praised the good, and had compassion for the wicked.  He never asked for honors yet had them all.  He never went into the palace unless he was called.  He loved peace, he avoided war.  He supported men in their adversity and aided their prosperity.  He was averse to public plunder and an improver of the public good.  Gracious in his magistracies, he had not much eloquence but very great prudence.  In appearance he was melancholy, but then in his conversation he was pleasing and witty.  He died very rich in treasure but even richer in good reputation and good will.” - Niccolo Machiavelli, Florentine Histories.

 

Germany was to test the Monroe Doctrine in the summer of 1914, when its warships threatened to seize the Haitian customhouses at Port-au-Prince, Jacmel and Cape Haitian. Initially, Germany’s aspirations in Latin America and the Caribbean represented a real challenge to the Monroe Doctrine. Germany’s navy, its colonial societies and industrious merchants were indeed the engine of the Reich’s Weltpolitik. A booming economy coupled with a dynamic German migration to Latin America and the Caribbean had dueled hope, among some in the Wilhelmstrasse, of building a true empire on the other side of the Atlantic. However, at the turn of the century, there was a gap between dream and reality. The dream was that German migrants would remain German and uphold German values, and would increasingly replace what they perceived as the “inferior” races, in a manner similar to that of the Anglo-Saxon in North America. The reality was that German immigrants assimilated into their new environment and mixed with the local population. Another reality not anticipated by the Berlin colonial elite was the decrease of migration due to local laws on both sides of the Atlantic. While gunboat diplomacy inflicted humiliation and pain to countries such as Venezuela and Haiti, it left the Monroe Doctrine almost unchallenged. Germany's overseas empire was dismantled following defeat in World War I. The Versailles treaty, signed on June 28, 1919, met most of these demands. It also stripped Germany of its colonies and imposed severe restrictions on the rebuilding of its army and fleet. In these ways, the peace settlement could be seen as punishing the defeated enemy, as well as reducing its status and strength. With the concluding Treaty of Versailles, Article 22, German colonies were transformed into League of Nations mandates and divided between Belgium, the United Kingdom, and certain British Dominions, France and Japan with the determination not to see any of them returned to Germany — a guarantee secured by Article 119. The peace conference that met in Paris from January 1919 to January 1920 and which produced, among other things, the Treaty of Versailles was both vengeful and idealistic. Not unnaturally, this caused resentment among the Germans and helped to stimulate the quest for revenge. President Wilson saw the League of Nations as "'residuary trustee' for the German colonies" captured and occupied by "rapacious conquerors". The victors retained the German overseas possessions and did so with the belief that Australian, Belgian, British, French, Japanese, New Zealand, Portuguese and South African rule was superior to Germany's. Several decades later during the collapse of the then existing colonial empires, Africans and Asians cited the same arguments that had been used by the Allies against German colonial rule — they now simply demanded "to stand by themselves". American power began to figure in the balance of war almost from the start. By 1917 the United States was no longer a debtor nation but the world’s greatest creditor. U.S. firms also inherited many overseas markets, especially in Latin America, which the British and Germans could no longer serve. To Americans neutrality seemed both moral and lucrative—the United States, said Wilson, was “too proud to fight.” But the failure of his peace initiatives, the German assaults on neutrals’ rights at sea, and the cumulative effect of Allied propaganda and German provocations conjoined to end U.S. neutrality by 1917. The bells, flags, crowds, and tears of Armistice Day 1918 testified to the relief of exhausted Europeans that the killing had stopped and underscored their hopes that a just and lasting peace might repair the damage, right the wrongs, and revive prosperity in a broken world. Woodrow Wilson’s call for a new and democratic diplomacy, backed by the suddenly commanding prestige and power of the United States, suggested that the dream of a New Jerusalem in world politics was not merely Armistice euphoria. A century before, Europe’s aristocratic rulers had convened in the capital of dynasties, Vienna, to fashion a peace repudiating the nationalist and democratic principles of the French Revolution. Now, democratic statesmen would convene in the capital of liberty, Paris, to remake a Europe that had overthrown monarchical imperialism once and for all in this “war to end war.”

 

According to the armistice agreement the peace was to be based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points. But the French and British had already expressed reservations about them, and, in many cases, the vague Wilsonian principles lent themselves to varying interpretations when applied to complex realities. Nevertheless, Wilson anticipated the peace conference with high hopes that his principles would prevail, either because of their popularity with common people everywhere, or because U.S. financial leverage would oblige European statesmen to follow his lead. “Tell me what is right,” he instructed his delegation on the George Washington en route to Paris, “and I will fight for it.” Unique among the victor powers, the United States would not ask any territorial gains or reparations and would thereby be free to stand proudly as the conference’s conscience and honest broker.

 

In one of the most ambitious rhetorical efforts in modern history, President Wilson attempted to rally the people of the world in a movement for a peace settlement that would remove the causes of future wars and establish machinery to maintain peace. In an address to the Senate on January 22, 1917, he called for a “peace without victory” to be enforced by a league of nations that the United States would join and strongly support. He reiterated this program in his war message, adding that the United States wanted above all else to “make the world safe for democracy.” And when he failed to persuade the British and French leaders to join him in issuing a common statement of war aims, he went to Congress on January 8, 1918, to make, in his Fourteen Points address, his definitive avowal to the American people and the world. In his general points Wilson demanded an end to the old diplomacy that had led to wars in the past. He proposed open diplomacy instead of entangling alliances, and he called for freedom of the seas, an impartial settlement of colonial claims, general disarmament, removal of artificial trade barriers, and, most important, a league of nations to promote peace and protect the territorial integrity and independence of its members. A breathtaking pronouncement, the Fourteen Points gave new hope to millions of liberals and moderate socialists who were fighting for a new international order based upon peace and justice.

Wilsonianism, as it came to be called, derived from the liberal internationalism that had captured large segments of the Anglo-American intellectual elite before and during the war. It interpreted war as essentially an atavism associated with authoritarian monarchy, aristocracy, imperialism, and economic nationalism. Such governments still practiced an old diplomacy of secret alliances, militarism, and balance of power politics that bred distrust, suspicion, and conflict. The antidotes were democratic control of diplomacy, self-determination for all nations, open negotiations, disarmament, free trade, and especially a system of international law and collective security to replace raw power as the arbiter of disputes among states. This last idea, developed by the American League to Enforce Peace (founded in 1915), found expression in the Fourteen Points as “a general association of nations” and was to be the cornerstone of Wilson’s edifice. He expected a functioning League of Nations to correct whatever errors and injustices might creep in to the treaties themselves.

Prophecies: By Niccolo Uzzano and French general Ferdinand Foch

Back in Florence after the end of Maso Albizzi’s regime the members of the oligarchy, instead of trying to strengthen their own hands or to disarm their enemies by prudent concessions, acted in the most shortsighted manner. In order to obtain a private following for the prosecution of their private feuds, they made individual allies amongst the discontented classes, many of whom had wealth and social importance. Their support was secured by getting their names passed through the Scrutinies and inserted in the Borse for the various Government offices, so that by this means the number of persons who obtained a share in the official government was rapidly increasing. Their private ambitions blinded the oligarchs to this widening of the ranks of the Government, and the consequent diminution of their own power as a party. Only Niccolo Uzzano seems to have understood what was going on, and discerned the probable results. In some verses addressed to the members of his party, he urged them to cease their private contests, and unite to withstand the upstarts who were pressing into the Government.' "If you do not," he wrote, "soon you will be driven from the Halls of the Palace, and the privilege of using its staircase will be taken from you" (the Palace of the Signoria, in which were the Government offices and council chambers, and whose stairs would chiefly be used by members of the Government). "These new people," he complained, "are already so powerful ill the Court of the Palace and in the votes which they can command that little less than all the government is theirs. Before two more vintages have come and gone they will have seized all the authority." Uzzano's prophecy was a little premature, but it was none the less correct. The remedy which he suggested shows that he at least understood one of the true sources of weakness in the present Government, the failure of its power to control the official executive. So long as the oligarchs had been united amongst themselves this had not been difficult, but directly disunion weakened their solidarity, and they allowed persons who were not really in sympathy with them to penetrate into the offices, the uncertainty of their control became manifest, refusing a peace with Ladislas of Naples.

That which Uzzano chiefly blamed was the extension of the limits of the Scrutiny, and the consequent admission of independent elements into the offices. To remedy this he proposed to have recourse to what was looked upon as an extraordinary measure in Florentine politics, only to be resorted to on critical occasions, the holding of a Parliament. In its origin the Parliament was based on the same idea as the modern Plebiscite, the reference of a matter of supreme importance to an assembly of the whole community. At the ringing of the great bell of the Palace, all the citizens were supposed to gather in the principal square where the Palace stood. The Signoria came out upon the "Ringhiera," or balcony, of the Palace, and made proposals to the assembled multitude, upon which they gave their opinion by acclamation. But the ceremony had long since passed into a mere form for carrying through a considerable change in the Government. On the pretense of maintaining order, the square was carefully guarded by armed men under the command of the party in power; only a few people, and these not necessarily qualified citizens, ventured to appear, probably expecting to get a pourboire for their complaisance. When the Chancellor of the Signoria inquired if at least two-thirds of the citizens were present, they shouted cheerfully “Yes! Yes!” and to every proposal of the Signoria read out by him afterwards the answer was the same. The proposal usually made was for the appointment of a Balia, that is to say, a large Committee of two or three hundred persons known to be favorable to the Government, and to them was given almost absolute power to “reform” the city as they pleased, and principally to make new Scrutinies. Such an instrument as the power to hold a Parliament would, of course, have enabled the Signoria who dared have recourse to it to carry through any change in the Government that they pleased; but no Signoria would dare to call a Parliament, unless they were certain of the support and armed support of a very powerful party in the city. No doubt, if Uzzano's advice had been taken at the time, and a Parliament held by the oligarchy, they would have been able to create a Balia, which should make new Scrutinies, excluding from office all those whose fidelity to the Government was doubtful;  but the oligarchs themselves were too busy with their private feuds and ambitions to be able to agree on a measure of such importance; the very fact that Uzzano advised a Parliament would have been enough to make a large section of the party most unwilling to consent to it.

Yet, so long as the peace and prosperity continued which Florence had enjoyed since 1414, the weight of taxation did not press heavily upon the people, and there were no dangerous contests; but about 1420 there arose a new question of foreign policy, which divided all Florence into two opposing camps, the Peace party and the War party. The War party contained most of the older and wiser politicians, like Gino Capponi, who were anxious, by a bold and decisive policy, to hold in check the ever growing and threatening power of Filippo Maria Visconti, the young Duke of Milan. The Peace party was, however, the most popular. The people disliked war and an adventurous foreign policy. They were “little Florentiners”; they did not care about opening up distant markets, as did the greater merchants; they were absolutely indifferent to the intangible advantages of honor and glory; all that they wanted was peace, prosperity at home, and low taxation. And we find the names of Giovanni de' Medici and Agnolo Pandolfini put forward as exponents of their views. Giovanni di Bicci de Medici got involved in Florentine politics late in life. Though he never had a major political role, his money and connections did give him enormous power. Politically he opposed the more ‘conservative’ Albizzi family, and contributed to a more just and proportional system of taxation.

In 1914, a political assassination in Sarajevo set off a chain of events that led to the outbreak of World War I. In August 1914 President Woodrow Wilson implored the American people to be “neutral in thought as well as deed” with respect to the European war. In so doing he was not only honoring tradition but also applying his own religious principles to foreign policy. His agenda upon entering the White House in 1913 had been domestic reform, and he had written that it would be an irony of fate should foreign policy come to dominate in his administration. Yet when fate so decreed, Wilson preferred to trust his own motives and methods rather than the advice of his secretaries of state or his other advisers. Wilson deplored the war and earnestly wished to bring about a just and lasting peace through U.S. mediation, for what greater mission could Providence assign to that “city on a hill,” the United States of America? As more and more young men were sent down into the trenches, influential voices in the United States and Britain began calling for the establishment of a permanent international body to maintain peace in the postwar world. President Woodrow Wilson became a vocal advocate of this concept, and in 1918 he included a sketch of the international body in his 14-point proposal to end the war. Two months later, the Allies met with Germany and Austria-Hungary at Versailles to hammer out formal peace terms. Wilson wanted peace, but the United Kingdom and France disagreed, forcing harsh war reparations on their former enemies.

The draft treaty caused acute consternation in Germany (though it left Germany intact and was mild compared to Germany’s terms to Russia at Brest-Litovsk), and the German delegation argued without success for substantial revisions. The Germans could not reject the treaty, however, without inviting a continuation of the Allied blockade, revolutionary outbreaks, an Allied military advance, or French intrigues against German unity. The Weimar coalition of Democrats, Social Democrats, and the Catholic Centre party ratified the treaty on July 9. German nationalists, however, denounced acceptance of the treaty as treason and immediately began propounding the myth that the German army had been “stabbed in the back” by Socialists and defeatists, the “November criminals” who signed the Armistice, and the liberal parties who signed the Versailles Diktat. The war-guilt clause was particularly damaging, since any historical evidence suggesting that Germany did not bear sole guilt for the war would tend to undermine the treaty’s legitimacy. Allied delegates and populations were scarcely happier with the treaty than the Germans. British diplomat Harold Nicolson echoed the views of disillusioned Wilsonians when he left the signing ceremony in disgust, “and thence to bed, sick of life.” Economist John Maynard Keynes quit the peace conference in protest and returned to Britain to write a scathing critique of Wilson and the treaty, whose economic clauses, he said, stymied European recovery. Nor were the French satisfied.

Post World War I, every governments found it easier to try to shift the burden of reconstruction on to foreign powers, through reparations, loans, or inflation, than to impose taxes and austerity on quarreling social groups at home. It soon became clear that the effects of the war would continue to politicize economic relations within and between countries; that the needs of internal stability conflicted with the needs of international stability; that old dreams clashed with new realities, and new dreams with old realities. League of Nations after World War one with the idea of an order to make World War one the war that ends all wars and was focused on the issue of peace and post-war order. But mostly was an effort by individual nation states to create the sort of international governance in an increasingly integrated system to fulfill their own interests.

The French were skeptical of the idealistic basis of the League but hoped that it might be turned into an instrument of security committing the British and Americans to the defense of the new European order. In this they were disillusioned, for the British viewed the League less as a means for mobilizing force against an aggressor than as a means of preventing future conflicts in the first place. The Covenant of the proposed League provided for a plenary assembly of all members and a council of the Great Powers and outlined a system of sanctions against aggressor states. But the British chose to focus on moral sanctions (not unlike Wilson’s belief in the “court of world opinion”), or at most economic sanctions, and participation in military sanctions was made voluntary. The Covenant also contained machinery for declaring boundary changes, implying that the League’s primary function was to secure peace, not to secure the status quo. Upon final rejection in April of a Franco-Italian plan for tougher collective security and an international force adequate to enforce peace, French newspapers scorned the League as a toothless debating society. And since Clemenceau had succeeded in having Germany barred from the League pending good behavior, the German press denounced it as a “League of Victors.” In mid-February Wilson returned to the United States to attend to presidential duties, and in his absence committees went to work on the details of the German treaty. Foremost in the minds of the French was security against future German attack. As early as November 1918 Marshal Ferdinand Foch drafted a memo identifying the Rhine as “the frontier of democracy” and arguing for the separation of the Rhineland from Germany and its occupation in perpetuity by Allied troops. This plan echoed earlier French war aims: The victory of 1871 had created a unified Germany; the defeat of 1918 should undo it. Foch’s occupation forces tried also to locate and encourage the Rhenish autonomist tendencies that grew up for a brief time in 1919 out of the desire to escape the burden of defeat and fear of the Communist agitation in Berlin. But the primary French argument was strategic: Four times in a century German armies had invaded France from the Rhineland (1814, 1815, 1870, 1914), and a united Germany would remain potentially overwhelming. As General Fayolle put it, “One speaks of the League, but what can this hypothetical society do without a means of action? One promises alliances, but alliances are fragile, like all human things. There will always come a time when Germany will have a free hand. Take all the alliances you want, but the greatest need for France and Belgium is a material barrier.”

Even before world war one various peace movements sprang up to counter the spirit of militarism before 1914. A liberal peace movement with a middle-class constituency flourished around the turn of the century. As many as 425 peace organizations are estimated to have existed in 1900, fully half of them in Scandinavia and most others in Germany, Britain, and the United States. Their greatest achievements were The Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907, at which the powers agreed to ban certain inhumane weapons but made no progress toward general disarmament. In April 1919, after Wilson returned to Paris, he and Lloyd George countered with an unprecedented offer: an Anglo-American guarantee to fight on the side of France in case of future German aggression. The French were again skeptical. In a future war the United States and Britain would need months or years to raise and transport armies, by which time France might be lost. On the other hand, how could Clemenceau refuse an unlimited extension of the wartime coalition? On 17^th March 1919 he proposed a mixed solution the guarantee treaties, plus material safeguards including German disarmament, demilitarization, and Allied occupation of the Rhine. This acrimonious debate over security overlapped with the negotiations over reparations.

 

Due to War with Milan in 1428, the city was impoverished; the governing party had become unpopular and seriously divided within itself. The blame for every failure was, of course, thrown upon those who had counseled the rupture of peace, and those members of the governing party who had from the first declared against the war had now formed themselves into a regular opposition. War taxation had begun to press very heavily upon the poor, used to many years of “Peace Budgets”. The money voted could not be collected: “The powerful refuse to pay and the others follow their example.” Rinaldo degli Albizzi himself admitted that "the people are in great affliction." The general distress was increased by a series of commercial failures consequent upon the war. A heavy tax, called the Ventina, because its assessment was in the hands of twenty (venti) citizens, was levied in 1426 in a most arbitrary fashion. It met with disfavor from rich and poor alike. It had already become obvious to the more enlightened members of the Government that a change in the distribution of taxation was absolutely necessary if they were to hold the reins of power any longer. The ancient methods had indeed long ago been out of date; they were originally made to suit a land-owning community, and there was no sufficient provision for the taxation of mercantile gains, which were in Florence the chief source of wealth. By the old system of taxation, called the Estimo, officials appointed by the Government for the purpose made an arbitrary assessment of the supposed income of the tax-payers; and while the proprietors of land were highly rated, the possessors of movable goods, securities, and ready-money came off easily. There was also a poll-tax which fell heavily upon the poor; and while the Grandi, the principal landowners and such rich persons as were disliked by the Government, and were consequently rated highly by the assessors, shared the weight of the burden, the majority of wealthy 'merchants, of whom the governing party was composed, were lightly taxed. Sometimes impositions of the Estimo were reckoned as loans, and received interest at the "Monte Comune"; but· these loans were forced, and the interest not very regularly paid. Arrears in the payment of taxes were punished by exclusion from office, and sometimes by severer penalties. Some fixed rate of taxation, and one that would touch the real sources of wealth, was required; but it was not likely that the governing class, who benefited by the old system, would consent to such a reformation, unless forced to it by a dire sense of its necessity. Yet, since the beginning of 1425, Rinaldo degli Albizzi himself and a few others of his party, convinced that the present system must lead to their ultimate min, probably to another great revolution,-had been urging in the Government councils the adoption of a system known as the Catasto. “It is impossible”, Rinaldo exclaimed, “for the citizens to bear these great burdens unless their distribution is equal; which it is not, since some pay fifty soldi in the pound, some only ten.” Rinaldo believed that equality of taxation would put an end to the civil discords, by putting an end to so fruitful a cause of quarrel. The disturbances which followed the imposition of the “Ventina” brought up the question again. The attempts of the tax-gatherers to collect the money were in some cases met by forcible resistance; riots ensued, and civil war threatened. In the summer of 1426 Rinaldo was again pressing the introduction of the Catasto. For some months after this he was absent from Florence on foreign embassies; the subject was not forgotten during his absence, but after his return it was put forward more forcibly than before; Niccolo Uzzano had been converted to support it, though not very enthusiastically.

 

Later in April 1919 France leadership along with others was facing even more emotional issue, since the financial settlement would affect every taxpayer in every country. The moral issues also seemed clearer: Surely Germany, and not her victims, should pay for reconstruction; surely the wealthy British and Americans should forgive France’s war debt, a small sacrifice beside those made by France in the joint effort. The French government had borrowed 26,000,000,000 francs from its own people during the war and owed another $3,600,000,000 to Britain and the United States. The franc had lost 70 percent of its value. Yet French hopes for Allied economic unity were dashed when the U.S. Treasury refused to discuss abrogation of war debts, rejected French and Italian proposals for a “financial League of Nations,” and opposed economic favoritism of all kinds in accord with the Fourteen Points. The British, in turn, repudiated the resolutions of the 1916 Allied Economic Conference and refused to forgive France her debt so long as the United States insisted on repayment from London. “If it is France or Germany that must be ruined,” wrote a conservative French journal about the reparations debate, “let us be sure that it is Germany!” The French chamber refused to vote a tax on capital and relied on German payments to cover the cost of repairing the devastated regions. Wilson accepted German responsibility for war damage, but the British vastly inflated reparations by insisting on repayment for “invisible damage” like sunken ships and cargo, lost markets and production, and veteran’s pensions. On the other hand, the British favored setting a fixed indemnity in the treaty, while the French claimed that Germany should agree to pay whatever reparation ended up costing. When negotiations failed to fix either a total sum or the percentage shares to flow to France, Britain, Belgium, and the others, the U.S. delegation recommended on March 24 that the whole problem be postponed. On April 5 it was agreed that a Reparations Commission would determine, by May 1, 1921, the amount and timing of German payments and be empowered to declare defaults and sanctions in case of noncompliance. But in the meantime Germany would make immediate transfers totaling 20,000,000,000 gold marks. Thus the peace conference obliged the Germans to sign an open account and adjourned without plans to stabilize currencies or settle war debts. In economic matters the French delegation labored to improve the imbalance in heavy industry between Germany and France. At first Clemenceau fought hard for annexation of the Saar—the French “frontier of 1814”—and then settled for French control of the Saar coal mines and a League of Nations administration for 15 years, at which time the Saarlanders would hold a plebiscite to decide their permanent status. Germany was also obliged to deliver 20,000,000 tons of coal per year to France and Belgium and to allow the products of Alsace-Lorraine into Germany duty-free for five years. Clemenceau, under attack from President Poincaré, Marshal Foch, and the parliament for “giving up the Rhine,” dared not compromise further. Ferdinand Foch was a French general and military theorist who served as the Supreme Allied Commander during the First World War. On 11 November 1918, Foch accepted the German request for an armistice. Foch advocated peace terms that would make Germany unable to pose a threat to France ever again. He considered the Treaty of Versailles too lenient on Germany and as the Treaty was being signed on 28 June 1919, he declared: “This is not peace, but a truce for twenty years.” His words proved prophetic: the Second World War started twenty years later. Poincaré predicted willful German default and Allied disputes over execution. Clemenceau had to exploit all his prestige to win parliamentary ratification, and still he lost the presidential election that followed.

 

Back in Florence, The force of public opinion had now become too strong for the waverers. In May 1427, the scheme of the Catasto was drawn up, and a committee appointed to put it into force. The tax fell only upon what was considered the superabundance, and the income of the majority did not reach the taxable sum. Of these persons, those who had a certain amount of property had to pay a small tax, fixed by composition with the Committee; while all those who paid the Catasto and those who did not, had to pay a small graduated poll tax of from two to six soldi. The Registers were to remain in force for three years, and then be revised to suit the shifting’s of property which would have taken place in that period. This was accordingly done in 1431. The immediate result of the Catasto was largely to increase the contributions paid by members of the Government. For example, instead of making small nominal payments, Palla Strozzi, Giovanni de' Medici, and Niccolo Uzzano were now rated severally at 500, 300, and 200 florins. But with the poorer classes, who benefited considerably, the reform was popular; we hear that “it pleased the people greatly.” Yet it was not the Government or Rinaldo who won the credit for what had been done. It was believed to be only a measure of conciliation to which they had been forced, by the pressing necessity to give way on this point, or to surrender their power altogether. So far the popular opinion was on the whole correct, but it was quite incorrect in ascribing the real credit of the measure to a person who deserved no credit for it whatever, who had, in fact, been rather unfavorable to it than otherwise, to Giovanni de' Medici. According to the records of the meetings of the Pratiche, Giovanni took very little part in urging the Catasto. Once, when the subject first came forward, he spoke in general terms, recommending an equality of taxation; but when the Catasto was being discussed in detail he spoke only with hesitation. But later the Catasto did not bring peace: the root of civil discord lay still deeper down. There are certainly signs that Rinaldo had at this time formed a political alliance with the Medici in opposition to Uzzano and the older members of the Government.

 

As for Wilson, the treaty he had personally helped to fashion, and the global obligations it imposed on the United States, proved unpopular with various factions in American politics, including nationalists, isolationists, “Monroe Doctrine” regionalists, xenophobes, and tariff protectionists. The immediate postwar years also gave rise to the “red scare,” the first legislation limiting immigration to the United States on an ethnic basis, and the belief that Wilson had been duped by the clever Europeans so that the war redounded only to the benefit of Anglo-French imperialism. But it is not true that the United States retreated at once into isolationism. The debate over Versailles was essentially a debate over the terms on which the United States would continue to play a role in world affairs. Most important was fear that Article 10 of the League Covenant might embroil the United States in foreign quarrels and even violate the Constitution. The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, led by Henry Cabot Lodge, eventually proposed ratification of the Treaty of Versailles subject to 14 reservations, but Wilson insisted on an all-or-nothing strategy and embarked on a hectic national tour to mobilize public support. In October 1919 he suffered a debilitating stroke, and on November 19 the Senate voted down the treaty. Further compromise led to a final vote on March 19, 1920, but Wilson instructed his own loyalists to reject any reservations. The 49–35 vote fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority. By failing to ratify the Treaty of Versailles, the United States also rejected the League of Nations (which its own president had forced on the Europeans), the security guarantee by which Clemenceau had been persuaded to give up the Rhineland, and U.S. commitment to the economic and political reconstruction of Europe. All this gave those who clung to the belief that the French cause had been betrayed the opportunity to deal even more harshly with Germany.

 

Removal of the Inter-allied Military Control Commission from Germany in January 1927 prompted London and Washington to ask why the French (despite their pleas of penury when war debts were discussed) still maintained the largest army in Europe. France clung firm to its belief in military deterrence of Germany, even when isolated in the League of Nations Disarmament Preparatory Commission, but the German demand for equality of treatment under the League Charter impressed the Anglo-Americans. To avert U.S. suspicions, Briand enlisted Secretary Kellogg’s participation in promoting a treaty by which all nations might “renounce the resort to war as an instrument of national policy.” This Kellogg–Briand Pact, signed on Aug. 27, 1928, and eventually subscribed to by virtually the entire world, marked the high point of postwar faith in paper treaties and irenic promises. On July 3, 1928, Chancellor Hermann Müller (a Social Democrat) and Stresemann decided to force the pace of Versailles revisionism by claiming Germany’s moral right to early evacuation of the Rhineland. In return they offered a definitive reparations settlement to replace the temporary Dawes Plan. The French were obliged

to consider the offer because the French chamber had refused to ratify the 1926 agreement with the United States on war debts on the ground that it did not yet know what could be expected of Germany in reparations. So another committee of experts under another American, Owen D. Young, drafted a plan that was approved at the Hague Conference of August 1929. The Young Plan projected German annuities lasting until 1989. In return, the Allies abolished the Reparations Commission, restored German financial independence, and promised evacuation of the Rhineland by 1930, five years ahead of the Versailles schedule.

Cosimo de’ Medici: USA after World War I 

The Versailles treaty, signed on June 28, 1919, met most of these demands. It stripped Germany of its colonies and imposed severe restrictions on the rebuilding of its army and fleet. In these ways, the peace settlement could be seen as punishing the defeated enemy, as well as reducing its status and strength. Not unnaturally, this caused resentment among the Germans and helped to stimulate the quest for revenge. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George to resolve the major economic and political issues facing Europe and to deal with the pariah states of Germany and Russia planned an economic conference in Genoa.

The Genoa Conference held in Genoa, Italy was the largest of the many post-World War I intergovernmental conclaves and the first to which Germany and Russia were invited as both countries had been excluded from the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. When I was in Genoa for my studies, I used to walk around the city center usually after dinner and during weekends. And often passed by this Palazzo di San Giorgio, one of the oldest palaces in the city where Genoa Conference took place at 3 pm on 10 April 1922. Here is the photo of San Giorgio Palace which is also the first photo I took in Genoa during my first weekend in Genoa on 6th November 2016, Sunday.

On its agenda was not only a peace settlement between the Allies and Soviet Russia but to formulate an international provision of European economic reconstruction and political stability. It was the first Soviet openings to the Great Powers, the most serious attempt made by Lenin and Chicherin to implement the policy of "peaceful coexistence" and partial economic integration. However, it was inherently problematic for many reasons. Primary among them was the Western powers insisted on an end to Communist propaganda and recognition of the tsarist debts as prerequisites to trade. Soviet Politician Chicherin countered with a fanciful claim for reparations stemming from the Allied interventions, at the same time denying that Moscow bore any responsibility for the doings of the Comintern. As Theodore von Laue has written, “To ask the Soviet regime in its weakness to refrain from making use of its revolutionary tools was as futile as to ask the British Empire to scrap its fleet.” British Prime Minister Lloyd George managed to square this circle for several years and attempted, at Genoa in 1922, to negotiate a bid for massive foreign investment in the Soviet Union through a British-French-German consortium, the profits from which could pay off German debt to London and Paris, and later debt to the Americans. Soviet, however, derailed the conference by signing a separate deal of mutual recognition and cooperation with Germany in Rapallo, presenting Britain and France with the threat of a German-Soviet alliance combining German expertise with the vast raw materials of the former Russian Empire. German-Russian knot tied in the Treaty of Rapallo, with which the U.S.S.R. was able to take advantage of Germany’s bitterness over Versailles to split the capitalist powers. Trade and recognition were not the only consequences of Rapallo; in its wake began a decade of clandestine German military research on Russian soil. The deal revealed how fragile British and French "imperialism" really were. Britain's wartime dependence on US supplies whose price was denominated in dollars forced London to squeeze South Africa and India for their supplies of gold and silver, fueling movements for Home Rule in both countries.

The United States was invited to Genoa as one of the five principal Allied powers but declined to attend. America had decisively influenced the outcome of the World War and the framing of the peace settlement, and it possessed the financial resources to make a significant contribution to Europe's economic reconstruction. Policymakers in Washington, however, recognized that the governments of Europe were not prepared to accept the "American solution" to the problems of postwar economic reconstruction. In articulating that solution, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover set forth three political prerequisites to economic recovery. The Allied powers would have to agree to lower the amount of reparation payments to what Germany could afford both financially and politically. America's war debtors would have to arrange to make reasonable payments on their obligations. And the nations of Europe would have to reduce their expenditures on armaments just as the Pacific powers had concluded a naval arms limitation agreement at the Washington Conference in February 1922. These measures, American policymakers maintained, would restore balanced budgets in Europe, reduce inflation, and revive trade through market mechanisms without the necessity of "artificial schemes" such as those proposed for consideration at Genoa.

Conference appeared in the some press and looked like a scheme of both to transfer Russia the eventual financial burden of the war and to anchor German economic interests to the rich deposits of Russia. A second German plan which was credited to Herr Deutsch of the great German electrical corporation seems to be sugar-coated but none the less dangerous in its possibilities. The immediate query was, therefore, whether as a preliminary or necessary aid to European restoration Russia was to be turned into a sort of international economic dependency of the Allies and of America, with Germans as the general managers of this capitalistic plantation? At Genoa they saw as a "political" conference, one at which Europeans were likely to try to impose sacrifices and obligations on the United States that would benefit neither America nor Europe. To the Americans the Genoa project looked like a British scheme to get other countries to finance Russian purchases of British machinery.

British historian Kenneth O. Morgan concludes: Genoa conference was a watershed in international diplomacy.... Never again would such a large, rambling assembly, on the lines of Paris in 1919, be convened, until San Francisco in 1945.... There was too little detailed preparation, too much generalized optimism, too many disparate issues muddled up with one another. In many ways, it was a parody of summit diplomacy at its worst.

The conference at Genoa and the successor conference held at The Hague soon afterwards ended in failure. Tsarist debts were not repaid; the owners of nationalized property were not compensated; no investment consortium was formed; and no Russian peace treaty was ever concluded. The United States did not rejoin its wartime allies in augmenting European security. The problems of war debts and reparations were not resolved in 1922. Unimpressed, in early 1923 Paris sent the French Army of the Rhine into the Ruhr, crippling the German economy and then France national finances itself into crisis. Internationally, the French invasion of Germany did much to boost sympathy for the German Republic, although no action taken by League of Nations since it was technically legal under the Treaty of Versailles.

The Genoa conference did come up with a proposal for resuming the gold standard that was largely put in place by major countries. But as Germany had gone off the gold standard in 1914, and could not effectively return to it because War reparations had cost it much of its gold reserves. During the Occupation of the Ruhr the German central bank (Reichsbank) issued enormous sums of non-convertible marks to support workers who were on strike against the French occupation and to buy foreign currency for reparations; this led to the German hyperinflation of the early 1920s and the decimation of the German middle class. The U.S. did not suspend the gold standard during the war. The newly created Federal Reserve intervened in currency markets and sold bonds to “sterilize” some of the gold imports that would have otherwise increased the stock of money. By 1927 many countries had returned to the gold standard. As a result of World War I the United States, which had been a net debtor country, had become a net creditor by 1919.

Adam Tooze, Professor of History at Columbia University explained in his study that every other World War I belligerent had quit the gold standard at the beginning of the war. As part of their war finance, they accepted that their currency would depreciate against gold. The currencies of the losers depreciated much more than the winners; among the winners, the currency of Italy depreciated more than that of France, and France more than that of Britain. Yet even the mighty pound lost almost one-fourth of its value against gold. At the end of the conflict, every national government had to decide whether to return to the gold standard and, if so, at what rate. The American depression of 1920 made that decision all the more difficult. The war had vaulted the United States to a new status as the world’s leading creditor, the world’s largest owner of gold, and, by extension, the effective custodian of the international gold standard. When the U.S. opted for massive deflation, it thrust upon every country that wished to return to the gold standard an agonizing dilemma. Return to gold at 1913 values, and you would have to match U.S. deflation with an even steeper deflation of your own, accepting increased unemployment along the way. Alternatively, you could re-peg your currency to gold at a diminished rate. But that amounted to an admission that your money had permanently lost value and that your own people, who had trusted their government with loans in local money, would receive a weaker return on their bonds than American creditors who had lent in dollars. Britain chose the former course; pretty much everybody else chose the latter.

The consequences of these for Europeans, they were uniformly grim, and worse. But one important effect ultimately rebounded on Americans. America’s determination to restore a dollar “as good as gold” not only imposed terrible hardship on war-ravaged Europe, it also threatened to flood American markets with low-cost European imports. The flip side of the Lost Generation enjoying cheap European travel with their strong dollars was German steelmakers and shipyards underpricing their American competitors with weak marks. Such a situation also prevailed after World War II, when the U.S. acquiesced in the undervaluation of the Deutsche mark and yen to aid German and Japanese recovery. But American leaders of the 1920s weren’t willing to accept this outcome. In 1921 and 1923, they raised tariffs, terminating a brief experiment with freer trade undertaken after the election of 1912. The world owed the United States billions of dollars, but the world was going to have to find another way of earning that money than selling goods to the United States.

That way was found: more debt, especially more German debt. The 1923 hyper-inflation that wiped out Germany’s savers also tidied up the country’s balance sheet. Post-inflation Germany looked like a very creditworthy borrower. Between 1924 and 1930, world financial flows could be simplified into a daisy chain of debt. Germans borrowed from Americans, and used the proceeds to pay reparations to the Belgians and French. The French and Belgians, in turn, repaid war debts to the British and Americans. The British then used their French and Italian debt payments to repay the United States, who set the whole crazy contraption in motion again. Everybody could see the system was crazy. Only the United States could fix it. It never did.

What went wrong? “When all is said and done,” Tooze writes, “the answer must be sought in the failure of the United States to cooperate with the efforts of the French, British, Germans and the Japanese leaders of the early 1920s to stabilize a viable world economy and to establish new institutions of collective security. Given the violence they had already experienced and the risk of even greater future devastation, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain could all see this. But what was no less obvious was that only the US could anchor such a new order.” And that was what Americans of the 1920s and 1930s declined to do because doing so implied too much change at home for them: “At the hub of the rapidly evolving, American-centered world system there was a polity wedded to a conservative vision of its own future.”

Wilson hoped to deploy USA’s emerging super-power to enforce an enduring peace. His own mistakes and those of his successors doomed the project, setting in motion the disastrous events that would lead to the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and a second and even more awful world war. The revisionist powers that came to challenge Western hegemony realized that they were operated from a position of weakness that could be overcome only with truly radical measures. At the London Naval Conference of 1930, for example, neither the Soviet Union or Germany had a navy to barter with at all; Japan's and Italy's fleets, meanwhile, were clearly second tier. Only through radical re-armament could one break the Western hegemony whose cracks had become apparent at Genoa, and which the Great Depression exposed most fully. Hence, by 1938, Tokyo was spending thirteen times its 1913 level of military spending; the Nazis devoted seven times as much to arms as the pre-World War I German Reich, and Stalin almost five times as much as the Tsars ever had. Even as America adopted a stance of "privileged detachment," the "present absence" of the United States in world affairs remained so great that only a truly radical break with past traditions could challenge the "super-state" on an international stage.

 

As a boy Cosimo had seen military service at the siege of Pisa; when quite a young man he had accompanied Pope John XXII as his financial agent to the Council of Constance, since his father was the Pope's banker. On the flight of the Pope, Cosimo left Constance in disguise, and travelled for a time in France and Germany, returning to Florence in 1416. A partisan said afterwards that he undertook this journey in order to escape notice and divert the jealous suspicions of the governing party; and that after his return to Florence he lived in retirement, and avoided politics as much as possible for the same reason. But it does not appear that the Government was much afraid of him, or that he was very retiring, since during the next twelve years he was twice a member of the Signoria, was employed on embassies to Milan, Lucca, and Bologna, and in 1426 was entrusted alone with a mission of considerable importance to the Pope. Cosimo had one younger brother, Lorenzo, with whom he was on excellent terms; but the political importance of the younger was entirely absorbed in that of the elder brother.

 

In 1433, Cosimo's power over Florence began to look like a menace to the anti-Medici party led by figures such as Palla Strozzi and the Albizzi family, headed by Rinaldo degli Albizzi. It was the 7th September 1433 and Cosimo de’ Medici was summoned by the Florentine government, known as the Signoria where the Albizzi were waiting for him they enhance the plot to wipe out the upstart Medici. Obediently he went to Palazzo Vecchio which was the seat of government where Cosimo imprisoned for his part in a failure to conquer the Republic of Lucca. Cosimo himself wrote about that doomed day, “When I arrived at palace, I found the majority of my companions already in the midst of a discussion. After a short while the authority of the Signoria commanded me to go upstairs. I was led by the captain of the guard to a room called ‘Barberia’ and incarcerated there”. He was imprisoned in the topmost room at the very top of the tower of the palace of government. As far as Cosimo de’ Medici was concerned, Rinaldo degli Albizzi was a dangerous character. Historians describe him as a “haughty, impulsive man; reactionary and priggish.” Belligerent and proud, he put himself at the head of the anti-Medici party, and waged a campaign of allegations against them. Historians would describe Hitler in the same words who on the same date as Cosimo ambushed by Rinaldo 507 years later on 7th September 1940 during world War II, 300 German bombers raid London and other British cities for over fifty consecutive nights. He wanted Britain out of the way so he could finally his attention eastward and then to USA as his ultimate goal at least as per Frank Capra in his propaganda films.

 

Cosimo also adopted the policy, already traditional in his family, of supporting the lesser guilds and the poor against the wealthy aristocracy which ruled the city. These oligarchs became jealous of Cosimo's popularity and fearful of his democratic tendencies. Consequently they sought to destroy him and his family, among them Rinaldo who convinced several prominent nobles to strike out against Cosimo de' Medici, who he feared was getting too powerful. Some say Rinaldo helped Bernardo Guadagni, a candidate for a position among the Signori, pay off his debts, which had been disqualifying him from running for office. Guadaani won the position of Gonfaloniere of Justice. Through Guadagni, Rinaldo summoned Cosimo to the palace, where he was captured. While his rival was languishing in a prison cell, Rinaldo tried to persuade the Signoria to behead him. He forced two of Cosimo’s supporters to ‘confess’ by having them tortured at the rack. “Yes, Cosimo was getting foreign help to bring a revolution to the city”, they lied. But most of the Florentines didn’t believe this story, and even the families who wanted Cosimo gone didn’t want to impose the death penalty. The Medici influence in Florentine society was too great. In a republic not even the Albizzi could dictate the fate of a citizen of Florence they had to have the consent of the people; a referendum was called to decide Cosimo's future. So Albizzi hired soldiers to guard the Piazza Cosimo's friends were physically barred Cosimo was accused of treason against the city and her people a vote was taken Cosimo was found guilty and faced execution but Cosimo had friends even in the enemy camp from his cell he engineered a secret negotiation for his life. Cosimo succeeded in buying the favor of Bernardo Guadagni, the Gonfaloniere of justice, for 1,000 ducats (about $25,000). After a short trial, Cosimo was sentenced to exile from Florence, although Rinaldo sought the death penalty. Cosimo believed in democracy, he didn’t take office for long. During 1430’s, his dalliance in politics landed him in prison and subsequent exile. Perhaps his father’s advice was the reason behind his reluctance in taking role in Florence politics. 

Both 1433’s Cosimo and 1919’s United States were in a position of power and of leadership never before equaled in their own history. They were also, perhaps for the first time, genuinely popular; but that position they soon lost and became a sort of whipping-boy. Of course both learned and played pivotal role in their contemporary later revolutionizing 15th century Florence city and 20th century world respectively.

Week Republic of Florence (Signoria): Failure of League of Nations 

In 1914, a political assassination in Sarajevo set off a chain of events that led to the outbreak of World War I. As more and more young men were sent down into the trenches, influential voices in the United States and Britain began calling for the establishment of a permanent international body to maintain peace in the postwar world. President Woodrow Wilson became a vocal advocate of this concept, and in 1918 he included a sketch of the international body in his 14-point proposal to end the war. Two months later, the Allies met with Germany and Austria-Hungary at Versailles to hammer out formal peace terms. Wilson wanted peace, but the United Kingdom and France disagreed, forcing harsh war reparations on their former enemies. The war-guilt clause was particularly damaging, since any historical evidence suggesting that Germany did not bear sole guilt for the war would tend to undermine the treaty’s legitimacy. Post World War I, every governments found it easier to try to shift the burden of reconstruction on to foreign powers, through reparations, loans, or inflation, than to impose taxes and austerity on quarreling social groups at home. It soon became clear that the effects of the war would continue to politicize economic relations within and between countries; that the needs of internal stability conflicted with the needs of international stability; that old dreams clashed with new realities, and new dreams with old realities.

League of Nations after World War one with the idea of an order to make World War one the war that ends all wars and was focused on the issue of peace and post-war order. But mostly was an effort by individual nation states to create the sort of international governance in an increasingly integrated system to fulfill their own interests. Two big historical obvious lessons come out of this one is that orders tend to emerge in the aftermath of a major war that is the time when the major powers are justified in making the kind of painful sacrifices of sovereignty compromises necessary to create an order but then the other lesson is they tend to decay over time and in the first two cases of international governing bodies i.e. Vienna System and League of Nations the decay of the existing order produced a new war. Vienna system was quite conservative where you have monarchies banding together for peace but also stifled the rising sense of democracy in Europe and beyond. The League of Nations was also weak as there was an effort to avoid future wars but it couldn’t really resolve problems of colonial ambitions, democratization and other kind of disputes.

The treason charges on Cosimo were trumped up and a fair trial could have acquitted him. But as the Florentine system of government was not perfect democracy. More than 75% of the population had no say over who governed their city. The Signoria was running on loyalties and patronage which could be bought. Powerful families instigated a series of constitutional changes with the help of favorable priors in the Signoria to secure their power through influence. Florence was constructed around large powerful families they run the city. Albizzi hired soldiers to guard the Piazza Cosimo's friends were physically barred to prevent them defending Cosimo and Albizzi could fix the trial. Albizzi accused Medici that they tried to rig the trial and hence forfeited their place in the Signoria. He forced authority to convene the Signoria without letting Cosimo’s supporters vote. Cosimo was found guilty, faced execution and yet he engineered a secret negotiation for his life. Probably the reason why his life was spared was because as Cosimo says in his own memoir of the event that he paid his jailers a hefty bribe but to let him out, “They were not very bold. They could have had ten thousand or more for my safety.” If system is corrupt then even the truth needs a little help to be told, so Money talked and Cosimo walked. Things could have been simple and better if it were true democratic republic.

World War II: War with Milan: The Battle of Anghiari: War of “Civilized” world

Cosimo had survived, but he and his family was forced to be content with the banishment of from Florence. On his arrival in Venice as an exile of the state of Florence, honours were showered upon him; he was treated exactly as if he were a Florentine ambassador. In Venice it was foreseen that Cosimo's exile could not last long: perhaps it was guessed how soon he would be master of Florence, director of Florentine politics, and a valuable ally. Perhaps, too, the Venetians suspected that Albizzi would not remain faithful to their anti-Milanese League. Florence then was in the hands of the Rinaldo Albizzi. Even Cosimo’s biggest project and contribution during the renaissance era, the renowned dome of the Santa Maria del Fiore, which astounded contemporaries and modern observers alike was in threat under the Albizzi regime as no friend of Cosimo was safe Brunelleschi himself was thrown into jail and work on the dome was abandoned. But life in Florence without Cosimo wouldn't be easy as the Medici bank had funded most of the city's commercial activity and so Florentine business soon ground to a halt. Cosimo and his brother Lorenzo stayed Venice, where they carried on building up their net of influence and spending money to win consent, taking his bank along with him and finding friends and sympathizers wherever he went for his willingness to accept exile rather than resume the bloody conflicts that had chronically afflicted the streets of Florence. Venice sent an envoy to Florence on his behalf and requested that they rescind the order of banishment. When they refused, Cosimo settled down in Venice, his brother Lorenzo accompanying him. However, prompted by his influence and his money, others followed him, such as the architect Michelozzo, whom Cosimo commissioned to design a library as a gift to the Venetian people. Cosimo supporters begged him to return and retake the city by force but Cosimo remembered his father's advice “wait to be summoned”, so Cosimo waited. He knew that without money the people of Florence would soon tire of the Albizzi and he was right, within a year the Albizzi had lost control of the city and turned on the people themselves they attacked the palace of government but were held off by the captain of the City Guard a loyal friend of the Medici. Cosimo had even more powerful friends, agents of the Pope descended on Florence. This time the Rinaldo degli Albizzi had gone too far and was losing support. Pope wanted the Medici, who was in fact his bankers, to return to Florence. A difficult war against Milan didn’t help the cause of the Florentine oligarchy.

 

Within a year, the flight of capital from Florence was so great that the decree of exile had to be lifted, the people of Florence overturned Cosimo's exile in a democratic vote. And so, hardly more than a year after his banishment, Cosimo came back to Florence triumphant to influence the government of Florence (especially through the Pitti and Soderini families). Rinaldo's impatience got the better of him and his rash decision to besiege the Palazzo Vecchio when he didn't get his way allowed Cosimo to return triumphant. To quote Cosimo himself: "On 5^th October 1434, exactly at the end of a year, on the same day and in the same hour, we re-entered the territory of the Commune, and at the same place. Which I have recorded because it was said to us by many devoted and good persons when we were exiled that a year would not pass before we should be restored and return to Florence." Once within the territory, the exiles found great companies of friends and followers assembled to meet and congratulate them. Despite Rinaldo’s actions, Cosimo was lenient on him. The Albizzi were banished and their supporters were sent into exile by the Signoria, never to return to power in Florence. The Milanese invasions were largely instigated by the exiled Albizzi family. Rinaldo tried several times while in exile to convince The Duke of Milan, Filippo Maria Visconti, to intervene and restore him to power in Florence. Visconti invaded Florence twice in the 1430s, and again in 1440, but his army was finally defeated in the battle of Anghiari. The Milanese invasions were largely instigated by the exiled Albizzi family. Albizzi hopes were finally ended with the Florentine victory at The Battle of Anghiari.

 

Oligarchy family like Albizzi always preferred war as it was means to create wealth for them and maintain their power. While Cosimo de’ Medici was the man of new generation who preferred to enrich the people of city by creating jobs and flourishing artists rather than wages of destructions. The people were grateful, not to Albizzi for waging war, but to the Medici for feeding their families. But while these lovely jobs drain Medici accounts, their taxes fund Albizzi war and Medici knew as long as that continues they are all doomed. Just like today’s techno sovereignty as digital entities which gained economic capacity, increased markets and more capacity of investment which made them almost state-like entities given the amount of population they can influence in the world at any moment to their digital citizens as many of those feel more aligned to these digital entities rather than their local sovereign government who just preys on their local citizens.

 

All war can result is destruction and pity for those generations both who suffered by it and who inspired to cause it. And that was the world for centuries as one will find the ultimate goal to conquer over others and that their ultimate mind could think of, certainly not wise or civilized, “the barbarians”. And that was story of Florence city too as in 1304, the war between the Ghibellines and the Guelphs led to a great fire which destroyed much of the city. Progress neither possible by being stuck in quagmire of wars nor expected form warmongering mentalities. In terms of foreign policy, Cosimo worked to create peace in northern Italy through the creation of a balance of power between Florence, Naples, Venice and Milan. The resultant balance of power with Milan and Florence on the one side and Venice and the Kingdom of Naples on the other created nearly half a century of peace that enabled the development of the Renaissance in Italy.

 

After four years of World War one Germany's emperor Kaiser Wilhelm had been forced to abdicate. His armies were being ground down by a remorseless offensive by British, French and US troops. At 11:00 in the morning on 11th November 1918, the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month World War one came to end. The following month President Woodrow Wilson of the United States arrived in Europe promising to create a new world order. He persuaded the world's leaders to sign up to a new league of nations. At the Treaty of Versailles they agreed that from now on disputes between countries would be resolved not by fighting in war but by debate in the league. The people of Europe were set free. Germany's Ally the Austro-Hungarian Empire was dismembered, out of which new nations were created Austria, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Germany itself was greatly reduced in size, but this process contained a time bomb not everyone celebrated the birth of countries like Czechoslovakia. Several of them contain substantial German minorities, one day the desire to reunite the German people would come to haunt you. The war-torn German people also had one final indignity inflicted on. They were forced to pay massive reparations to France and Britain, something they could ill afford. When Wilson returned to America, his new world order immediately fell apart as the US Congress decided that they could not risk being sucked into another war in Europe. They refused to join Wilson’s proposed League of Nations and the USA withdrew into isolationism.

 

French general Ferdinand Foch’s word on treaty of Versailles “This is not peace, but a truce for 20 years”, proved prophetic as after twenty year later on Germany’s triumphant victory over the French during the World War II. Germany's ambition to acquire a colonial empire for itself in Eastern Europe was just a rerun of European empires in Africa or Asia. The victory of 1871 had created a unified Germany; the defeat of 1918 did undo it. Hitler wanted to redo the victory of 1871 and why not that’s what cycle of history been in Europe, war after war. Hitler ordered the very same railway carriage out of the museum and to put on the very same place at Compiegne where it was used, in a repeat of the November 1918 Armistice where this time the French leadership has to sign the armistice as a symbol of victory not just World War II but World War I.

 

Julius Caesar to the strong men that rule parts of the globe today, there is some similarities. When the chaos was so bad and the situation deteriorating, a lot of the population felt if anyone grabs power and puts an end to this. It doesn’t matter who they are, whether it’s an extreme right-wing general or whether it’s a mad Bolshevik, but as long as someone imposes their will. Many countries after the First World War were torn by political unrest, mass unemployment and waves of strikes. In October 1929 the US stock market crushed billions of dollars were lost and an economic depression swept across the world and given the imperialistic culture only extremist politician seemed to offer a solution. Italian people could have solved their problems in a free democratic way but they let someone else do the solving for them putting their trust and faith in this one man, Mussolini. They believed he represented them but actually he planned to betray them for the selfish interests of himself and the group back of him. Mussolini gathered those unemployed soldiers, built them into a black-shirt movement and then marched on the capital Rome with 30,000 men. Lacked with proper opposing democratic governance and there was “King” who effectively sanctioned Mussolini to come in and take control.

Mussolini’s rise from a soldier of World War I to leader of a nation proved hugely inspirational to another nationalist of the same era, Adolf Hitler. Like his idol who had 30,000 men, Hitler tried it with just 2,000 men in Munich. It was miserable failure because of German legalism. Post World War I, Germany was different nation it was still Europe's biggest country. Its militaristic monarchy had gone and had become a democracy, but its government was soon struck by a series of street battles erupted between extreme right-wing nationalists and communists trying to start a revolution as in 1923 the country was devastated by hyperinflation. This was fertile ground for a new breed of rabble-rousing right-wing politicians among them Adolf Hitler. He came to power through the ballot box with a platform of locking up political enemies tearing up everything that previous government had done. Power the nth power, proclaimed by Hitler at the Nuremberg Nazi Congress. The Nazi Party above the state, and he above the Nazi Party, affirmed by thundering cheers.  For Japanese people the Emperor was god taking advantage of their fanatical worship of the god Emperor it was no great trick to take away what little freedom they had ever known.

Fascism was the most striking political novelty of the interwar years. Fascism defied precise definition. In practice it was an anti-Marxist, anti-liberal, and anti-democratic mass movement that aped Communist methods, extolled the leadership principle and a “corporatist” organization of society, and showed both modern and anti-modern tendencies. But the three states universally acknowledged to be Fascist in the 1930s—Italy, Germany, and Japan—were most similar in their foreign, rather than their domestic, ideology and policy. All embraced extreme nationalism and a theory of competition among nations and races that justified their revolts—as “proletarian nations”—against the international order of 1919. In this sense, Fascism can be understood as the antithesis of Wilsonianism rather than of Leninism. The core of democracy, the principle of democracy is that citizens be educated. If you don’t have educated citizens democracy does not work. Germany, Italy and Japan had national problems to worry about rather than facing them in a democratic way, in these lands the people surrendered their liberties, human dignity, they gave up their rights as individual human being and became a part of a mass, a human herd following the rabble rousers who rose at the mercy of the angry mob. The major powers and democracies in Europe, Britain and France had been shattered by World War one and their economies have never really recovered. Both also had suffered mass unemployment even before the Great Depression. Japan, meanwhile, suffered rudely from the Depression because of her dependence on trade, her ill-timed return to the gold standard in 1930, and a Chinese boycott of Japanese goods. But social turmoil only increased the appeal of those who saw in foreign expansion a solution to Japan’s economic problems. They became obsessed with imitating western nations as most of who were already expanding and colonizing for economic profit. So Japan followed the example of the West. On 18th September 1931 Japanese army invaded Manchuria and in four days they occupied whole southern Manchuria and shortly after entire country Manchuria. Japanese then prompted local collaborationists to proclaim, on Feb. 18, 1932, an independent state of Manchukuo, in effect a Japanese protectorate. This Japanese desire to build strong economy puts them odds with those they were imitating, with many western nations and might have gave them a glimpse of loophole in the international system which they themselves allowed throughout the history.

 

This interweaving of foreign and domestic policy, propelled by a rabid nationalism, a powerful military-industrial complex, hatred of the prevailing distribution of world power, and the raising of a racialist banner (in this case, anti-white) to justify expansion, all bear comparison to European Fascism. When the parliamentary government in Tokyo divided as to how to confront this complex of crises, the Kwantung Army acted on its own. Later the Japan’s contemporary foreign minister Shigenori Togo explained the Japan situation as being forced to choose between suicide and war, they chose later.  Manchuria, rich in raw materials, was a prospective sponge for Japanese emigration (250,000 Japanese already resided there) and the gateway to China proper. The Japanese public greeted the conquest with wild enthusiasm. China appealed at once to the League of Nations, which called for Japanese withdrawal in a resolution of October 24. But neither the British nor U.S. Asiatic fleets (the latter comprising no battleships and just one cruiser) afforded their governments (obsessed in any case with domestic economic problems) the option of intervention. The tide of Japanese nationalism would have prevented Tokyo from bowing to Western pressure in any case. The League of Nations appointed an investigatory commission, a committee of five headed by Lord Lytton and sent to Manchuria to investigate, while the United States contented itself with propounding the Stimson Doctrine, by which Washington merely refused to recognize changes born of aggression. The Lytton Commission reported in October 1932 that the Japanese occupation of this large part China was not justified on the ground of self-defense and that the new state which had been set up with a Japanese protectorate rather than a genuine case of Manchurian self-determination. Shortly after the league condemned Japan as an aggressor nation. Lytton recommended evacuation of Manchuria but privately believed that Japan had “bitten off more than she can chew” and would ultimately withdraw of its own accord. In March 1933, Japan announced its withdrawal instead from the League of Nations, which had been tested and found impotent, at least in East Asia.

 

Meanwhile Hitler was not yet ready but Mussolini was.  Mussolini had to be as his people were growing restless fascism hadn't produced the heaven on earth that he had promised them so he pulled the old trick of launching a foreign war to divert attention from troubles at home. Some say Mussolini wanted to recreate the Roman Empire and so in that case he should have started with France or Britain but indeed he was not Julius Caesar, he had a target in mind for his first Imperial land, Abyssinia. Semi feudal kingdom seemed an easy target which has army with no tanks and air force of exactly one old airplane. Mussolini in 1935 then sent reinforcements to Eritrea and Italian Somalia demanding the Abyssinia to pay reparations. The emperor of Abyssinia Haile Selassie appeared before the League of Nations and called on it to live up to its ideals. Here was a small nation under threat from another member of the league. During this campaign Italian army dropped gas bombs even though gas had been outlawed at Versailles as a “crime against humanity”. This was the supreme test, members of the League of Nations half-heartedly did impose economic sanctions, but they have little effect.

 

Mussolini's aggression had revealed two Things. League of Nations, that great hope for peace was impotent and both Europe's supposed major powers, the democracies Britain and France, no longer had the Stomach for a fight. both also faced the cost of controlling empires, now swollen by taking on Germany's former colonies and the middle eastern territories once run by the Turkish Ottoman Empire and above all both had been traumatized by the horrific casualties of World War one. The League of Nations was quite ineffective so far as it failed to act against the Japanese invasion of Manchuria as in February 1933, 40 nations voted for Japan to withdraw from Manchuria but Japan voted against it and walked out of the League instead of withdrawing from Manchuria. It also failed against the Second Italo-Ethiopian War despite trying to talk to Benito Mussolini as he used the time to send an army to Africa, so the League had a plan for Mussolini to just take a part of Ethiopia, but he ignored the League and invaded Abyssinia, the League tried putting sanctions on Italy, but Italy had already conquered Ethiopia and the League had failed. After Italy conquered Ethiopia, Italy and other nations left the league. But all of them realized that it had failed and they began to re-arm as fast as possible. Hitler revealed the existence of the Luftwaffe March 1935, he then announced that the army was to be increased to three hundred thousand men and conscription was reintroduced. Britain and France protested feebly this flagrant breach of the Versailles Treaty, but soon they reluctantly and slowly began to rearm.

 

In 1936 a general election in Spain gave a clear majority to the left. On May 10, Manuel Azana, the Popular Front leader, was elected president, but two months later a group of army officers led by General Francisco Franco staged a fascist revolt. He was part of failed coup in 1936 that sparked the Spanish Civil War. Supplied with arms, air power, and “volunteers” by Mussolini and Hitler, Franco’s forces won the ensuing Spanish Civil War although it dragged on until 1939, when the U.S.S.R. finally cut off the aid it had given to the Republican government. The French and British governments pursued a policy of nonintervention, although an International Brigade of private volunteers fought alongside the Republicans. One significant feature of the Spanish Civil War was its use by Nazi pilots as a training ground for the dive-bombing tactics they later employed in World War II.

In 1937 Japan moves even further into china. Making the beginning of a savage and bloody war, thousands of Chinese citizens had been killed at the hands of Japanese army; machine gunned thousands of male civilians at the banks of the Yangtze River. And when reports of systematic rape and civilian massacre in the city of Nanking surfaced, world was horrified by the rape of Nanking. The ever-advancing Japanese military occupied Nanking. The atrocities were unimaginable at the time. USA imposes harsh sanctions suspending all American exports to Japan, including oil as Japan has no natural oil resources and 80 percentage of their oil supply was from America. USA proposed to remove the embargo, only if Japan reverses their expansionistic actions to date. But far from halting Japan’s expansion, the sanction pushed war closer as Japan continued their imperial advances making Indonesia as a next target, a new source of oil much closer to home but was in the hands of another western country i.e. Dutch East Indies.

At Munich in September 1938 the British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his French counterpart Édouard Daladier bought time with “appeasement” betraying Czechoslovakia and handing the Sudetenland to Hitler by signing the Munich Agreement which was made against the wishes of the Czechoslovak government, in exchange for a promise of no further territorial demands. Millions cheered the empty pledge they brought back with them: “Peace for our time.” As Britain and France tried negotiating directly with Hitler but this failed in 1939 when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and within 11 months Hitler had invaded Poland and World War II had begun. On single night in Germany, in November 1938, dozens of Jews were killed and thousands of business and temples destroyed in the violent pogrom that came to be known as ‘Kristallnacht’. The immediate words of 31^st President of the United States Herbert Hoover that “The rise of intolerance in Germany today, the suffering being inflicted on an innocent and helpless people, grieves every decent American. It makes us fearful for the whole progress of civilization.” When war broke out in 1939, the League closed down and its headquarters in Geneva remained empty throughout the war. Although the United States never joined the League, the country did support its economic and social missions through the work of private philanthropies and by sending representatives to committees.

Greatly alarmed and with Hitler making further demands on the Free City of Danzig, the United Kingdom and France guaranteed their support for Polish independence; when Italy conquered Albania in April 1939, the same guarantee was extended to Romania and Greece. The situation reached a general crisis in late August as German troops continued to mobilize against the Polish border. The regime most upset by the German walkover in Poland was Hitler’s new ally, the Soviets. On 23 August 1939, when tripartite negotiations about a military alliance between France, the United Kingdom and Soviet Union stalled, the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Germany. This pact had a secret protocol that defined German and Soviet "spheres of influence" (western Poland and Lithuania for Germany; eastern Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Bessarabia for the Soviet Union), and raised the question of continuing Polish independence. World is taken by surprise that these have been the enemy yet made a deal, western diplomats struggled to understand this baffling alliance, the deal with devil for both sides. The pact neutralized the possibility of Soviet opposition to a campaign against Poland.

 

On November the 30th 1939 a new theater of war was opened up the Soviet Union invaded its tiny neighbor Finland. Finland had only achieved independence from the Russians in 1918 and hated them Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was convinced that one day the Finns might allow the Germans in to attack Leningrad. In the vital Arctic port of Murmansk the Red Army outnumbered its Finnish opponents by more than ten to one the invasion should have been a walkover but its leadership had been devastated by Stalin's terrible purges. The Finns were led by general Gustaf Mannerheim who fought back using hit-and-run tactics amid the deep snow often on skis. The Soviet troops confused and poorly led suffered massive losses. Finland's gallant resistance caught the imagination of the British and French soon they were planning to send help by Norway and Sweden the fact that this might suck to neutral countries into the war. The Russo-Finnish War, however, suggested that Scandinavia might provide a theatre in which to strike a blow at the German-Russian alliance. Beyond the feckless expulsion of the Soviet Union from the League of Nations on 14^th December 1939, Britain and France contemplated helping the brave Finns even at the risk of war with Russia and perhaps cutting the flow of Swedish iron to Germany.

 

Soviet offensive at the beginning of February 1940 broke the Finnish defensively. In early March the Finns had to cede territory to Stalin. By now Hitler too had become interested in Scandinavia the Nazi war machine relied on iron ore from Sweden. In the winter months the only way it could get to Germany was via the Norwegian port of Narvik. If the Allies landed in Norway this vital supply could be cut off, so he ordered plans to be prepared for an invasion of Norway. Denmark which was in the way would also have to be seized. In April 1940, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway to protect shipments of iron ore from Sweden, which the Allies were attempting to cut off. Denmark capitulated after a few hours, and Norway was conquered within two months despite Allied support. British discontent over the Norwegian campaign led to the appointment of Winston Churchill as Prime Minister on 10 May 1940. They couldn’t have picked a worse day as on the same day; Germany launched an offensive blitzkrieg against France. On 10 June, Italy invaded France, declaring war on both France and the United Kingdom. In June 1940, British forces experienced first setback in Dunkirk. 68,000 Soldiers with the British expeditionary force were reported killed or missing. The Germans turned south against the weakened French army, and Paris fell to them on 14 June. It was divided into German and Italian occupation zones as eight days later France signed an armistice with Germany.

 

Overrunning country after country and incorporating them into German empire. For British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, the threat of a Nazi controlled Europe is now very real and he realized that only realistic hope of the west prevailing over Hitler, was if Americans could come into war. Blessed by simple geography as being thousands of miles from other countries, Americans were not that receptive to Churchill’s request of joining the war. Europe was regarded as a place that was forever at war and its peril wasn’t limited to Europe. So America initiated help by not participating in war but providing raw materials. The air planes, tanks, shipping, equipment, ammunition, oil which would allow Britain to hold on. Roosevelt had no illusions that German aggression would one day suck America into the war so he began the long job of preparing American public opinion in July 1940 he got approval for a massive expansion of the US Navy including the building of six large battleships and a new class of aircraft carriers. Roosevelt gave speech his words, “Let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy. The peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties and those ignoring’s of humane instincts, which today are creating a state of international anarchy, international instability, from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality. America stands at the crossroads of its destiny. A few weeks have seen great nations fall.” By September 1940, Nazi Germany had conquered Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France and had begun a bombing campaign over England. Winston Churchill exhorted unbending resistance and was the voice of British determination to stick it out. On 4^th September 1940 the America First Committee arose to challenge Roosevelt’s deceptive campaign for intervention, and Wendell Willkie charged during the presidential campaign that Roosevelt’s reelection would surely mean war. In 1940, the famous aviator Charles Lindbergh became a mouthpiece for the nativist and isolationist group America First and his words,” French has now been defeated, and, despite the propaganda and confusion of recent months, it is now obvious that England is losing the war. And I have been forced to the conclusion that we cannot win this war for England, regardless of how much assistance we send. That is why the America First Committee has been formed.” The committee claimed a membership of 800,000 and attracted such leaders as Senator Gerald P. Nye. The vast majority of Americans believed Europe’s war has nothing to do with them and as 1940 was an election year President Franklin Roosevelt was careful to uphold the wishes of American people and that benefited him as in the November 1940 presidential election when with 27 million votes to 22 million he convincingly defeated the isolationist Wendell Willkie.

At the end of September 1940, the Tripartite Pact formally united Japan, Italy, and Germany as the Axis Powers. The Tripartite Pact stipulated that any country, with the exception of the Soviet Union, which attacked any Axis Power, would be forced to go to war against all three. The Axis expanded in November 1940 when Hungary, Slovakia and Romania joined. Romania and Hungary would make major contributions to the Axis war against the Soviet Union.

In June 1941, Nazi Germany began a massive invasion of Russia, in a dramatic escalation of the war. World have learned now that Hitler’s promises means nothing he broke Munich agreement back then and now in 1941 broke non-aggression pact with Soviet Union too. Hitler made no secret of his hatred for communism, or his desire for soviet territory. For Hitler, the Soviet Union was the home of this new ideology, which he detested. Communism stood in the way of ‘Aryan supremacy’ which was being ‘as slim as Goering, as tall as Goebbels, and as blond as Hitler!’ and that was his fundamental concern. Just like Napoleon, Hitler’s downfall was due to the hubris often shown by charismatics. They both broke what became known as Rule 1 on Page 1 of the book of the war: ‘Never march on Moscow’. Certainly after Napoleon, the famous theoretician of war, von Clausewitz who was on that march, said the first rule is never march on the Moscow. Hitler, of course, ignored it. Hitler didn’t believed the weather reports by his meteorologists on how cold it gets and how early, and they didn’t believed that Russians can operate at minus 30 degrees which German and French couldn’t whether its horse or tank. Napoleon, who made the right preparations for invading Egypt and other climatic hostile environments, didn’t take this into account. It was one the great epics of history, the great epic of failure and disaster. It also the Greek idea of hubris, that Napoleon had so much success, it blinded him to key dangers, climatic among them, And a very similarly arrogant, hubristic man made the same error in 1941-42, Adolf Hitler. Stalingrad was a battle that need never have been fought, an exercise in hubris. Romania's just wanted to recapture their territory ceded to the Soviet Union, but as an Axis allies their soldiers found themselves stuck deep inside into Russia. Hitler’s vanity campaign cost so many lives. The unprecedented Soviet victory at Stalingrad forced the Germans into the defensive for the first time in the war.

A Month later Germany’s invasion in Russia in July 1941, Warner Bros released ‘Sergeant York’; John Huston was one of the writers of the film, a true story about a decorated hero in World War One. The movie was about the God-fearing man of peace against killing turns out to be the most effective soldier who takes out an entire German emplacement, same kind of character as Morgan in Brad Pitt’s ‘Fury’ movie. Sergeant York hailed as year’s greatest picture and became the highest grossing film of 1941. Its runaway success rankled the isolationist in Washington who decided to go after Hollywood. Senator Gerald Nye claimed that the studios were colluding with the Roosevelt Administration to make pro-war propaganda and he called hearings. At a 1941 Senate subcommittee hearing investigating "war-mongering" Hollywood films, Gerald Nye stated that those "responsible for the propaganda pictures are born abroad". He accused Hollywood of attempting to "drug the reason of the American people", and "rouse war fever"; he was particularly hostile to Warner Brothers. In Harry Warner’s testimony, he stated “In truth, the only sin of which Warner Bros. is guilty for accurately recording on the screen the world as it is.” American commercial film industry was blooming but the business was accused of being too foreign or too ‘un-American’. In the early 1940s, major studios kept their neutrality and showed on screen the same isolationist sentiment as their audience. After noticing President Franklin D. Roosevelt's concern about US foreign policy, fascism began to be reported on screen by Hollywood. So World War II changed Hollywood and Hollywood changed World War II. In 1940 ‘The Long Voyage Home’ directed by John Ford, there is reference to Norway having fallen introducing an element that’s so specific and contemporary, literally ripped out of that day’s newspaper. In the same year, Hollywood’s dominant director turned down his next film which was about American Revolution with George Washington as its hero, just to avoid from portraying British soldiers as villains when Britain is fighting for its existence against Nazi Germany. Movies were also useful in that propaganda messages could be incorporated into entertainment films. Hitler and Goebbels already understood the power of the cinema to move large populations towards your way of thinking. In 1941 film Mrs. Miniver started its shooting directed by Hollywood’s famous director William Wyler portraying the experiences of an English housewife during the Battle of Britain and urged the support of both men and women for the war effort. About the half way through making of Mrs. Miniver Pearl Harbor attack happened, USA declared war on Japan and Germany declared war on USA. In Mrs. Miniver, there was scene with a German pilot who was shot down over England and somehow caught by Mrs. Miniver shown as one of Mr. Goering’s little monsters who wants to destroy the world and kill all Jews. At the end of this movie, with the pullback that reveals the gutted church with pastor’s speech, “This is people’s war. It is our war. We are fighters, fight it then. Fight it with all that in us. And may God defend the right.” William Wyler was talking directly to the British and American audiences. It was rushed to the theaters later in 1942 on Roosevelt's orders.

 

Japan planned to rapidly seize European colonies in Asia to create a large defensive perimeter stretching into the Central Pacific. Japan and the United States entered into complex negotiations in the spring of 1941. Neither country would compromise on the China question, however, Japan refusing to withdraw and the United States insisting upon it. To prevent American intervention while securing the perimeter, it was further planned to neutralize the United States Pacific Fleet and the American military presence in the Philippines from the outset. Believing that Japan intended to attack the East Indies, the United States stopped exporting oil to Japan at the end of the summer. In effect an ultimatum, since Japan had limited oil stocks and no alternative source of supply, the oil embargo confirmed Japan’s decision to eliminate the U.S. Pacific Fleet and to conquer Southeast Asia, thereby becoming self-sufficient in crude oil and other vital resources. By the end of November Roosevelt and his military advisers knew that a military attack was likely; they expected it to be against the East Indies or the Philippines. To their astonishment, on December 7 Japan directed its first blow against naval and air installations in Hawaii. In a bold surprise attack, Japanese aircraft destroyed or damaged 18 ships of war at Pearl Harbor, including the entire battleship force, and 347 planes. Total U.S. casualties amounted to 2,403 dead and 1,178 wounded. It gave the strong reason for Roosevelt to ask Americans to join the war and his immediate speech, “December 7, 1941, a date which will live in infamy. I ask that the Congress declare that, since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan, a state of war existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.” On December 8, 1941, Congress with only one dissenting vote declared war against Japan. Three days later Germany and Italy declared war against the United States; and Congress, voting unanimously, reciprocated. As a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the previously divided nation entered into the global struggle with virtual unanimity.

 

When the United States went to war in December 1941, so did Hollywood. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, studio executives, filmmakers, actors, and directors knew that movies were essential for boosting the morale of troops overseas and Americans at home. The Roosevelt administration asked Hollywood to ask itself, "Will motion picture help win the war?” Five legendary Hollywood directors enlisted in the armed forces to document World War II who played a huge role in war efforts ; Frank Capra, John Ford, William Wyler, John Huston and George Stevens. Between them they shaped public perception of almost every moment of the war. Hollywood was controlled by the government through the United States Office of War Information (OWI). The motion picture academy of arts and sciences received an inspiring radio message direct from the President Roosevelt, “We have seen the American motion picture become foremost in the entire world. We have seen it reflect our civilization throughout the rest of the world. The aims, aspirations and the ideals of a free people and of freedom itself.” Hollywood’s famous director Frank Capra was dazzled by what he called “FDR’s awesome aura.” He came home convinced that Roosevelt was right. America had to stop Hitler at any cost; he told audience that capitulation to Hitler would mean barbarism and terror. Capra was an immigrant who came from Italy which, at that time, was not seen as a sophisticated country. America was almost dreamlike for him. The dream of the land with free people and idea that, one man can stands against the system. Capra, a conservative Republican, met with President Roosevelt. Frank Capra created a documentary series that was used as orientation films for new recruits. Capra designed the series ‘Why We Fight’ in seven segments to illustrate the enormous danger of Axis conquest and the corresponding justness of the Allies. At President Roosevelt's urging, ‘Why We Fight’ was also released to the theaters for the general public. Also in Britain, Churchill ordered the entire sequence to be shown to the public. Under the official Navy department of USA, John Ford directed ‘The Battle of Midway’ was shown in three quarters of American theaters. It was the first time Americans saw war in color which until then had been associated with escapism and fantasy; people were suddenly brought close to what that conflict was. Patriotic propaganda was seen as profitable by Hollywood, and it helped to transform the social and political stances of the country, while serving as an instrument of national policy. Most of movies produced had a background of war, even if their story was a complete invention. For example, The Academy Award winner for Best Picture ‘Casablanca’ was a movie released in the context of American attitudes toward Vichy and Free French Forces. The success of Casablanca is a historically significant milestone due to its immense impact on increasing the American public’s support of the war in Europe. The film earned Hungarian-born American film director Michael Curtiz his one and only Oscar for best direction. Curtiz’s sister and her family were sent to Auschwitz from Hungary by Nazi, only she survived. Casablanca movie was one of the most important productions of Hollywood during wartime, and also very representative of the studio's role and position during World War II. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the ‘America first committee’ dissolved and urged its members to support the war effort.

At the beginning of the 15th century, when the Visconti rulers of Milan were threatening to overrun Florence, the humanist chancellor Coluccio Salutati had rallied the Florentines by reminding them that their city was “the daughter of Rome” and the legatee of Roman justice and liberty. The refined and masterful classical Latin of Salutati’s letters to Florentine scholars earned him the admiring nickname of ‘Ape of Cicero’. Even Visconti remarked that “one of the Salutati’s letters could cause more damage than a thousand Florentine horsemen.” Frank Capra actually didn’t had budget to shoot ‘Why We Fight’ when he saw the Nazi propaganda film ‘Triumph of the Will’ directed by Leni Riefenstahl, it quite scared Capra and puzzled with the question how can possibly he top that? Power of the film itself showed that they knew what they were doing. So he abandoned his idea to shoot and decided to their own stuff as propaganda for USA and allies. Capra took a route that is unique in propaganda that he made it folksy conveying that the truth that if they lost they would lose their freedom because without freedom they would lose everything as the freedom is the most precious commodity.

 

Pearl Harbor was only the start of the Japanese military offensive. In the weeks and months that followed, Japan invaded Hong Kong, Guam, Burma and Singapore. Japanese troops drove the American forces to retreat from the Philippines and cut off the streets of the Burma, forcing the allies into a mass rescue airlift. Meanwhile, Germany announced the introduction of the Jewish star to be worn by all Jews in the Netherlands, Belgium and France segregating them from the general population.

In spring 1942, Britain RAF leader Harris launched what was, in effect, a huge public relation stunt what he preferred to call, “strategic bombing.” He gathered every available aircraft in Bomber command which then took off for German city of Cologne. By the summer 1942, United States joined the war in Europe; they base hundreds of their own Boeing B-17 flying fortresses in Britain. The Allied air fleet was then too big to be stopped.     In August 1942, the Americans put the Flying Fortress to the test as two allies agreed to combine their approaches starting massive bombing campaign against Germany’s industrial heartland. In March 1943, British planes took off for the German industrial city of Essen followed by Ruhr, the German defenses were overpowered. On 24^th July 1943, Hamburg Germany’s second largest city was hit in a joint Allied raid called ‘Operation Gomorrah’ destroying sixty percent of residential area and over 43,000 people were killed. Churchill was shown in film of a Ruhr City being bombed and he almost wept and said, “Are we beasts to be doing this?”

It reminds me of a maxim in Niccolo Machiavelli’s pioneering work ‘The prince’: “Judge not, by the eyes, judge by the hands.” This maxim came from a tale that was popular in Machiavelli’s time. The story goes like this: A man keeps some birds in a cage. Each day he takes one of the poor birds, kills it, and eats it. An inexperienced bird says to an older bird, “Look at his eyes, he is crying while he is killing our fellow bird.” The old bird, responds, “Do not judge by the eyes, judge by the hand.” Machiavelli was influenced by humanist culture in many ways, including his reverence for Classical antiquity, his concern with politics, and his effort to evaluate the impact of fortune as against free choice in human life. The “new path” in politics that he announced in The Prince was an effort to provide a guide for political action based on the lessons of history and his own experience as a foreign secretary in Florence. In his passionate republicanism he showed himself to be the heir of the great humanists of a century earlier who had expounded the ideals of free citizenship and explored the uses of Classicism for the public life.

 

In 1943, as with the Allied bombing campaign escalating, Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels called on every German civilian to join the war effort in what he called total war. But the grizzly aftermath of the bombing raids was played down in the German press. The Allies monitor and sanitize their reports as well by telling public that the city bombing campaign was focused on military targets. As the German war machine begins to falter, dozens of her industrial cities including Karlsruhe, Bremen and Stuttgart were smashed by Allied raids. Within a year after American entry into the war Axis power crested and began to ebb, also forged a Grand Alliance among the United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union. The Axis forces in Africa withdrew into Tunisia, which was conquered by the Allies in May 1943. The Allies rapid success there gradually undermined Mussolini’s eroding Fascist regime. Badoglio, Ciano and other leaders had all denounced Mussolini’s leadership and had been sacked by February 1943; Badoglio took power in the face of a complex dilemma. Italy wanted peace, but to break the alliance with Hitler might provoke a German attack and condemn Italy to prolonged fighting. Thus, while feigning continued loyalty to Germany, Badoglio made secret contact with Eisenhower in the hope of synchronizing an armistice and an Allied occupation. Badoglio agreed secretly to invite Allied occupation on September 3. The armistice was announced on the 8th, and Allied landings followed that night in the Bay of Salerno south of Naples. Four days later Hitler sent a crack team of commandos under Otto Skorzeny to rescue Mussolini and set him up as a puppet dictator in the north of Italy. In September 1943, the Allies began an invasion of Europe, landing in southern Italy.

 

In the meantime the Germans had rescued Mussolini from his mountain prison and restored him in the north as ruler of the “Italian Social Republic”, a last-ditch puppet Fascist regime based in Salo on Lake Garda. The republic tried to induct those born in 1923, 1924, and 1925 into its army, but only 40 percent of young men responded. Many others deserted soon after the call-up. In a congress held in Verona in November 1943, the “republic of Salo” seemed to take a leftward turn, calling for an end to the monarchy and a more worker-oriented ideology, but this program never went into practice. Some of the leading Fascists who had voted out the duce in July 1943, including Mussolini’s son-in-law, the former foreign minister Galeazzo Ciano, were tried by a Fascist court and shot. Meanwhile, Fascist officials collaborated with the German army and essentially followed Hitler’s orders as the war continued in the north and centre. Official and unofficial armed bands roamed the big cities arresting suspected partisans (members of the Resistance) and terrorizing the local population. The German occupiers ruled through violence and the aid of the local Fascists. Throughout German-occupied Italy, Jews and oppositionists were rounded up and sent to detention camps or prisons, speaking of which during my study in Genoa, I stayed in hostel Casa dello Studente di Genova, Gastaldi for around half a year which once upon a time during World War II used to be headquarters for Nazi Gestapo police, a place of torture for political prisoners and anti-fascists.

The underground rooms of the hostel are now used as a resistance museum which can be visited and specially opens for tours to school children on the occasion of the April 25th anniversary which is national Italian holiday commemorating the end of occupation of the country during World War II and the victory of the Resistance.

 

In early summer 1944, as the allies prepared to invade mainland Europe, ‘D-Day’ or operation overlord as the seaborne invasion of France planned to take place which was quite challenge as Hitler constructed massive series of fortifications running along the European coast starting from Denmark to Spanish border, an Atlantic wall. “I am the greatest fortress builder of all time”, boasted Adolf Hitler, who never once visited the Channel fortifications. Spring 1944, the Nazis lost vast swathes of territory to the Soviets in the East. They were expecting an Allied offensive, conducted from Britain, somewhere along the 3000 miles of the Atlantic Wall.

The D-Day invasion brought together the Allied Navy, Army and Air forces in a centralized command structure. On 5^th June 1944, an armada of 6500 vessels set sail. Unbeknown to many on board, the Allies are not heading for Calais at all, but for Normandy for five beach landings. From soldiers perspective no matter from which country, they always sent like chess pieces in an endless chessboard. Hitler and his general have been played fools in the greatest military deception since the Trojan horse. In Trojan war Greeks destroyed the city of Troy while here aim was to liberate the France but destruction always the side effect of war. For those who read Aeneid by Roman poet Virgil, “Do not trust the horse, Trojan! I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts.” In computing, a Trojan horse or Trojan as any malware which misleads users of its true intent. British counter-intelligence agency, ‘MI5’ whose mission to keep Britain war related secrets from failing into the hands of Nazi Germany. British thought that the branches of German companies in Britain were potential areas where agents could have infiltrated. One would describe companies like Siemens partly managed by the German military intelligence service ‘Abwehr’ as a classic commercial cover, certainly a Trojan horse. British MI5 set out to capture any German agents that came to Britain and idea was that having captured them, they would pretend that this German spy was operating normally, that MI5 hadn’t caught them and let them gather intelligence for Abwehr and when they would feed this intelligence back to Germany, it would be false intelligence. The British knew that Germans believed that the Allied forces were going to land on the Pas-de-Calais rather than Normandy. A phantom army and for them built barracks and all facilities. They created all sorts of dummy artillery as inflatable jeeps, planes and tanks which deceived German reconnaissance that this fictitious first army was real. It was a set-up worthy of some of the greatest Hollywood productions. Elaborate deceptions kept the Germans guessing about the point of attack, and Normandy was chosen in part because it was not the easiest or nearest French beachhead.

On 6^th June 1944, in the face of depleted German troops, the Allied forces went ashore. But seven tense and bloody weeks passed before the Allies broke out of the Norman peninsula. On 25^th August 1944, the Allies liberated Paris. More than half a million Allied and German casualties in Normandy along with 20,000 French civilians who got killed in the crossfire made this victory quite bittersweet for the Allies, but it was sign for the beginning of the end to the war. Brussels and Antwerp follow in early September. Regaining the port of Antwerp gives the Allies the fuel and supply pipeline vital to their campaign. Its major advantage over German Army which now suffering severe shortages.

On 11^th September, Allied troops enter German territory, and soon took the border of Aachen. By the end of 1944, most of the Eastern Europe lay in Stalin’s grasp. His troops controlled the Baltic States, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. Pro-Soviet forces ruled in Yugoslavia and Albania. Hungary and Czechoslovakia were in his sights. Stalin had successfully laid the foundations for the future Soviet bloc. He could then, at last, move on to Germany. In the west Allied forces were also approaching the German border. 

The race was on to be the first to take on Berlin, we know later post world war two it turns into cold war dividing berlin in the hands of two entirely different regimes. By December 1944 things weren’t looking good for Hitler. British and Americans have now liberated Belgium, Luxembourg and most of France. Germany’s industrial heartland, the Ruhr Valley, was their next target. Hitler remain in denial, despite of barrage of disastrous news, he refuses to accept the reality and still thought to defeat the combined Anglo-American forces. His no retreat policy troubled lot many general on field and cost so many unnecessary lives of soldiers. Their sworn fidelity to the Fuhrer cost them a lot, but Hitler’s wrong decisions somehow shorten the war as in order to launch the Battle of the Bulge, where they were desperately needed to stem the Russian advance he pushed his best troops from Eastern front to the western front and made Russian advance in the east much more rapid.

 

In February 1945 the Big Three held their last summit conference, at Yalta on the Crimean Peninsula. On Stalin’s request Churchill and Roosevelt agreed to offer western air superiority to keep the Red army on the move. Bomber commands mothballed operation called Thunderclap which then revived and refocused for the Eastern front. RAF strategists attacked fresh cities in the east of the Germany creating chaos and destruction behind the enemy lines in order to aid the Red army’s advance. Dresden was one of the Europe’s most beautiful city was called as ‘Florence on the Elbe’ turned into a pile of rubble by Allied bombers on 13^th February 1945. It is thought that around 30,000 civilians died, though some estimates number as high as 250,000 given the influx of undocumented refugees that came to Dresden from Eastern front. The story of Dresden transformed from Nazi failure into Allied cruelty. In the entire German offensive Blitz of London, from September to May 1940, the Germans dropped 18,000 tons of bombs on London. In late phase of war the Britain RAF was dropping over half millions tons on Germany, off the radar in terms of increased scale. In the final phase of the war in Europe, the western Allies were squeezing in on Germany through France and the Soviet Union was approaching from the East, Hitler caught in the middle.

 

The USA was planning to invade the Japan, the largest invasion in World War II which would have dwarfed D-Day. The Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor dragged USA into the conflict. Believing the American Navy crippled, the Japanese embarked on a massive campaign across Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific. But the tide turned at the Battle of Midway, steadily pushing the Japanese back. In early 1945, Americans were closing on Japan itself. Sending bombers from captured Mariana Islands. The Japanese defenses by this point were terribly denuded and so the bombers could go in almost with complete impunity. Eight minute after midnight on 10^th March 1945, USA dropped 1,600 tons of napalm bombs on sleeping city killing almost 100,000 people in one night in Tokyo. This act dwarfs any aggression seen in the European theater. It just seems to be that the Americans would consider doing things against the Japanese they wouldn’t do against the Germans.

 

In April 1945, the Allies fight deep in the heart of the Nazi Germany, encountering the most fanatical resistance. In desperation Hitler declares total war, mobilizing every man, woman and child. Casualty rates were as high as they were the previous summer during the Battle of Normandy. On 11^th April 1945, while moving past the town of Ettersberg, American soldiers encountered a group of skeletal figures dressed in striped pajamas. For the first time the Americans confronted with the horrors of concentration camps. Now they believed the Russians who already discovered while they advanced into German occupied territory, a series of camps that would call into question the very nature of humanity. The world was about to discover the true horrors of the Nazi regime. Hitler lost the war, but fulfilled his evil wish as Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews, around two-thirds of Europe’s Jewish population. On 30 April, the Reichstag was captured, signaling the military defeat of Nazi Germany. Several changes in leadership occurred during this period. On 12^th April 1945; President Roosevelt died and was succeeded by Harry S. Truman. Benito Mussolini was killed by Italian partisans on 28^th April. Two days later, Hitler committed suicide in besieged Berlin, and he was succeeded by Grand Admiral Karl Donitz. Total and unconditional surrender in Europe was signed on 8^th May 1945. The war in Europe was over.

Japan’s Emperor Hirohito authorized by decree the expansion of Unit 731 and its integration into the Kwantung Army as the Epidemic Prevention Department. Unit 731 was involved in research, development and experimental deployment of epidemic-creating bio warfare weapons in assaults against the Chinese populace (both military and civilian) throughout World War II. Plague-infected fleas, bred in the laboratories of Unit 731 and Unit 1644, were spread by low-flying airplanes upon Chinese cities killed tens of thousands of people with bubonic plague epidemics. An expedition to Nanking involved spreading typhoid and paratyphoid germs into the wells, marshes, and houses of the city, as well as infusing them into snacks to be distributed among the locals. Epidemics broke out shortly after, to the elation of many researchers, where it was concluded that paratyphoid fever was "the most effective" of the pathogens. Plague fleas, infected clothing and infected supplies encased in bombs were dropped on various targets. The resulting cholera, anthrax, and plague were estimated to have killed at least 400,000 Chinese civilians.

By April 1945, the US had a foothold on Okinawa, less than 400 miles from Japan. After the German surrender Stalin offered the full force of Soviet against the Japanese. On 16^th July 1945, first atomic bomb test happened, the blast created a seven mile high mushroom cloud. Using an atomic bomb was not going to cross any moral lines that hadn’t already been crossed, given the fact of Tokyo city bombing. But this was new and radioactive which was going to affect future generations too. President Truman authorized the Air force to use the atomic bomb where and when it sees fit. Some of the project scientists expressed grave doubts as it would be utterly inhumane to actually deploy this against human beings. But for pathetic Japanese military leaders surrender under any circumstances was not an option. In the early morning rush hours of 6^th August 1945, a specially equipped B-29s, the Enola Gay, dropped an atomic bomb containing 141 pounds of enriched uranium on Hiroshima city of 350,000 people. A burst of neutron and gamma radiation emanates out along the deadly shockwaves, it was a hellscape. People were vaporized, incinerated and many died from massive doses of gamma radiation. The heat and blast effaced everything in the vicinity, burned 4.4 square miles, and killed some 70,000 people (lingering injuries and radiation sickness brought the death toll past 100,000 by the end of the year). Truman’s word after Hiroshima shame, “If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this Earth.” Two days later the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria. After three days with no sign of surrender from Japan, a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Faced with an imminent invasion of the Japanese archipelago, the possibility of additional atomic bombings, and the Soviet entry into the war against Japan and its invasion of Manchuria on 9^th August, Japan announced its intention to surrender on 15^th August 1945, cementing total victory in Asia for the Allies. After witnessing an outer ring of Dante’s Inferno at Hiroshima, was second atomic bomb necessary? Why Nagasaki? Who to put blame on for the lost lives in Nagasaki? Should it be on the Emperor of Japan? Or on the ruling class of Japan? Or the Japanese people as a whole? Or on Truman? The morality of the bombing in Japan is a difficult question, debated to this very day.

The ground zero of that target was the Urakami Cathedral, the largest Roman Catholic cathedral in all of Asia at that time. The Virgin Mary statue was pulled from the rubble of the cathedral which had been struck by heat rays and radiation just 500 meters from the hypocenter. Almost 10,000 Catholics perish alongside the Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, even Allied POWs were killed. The Nagasaki bomb was far more powerful than the one used on Hiroshima. From the start of the war in the pacific had a pronounced racist element, anti-Japanese feeling had been high in the USA for decades before the conflict. The language used by US and its allies in describing Japan was highly racialized. It tragically coincides with the way Japan was dealt with a brutal extermination tool. They were characterized as rats and indeed after atomic bombing the broken surviving people were marched in front of doctors to be examined, to be inspected as like rats in a lab. They were used as guinea pigs twice, first as a target and second as an object of medical research. Tsutomu Yamaguchi, a survivor of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings before his death in January 2010 expressed his growing sense of despair as United Nations discusses the issues, yet most importantly they don’t have power to stop nuclear nations. He said frequently in his speeches that we all live on the same planet, “One for all, all for one”

God knows if it is true, but Wikipedia says during the final months of World War II, Japan planned to use plague as a biological weapon created by its Unit 731 against San Diego, California. The plan was scheduled to launch on September 22, 1945, but Japan surrendered five weeks earlier. On September 2, 1945, General Douglas MacArthur received the Japanese surrender on the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay, and the greatest, the craziest, the ugliest and the darkest war in history came to a close.

 

“Victory’s Glory shines light upon the flaws of the defeated. It teaches the world of their faults, but leaves in darkness the wrongs of her own doing”. – Alessandro Pepe

Machiavelli presents the battle of Anghiari as "a striking example of the wretched state of military discipline in those times", arguing that the mercenary knights who ran the armies of the day had no motive to fight for victory. Nor was there ever an instance of wars being carried on in an enemy's country with less injury to the assailants than at this; for in so great a defeat, and in a battle which continued four hours, only one man died, and he, not from wounds inflicted by hostile weapons, or any honorable means, but, having fallen from his horse, was trampled to death. Combatants then engaged with little danger; being nearly all mounted, covered with armor, and preserved from death whenever they chose to surrender, there was no necessity for risking their lives; while fighting, their armor defended them, and when they could resist no longer, they yielded and were safe. Machiavelli adds that "This victory was much more advantageous to the Florentines than injurious to the duke; for, had they been conquered, Tuscany would have been his own; but he, by his defeat, only lost the horses and accoutrements of his army, which could be replaced without any very serious expense".

Whether or not the claimed single death is an exaggeration is not known, but some say that Florentine when exaggerate something there is still some truth in that and Machiavelli was not just historian but had military experience as he was entrusted with the city's defenses when he was working at the Chancery of the Republic of Florence in 1502. Hans Delbrück argues that, The great historians of the Renaissance, Machiavelli, Guicciardini, and Jovius, were agreed in stating that the condottieri waged war simply as a game and not in bloody earnest. It was their judgment that these men, guided by self-interest, in order to extend the war as long as possible so that they might obtain the most possible pay, did not seek a decision in battle. On the contrary, they avoided that, and when it did finally come down to a battle, the men on both sides, who regarded themselves mutually as comrades, spared one another and shed no blood. In the battle of Anghiari in 1440, for example, it is reported that one man died, to be sure, but he was not struck down but drowned in a swamp. Based on the contemporary reports some says it is possible that only one mounted knight died at Anghiari, foot-soldiers are unlikely to have been as lucky and "as many as 900" soldiers may in fact have died in the battle.

 

If Machiavelli was right that no horsemen were killed and only foot soldiers died in the battle, as in no bomber died in Nagasaki bombing, but only civilians and may be Japanese soldiers. Both Battle of Anghiari and Nagasaki atomic bomb ended not only 15^th century Florence’s War with Milan and 20^th century World War Two respectively but also despotic Albizzi regime and Nazi regime respectively.

Justice: Now and then

After the First World War, international conferences didn’t stop the Second World War. Allied nations realized not to fail again to make a new mark in the sand and decided to establish a precedent for the future as far as international criminal law for war crimes concerned. So the next major attempt to prosecute war criminals occurred in Europe and Asia after World War II. In the wake of the war, Germany and Japan were occupied and war crimes tribunals were conducted against German and Japanese leaders. Nuremberg, series of trials held in Nürnberg, Germany, in 1945–46, in which former Nazi leaders were indicted and tried as war criminals by the International Military Tribunal. The indictment lodged against them contained three categories of war crimes (1) crimes against peace (i.e., the planning, initiating, and waging of wars of aggression in violation of international treaties and agreements), (2) crimes against humanity (i.e. enslavement, exterminations, deportations, genocide and other inequities, including crimes committed by power on its own citizens), (3) conventional war crimes (i.e., violations of the laws of war) and (4) “a common plan or conspiracy to commit” the criminal acts listed in the first three counts. In January 1946, using Nuremberg as a reference, charter for Tokyo Trial enacted to try Japanese leaders accused of war crimes. There was no question that referring to the fact that the atrocities in China, Nazi concentration camps were the grave crimes under the international law which cannot be forgiven such atrocities under the categories of ‘crime against humanity’. For which Notorious Nazi criminals tried at Nuremberg so the accused who were responsible cannot escape such terrible crimes.

 

The war crimes trials were dismissed by critics merely as “Victor’s justice” because only individuals from defeated countries were prosecuted and because the defendants were charged with acts that allegedly had not been criminal when committed. In support of the trials, the Nuremberg tribunal cited the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928), which formally outlawed war and made the initiation of war a crime for which individuals could be prosecuted.

The Tokyo tribunal while the tribunal was required to uncover the truth about the Pacific War, some believe the outcome was fixed from the start and called it ‘Victor's justice’ as all 25 defendants were found guilty politicians and military alike seven were punished with death by hanging. The judges were appointed by the United Nations but during two and a half years prior to passing judgments strong dissent and fierce maneuverings developed among the judges. Tokyo tribunal commenced proceedings on 3^rd may 1946 with 11 judges from the Allied countries or their colonies, Sir William Webb of Australia acted as president of the tribunal. The bench was divided on certain fronts especially on issue that weather to consider ‘crime against peace’ or crime of aggression as an international crime. Certainly some of accused plotted to prepare and wage an aggressive war. Many atrocities committed by the Japanese army during the war in places like China, Indonesia, Burma and Philippines and these atrocities happened precisely because the Japanese leaders engaged in lawless acts of aggression. There was no international law existed for crime of aggression during the Second World War or throughout the history. Some of the judges argued that there was no legal ground for the charge of ‘crime of aggression’ or crime against peace. Prior to the outbreak of World War two, international law had not yet developed as far as designating this conduct as a crime or as illegal. The defense counsel argued that even though Japan signed the Pact of Paris in 1928, it condemns war as an instrument of national policy and does not consider the crime; hence the tribunal does not have authority to try ‘crime against peace’, criminal liability for accused acts that were not war crimes at the time was unjust and therefore the counts related to them should be excluded immediately.

Presiding judge Justice Webb decided to draft denial and overrule the promptly defense's motion. Justice Pal from India and Justice Roling from Netherlands were keen to discuss the defense arguments at greater length and deliberate on the crimes of aggression. The Charter stipulated that the acts of planning and waging an aggressive war or ‘crimes against peace’ also called as crime of aggression was now regarded as new types of war crime. On 5^th July 1946, Justice Pal sent a memo expressing his opinion that the accused could not be tried for newly defined war crimes, new international laws cannot be enforced retroactively to deem legal acts at that time as a crime, and post factum is unacceptable. He mentioned that what the Japanese did throughout Asia was devilish and horrid, they committed conventional war crimes and the Japanese officers who committed these atrocities have been tries in local courts where they took place and been given sentences. There is no legal ground for the charge of aggression, the Pact of Paris 1928 does neither provide legal ground for criminalizing war nor suggest any penalties and it certainly doesn’t say anything about the responsibility of the officer or the politicians as individual perpetrators, we cannot charge the accused by making up laws at will. Pal thus disagrees with a fundamental principle of the tribunal shocking the other judges.

 

Behind the scenes disagreement among the judges about the Charter grew more intense. On one side stood Justice Pal who had publicly denounced the Charter, the British judge the Honorable Lord Patrick opposed him. Patrick argued that the judges must loyally abide by the rules of the tribunals charter and the authority of the judges in this tribunal is based solely upon its charter all judges must abide by the Charter, whoever cannot abide by the charter should tender his resignation to stay on as judge, while questioning the charters power and aims is an act of fraud against the allies. Patrick's opinion urging a fellow judge to resign certainly appears somewhat misplaced in a note for the tribunal. Patrick kept in close contact with the government of his native Great Britain, the government wished for the Tokyo Tribunal to progress smoothly in keeping with the Charter. In Europe, Great Britain faced fierce battles with the Nazis. To punish the Nazi leaders responsible for aggressive war and the Holocaust, the Nuremberg Tribunal had adopted two new legal notions designating crimes against peace and crimes against humanity as war crimes. The British had dispatched Patrick to Tokyo to convict Nazi Germany's Ally Japan of the same war crimes. Justice Patrick asserted that to loyally abide by the tribunals Charter was the obligation of every judge on that bench. The judges don't make the law Parliament makes the law, the politicians, the legislature make the law and it's up to the judges to apply the law and to see that it is maintained, whether you like it or not that's the basis upon which these tribunals were set up and from the point of view of a judge who's been appointed in that tribunal with his job is simply to straightforward apply that law.

 

Pal wrote down his own views in a dissenting opinion that ran to 257 pages. Paul argued that the foreign policy of no country whatsoever could legally be judged a conspiracy is not yet a crime in international law as a result I would dismiss all the counts based on this accusation. But we all know how Hitler conspired and carried aggression in Czechoslovakia after signing ‘Munich Agreement’. For two decades after 1939, German guilt for the outbreak of World War II seemed incontestable. The Nuremberg trials brought to light damning evidence of Nazi ambitions, preparations for war, and deliberate provocation of the crises over Austria, the Sudetenland, and Poland. Revelation of Nazi tyranny, torture, and genocide was a powerful deterrent to anyone in the West inclined to dilute German guilt. To be sure, there were bitter recriminations in France and Britain against those who had failed to stand up to Hitler, and the United States and the U.S.S.R. alike were later to invoke the lessons of the 1930s to justify Cold War policies: Appeasement only feeds the appetite of aggressors; there must be “no more Munichs.” Nonetheless, World War II was undeniably Hitler’s war, as the ongoing publication of captured German documents seemed to prove.

 

The dissenting opinion written by Justice Pal at the Tokyo Tribunal also highlights his strong condemnation of the colonialism that western country's command territories in the eastern hemisphere solely because they have secured the lands through armed violence exploiting the indigenous people. If properly scrutinized none of these colonial wars would stand the test of being just war. Paul also directed similar criticism at Japan he condemned Japan's imperialist rule over Manchuria as following the bad example of Western colonialism. Given the way countries and societies continue to act against each other; the Pact of Paris was an idealistic pledge. He believed that in Tokyo as they were talking about the justice in the modern world and yet a large part of Asia was still colonized by the west, so what gives the western countries the right to judge the Japanese for their actions.

The defense lawyers also argued that the trial as a whole did not hold any legitimacy stating that many of the countries on the tribunal such as France; Netherlands, UK and USA were only on the tribunal because they colonized Asia and they colonized Asia through aggressive Wars of their own. The defense therefore argued that Japan's Wars were no different than Western Wars, so why should Japan be held to a different level of accountability than the rest of the world? The defense also attacked the notion that Japan was fighting wars of aggression; instead they explained that for centuries Europe and the USA had invaded Asia attacking Japan's neighbors one by one and that Japan was being threatened by Western imperialism. They explained that Japan was an isolationist country for 220 years until those powers forced Japan to open its markets to foreign trade and when Japan was forced to modernize and industrialize to keep up with the invading Western powers, Japan had to invade its neighbors for the resources it needed for its survival just as Western powers had done. They argued that the USA cut off oil supplies to Japan, as long as Japan was occupying the mainland of Asia. With only two years of oil supplies left Japan was facing extinction. And so Japan was left with only two choices either Japan wasn't going to go to war in which case Japan would certainly perish or they would go to war in which case Japan might perish if they perished without war then Japanese culture would perish as other powers would dominate the island nation. But if they perished in war then its people would rebuilt their nation to once more rise to prominence another time. With the USA forcing Japan into these two options Japan chose to go down fighting and so the defense argued the blame of the war did not fall upon Japan, but rather the blame of Japan's war against Western nations was the fault of the USA forcing Japan to go to war. Therefore it should not be Japan but the USA who should be put on trial. There were various versions of this argument made by various defense attorneys, but all of them would follow a similar line of reasoning. As the prosecutions and defense teams were stonewalling the entire process and tribunal judges had already adopted position Justice Higgins from USA resigned and returned to USA.

 

Justice Pal argued that according to the Pact of Paris each country can judge for itself whether its action constitutes self-defense or aggression; it was described as a sovereign right. Which was not an ideal position as international community was not matured to the stage that criminalize aggressive war or punish individual who wage such a war and as failure of international systems to create strong laws after World War I. Netherlands judge Justice Roling grasped the Justice Pal’s reasoning; gradually he came to take a sympathetic view of Pal's position that there was no agreement in the Pact of Paris that individuals should be held responsible, war as a policy executed by a sovereign state and there was no ground to determine the level of guilt or punishment for each individual in that state. Also no legal basis for the charge of crime of aggression as it was an ex post facto law. Pal was right what he argues in domestic law, people cannot be tried for actions that were not crimes at the time those actions were committed. But international law evolves under extreme circumstances. Roling sympathized with Pal breaking his vow to join the majority as he initially endorsed the charter on political and ethical grounds, and not as an objective jurist. He expressed that there is need for war when the rights and borders of independent nations are threatened, but the war criminals should be severely punished. Although strongly influenced by Pal's philosophy Roling discovered his own direction for applying international law to wars his purpose was to prevent war from ever happening again. He asserted the other judges to consider the legal gaps which go as far back as the Pact of Paris, right through to their own charter. Roling’s arguments closely echoed those of Pal had transpired to the other judges

 

April 1947 the defense had begun to present its arguments almost one year after the tribunal opened it now looked to become a long affair to other. Judges from British Commonwealth countries Canada and New Zealand were the only ones to have aligned with Lord Patrick, Pal seemed to have no intention of compromising. Presiding judge Webb failed to unify the bench and began to feel antagonistic towards Patrick and his group. The minority group of three felt themselves in a weak position and that the result of this trial might undo all the good done at Nuremberg if it were possible without loss of face we had better cancel it altogether. Patrick proposed to his government to withdraw his group of three Commonwealth judges this meant a possible collapse of the Tokyo tribunal.

 

A British diplomat called on supreme commander MacArthur to inform him of the crisis on the bench as the tribunal had been set up by order of General MacArthur. The British reason that MacArthur would not tolerate a judge that did not abide by the Charter, but the British hopes were dashed as the diplomatic mission reported to the British government that MacArthur did not take such a dramatic view of the situation as Lord Patrick. Furthermore to the British government the Tokyo Tribunal was extremely important. Foreign secretary Ernest Bevin could not agree with Patrick's proposed withdrawal to abandon the Tokyo Tribunal as that would have a devastating impact, it would deal a shattering blow to European prestige. John Pritchard, Great Britain's foremost researcher of the Tokyo tribunal argued that it was Great Britain's historic mission to assure that the verdict at Nuremberg was followed by a successful trial in Tokyo. He said that if this conception was to break down at a judgments were to be produced at Tokyo, that said that aggression was not a crime and had no basis in international law, that it was a purely political act then consider the damage that this would do, it would unravel the whole of the Nuremberg experience. So Lord Patrick stayed on in Tokyo deciding that the judges had to be aligned with him by his own doing. Lord Patrick planned and managed to align the remaining judges into a majority group and decided intend to fulfill charter which upholds the principle established by the precedence of the Nuremberg judgment and by the Pact of Paris of 1928 that wars of aggression are illegal, as he believed that the easiest and quickest way.

 

Rolings position had shifted away from Patrick's group, as the crime of aggression was an ex post facto law, Roling urged to majority group to focus on interpreting the law correctly while making that new mark in the sand to establish a precedent for the future as nothing is important than the reasons for that interpretation. With his study he provided different reasons for recognizing crimes of aggression that one can reasonably construe this as comparable to a political crime in domestic law, political criminals are at times detained when their actions threaten national stability and they should argue based on this pre-established platform. Thus they can state that those responsible for starting a war ought to be subject to punishment on the ground that if they remain free, they might disturb the international order. Otherwise peace and progress may never be achieved. Patrick and majority group rejected Rolings proposition.

 

In July 1948 Roling wrote letter to a diplomat friend, in it he resists a majority verdict that simply replicates the final verdict at Nuremberg. He mentioned that, “the more I see of the draft verdict, the more I loathe the idea of putting my name to it this is strictly confidential but the draft is worse than anyone could have imagined the draft simply begs to be discussed much more carefully.” The Dutch government was aware of Rolings change of heart, the Foreign Office sent him the opinion of a legal scholar who repeatedly argued that Roling must join the majority in keeping with the Nuremberg trial as The United Nations passed a resolution that favors the Nuremberg principles which Netherlands already supported and as Rolings dissent might undermine their commitment to international law. Roling believed that too many elements of the majority judgment were very flawed that he could never put his name to it and knowing the fact that every dissenting opinion can be used to deny the legitimacy of the tribunal and the final judgment. Roling wrote his own dissenting opinion he carefully considered the responsibility of each defendant, his verdict deviated from the majority verdict.

 

After the war, conventional war crimes by the Japanese, categorized as Class B and Class C, were handled in local trials throughout Asia. Twenty-five top leaders were charged with Class A crimes of waging aggressive wars and committing crimes against peace and humanity, categories created by the Allies after the war, a person would have to at least be indicted for crimes against peace in order to be tried at the Tokyo trial, Otherwise they would be tried at lesser courts. In colonizing parts of Asia, Japan had merely aped the Western powers, Pal said. Pal rejected the charges of crimes against peace and humanity as ex post facto laws, and wrote in a long dissent that they were a “sham employment of legal process for the satisfaction of a thirst for revenge.” While he fully acknowledged Japan’s war atrocities including the Nanking massacre he said they were covered in the Class B and Class C trials. “I would hold that each and every one of the accused must be found not guilty of each and every one of the charges in the indictment and should be acquitted of all those charges,” Judge Pal wrote of the 25 Japanese defendants, who were convicted by the rest of the justices. The American occupation of Japan ended in 1952, after Tokyo signed the San Francisco Peace Treaty and accepted the Tokyo trials’ verdict. But the end of the occupation also lifted a ban on the publication of Judge Pal’s 1,235-page dissent, which Japanese nationalists brandished and began using as the basis of their argument that the Tokyo trials were a sham. Takeshi Nakajima, an associate professor at the Hokkaido University Public Policy School and author of the book “Judge Pal”, said that Japanese critics of the trials selectively chose passages from his dissent. “Pal was very hard on Japan, though he of course spoke very severely of the United States,” Mr. Nakajima said. “All imperialist powers were part of the same gang to him. His attitude was consistent.”

 

"The Truman Administration and General MacArthur both believed the occupation reforms would be implemented smoothly if they used Hirohito to legitimize their changes.", hence the emperor’s culpability in the war was not the agenda of Tokyo tribunal nor was he indicted, though he did had ultimate responsibility. "It would be a travesty of justice, seriously reflecting on the United Nations, to hang or shoot the common Japanese soldier or Korean guard while granting immunity to his sovereign perhaps even guiltier than he," Justice Webb had written in September 1945. Having spent three years investigating war crimes in the Pacific, he was convinced that responsibility for Japanese atrocities needed to be pursued all the way to the very top. The Australian Government came around to his view, but its British and American Allies did not. The Emperor was left in power, used as a buffer to soften Japan's rough and rapid transition to democracy. As a consolation prize, perhaps, General Douglas Macarthur appointed Webb as president of the tribunal. With the emperor absolved, how could we send his subordinates to the gallows? Webb's scruples about the death sentence did not come from sympathy for Tojo or the other six defendants also sentenced to hang. Rather, it was the joint decision of the Allied Governments to grant Emperor Hirohito immunity in exchange for his cooperation. In a short partial dissent, presiding judge Webb agreed with the majority on their interpretation of the law but expressed reservations about the sentencing: "I do not suggest the Emperor should have been prosecuted. That is beyond my province. His immunity was, no doubt, decided upon in the best interests of all the Allied Powers. Justice requires me to take into consideration the Emperor's immunity when determining the punishment of the accused found guilty: that is all." Japanese people expressed their doubts about the trial as they believed that militarist should not be tolerated but few of the accused had been made into scapegoats.

 

The attempt by Lord Patrick's group of three to create a majority bore fruit although their differences with presiding justice Webb remained unresolved they formed a majority together with the US, Soviet, China and Philippines judges their group of seven counted more than half the bench for his part and the majority judgment submitted. The majority judgment found all 25 accused guilty passing the death penalty on seven of them, besides ordinary war crimes the Tokyo tribunal also recognized the two special crimes provided for in its charter crimes against peace and crimes against humanity which was nothing but the copy of Nuremberg trial. Presiding judge Webb reported dissenting opinions from five judges including his own.

 

There was no positive or specific customary international humanitarian law with respect to aerial warfare before and during World War II. About the conduct of air attacks, Pal and Rolings found themselves in some kind of legal purgatory. Justice Pal argued that the exclusion of Western colonialism and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the list of crimes and the lack of judges from the vanquished nations on the bench signified the "failure of the Tribunal to provide anything other than the opportunity for the victors to retaliate". In this he was not alone among Indian jurists, with one prominent Calcutta barrister writing that the Tribunal was little more than "a sword in a [judge's] wig." Justice Roling stated, "of course, in Japan we were all aware of the bombings and the burnings of Tokyo and Yokohama and other big cities. It was horrible that we went there for the purpose of vindicating the laws of war, and yet saw every day how the Allies had violated them dreadfully." Ben Bruce Blakeney, an American defense counsel for Japanese defendants, argued that "if the killing of Admiral Kidd by the bombing of Pearl Harbor is murder, we know the name of the very man whose hands loosed the atomic bomb on Hiroshima," although Pearl Harbor was classified as a war crime under the 1907 Hague Convention, as it happened without a declaration of war and without a just cause for self-defense. Prosecutors for Japanese war crimes once discussed prosecuting Japanese pilots involved in the bombing of Pearl Harbor for murder. However, they quickly dropped the idea after realizing that there was no international law that protected neutral areas and nationals specifically from attack by aircraft. Similarly, the indiscriminate bombing of Chinese cities by Japanese Imperial forces was never raised in the Tokyo Trials in fear of America being accused of the same thing for its air attacks on Japanese cities. As a result, Japanese pilots and officers were not prosecuted for their aerial raids on Pearl Harbor and cities in China and other Asian countries.

 

The researchers involved in Unit 731 were secretly given immunity by the United States in exchange for the data they gathered through human experimentation. Other researchers that the Soviet forces managed to arrest first were tried at the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials in 1949. The Americans did not try the researchers so that the information and experience gained in bio-weapons could be coopted into their biological warfare program, much as they had done with German researchers in Operation Paperclip. On 6 May 1947, Douglas MacArthur, as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, wrote to Washington that "additional data, possibly some statements from Ishii, can probably be obtained by informing Japanese involved that information will be retained in intelligence channels and will not be employed as 'War Crimes' evidence". Victim accounts were then largely ignored or dismissed in the West as communist propaganda. Shiro Ishii, commander of Unit 731, received immunity in exchange for data gathered from his experiments on live prisoners. In 1981 John W. Powell published an article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists detailing the experiments of Unit 731 and its open-air tests of germ warfare on civilians. It was printed with a statement by Judge Roling, the last surviving member of the Tokyo Tribunal, who wrote, "As one of the judges in the International Military Tribunal, it is a bitter experience for me to be informed now that centrally ordered Japanese war criminality of the most disgusting kind was kept secret from the Court by the U.S. government".

 

The Nuremberg trials were a further unique feature of World War II (although war trials were written into the treaties following World War I). By arraigning and punishing major surviving Nazi leaders, they undoubtedly supplied a salutary form of catharsis, if nothing else. They proved beyond a doubt the wickedness of Hitler’s regime; at one point, when films of the death camps were shown, they actually sickened and shamed the defendants. In some eyes, however, the trials were tainted. Although scrupulously conducted, they smacked slightly of show trials, with the victorious Allies playing both prosecutor and judge. Given the purges of millions under Stalin, the participation of Soviet judges seemed especially hypocritical. The charges included not only war crimes, of which many of the accused were manifestly guilty, but also “waging aggressive war” a novel addition to the statute book. Finally, a number of war criminals certainly slipped through the Nuremberg net. The overall intention, however, was surely honorable: to establish once and for all that international affairs were not immune from ethical considerations and that international law unlike the League of Nations was growing teeth. Nuremberg was a trial that marked as the beginning of international criminal law. The tribunals had a profound effect on the development of international law as it is concerned with the responsibility of both states and individuals for conduct leading to and during war. In particular, the tribunal confirmed that individuals could be held liable for a breach of international law as the Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.

 

The crimes during the Second World War exceeded by far anything in conventional jurisprudence. The trials were pushed forward by responding to defense counsel that the interpretation of law is constantly evolving towards greater justice. The ideal goal at least on paper was to decide whether the accused should be released back into the world, or imprisoned or executed in order to pay for their crimes and thus dissuade anyone else from ever engaging in similar actions. Because given the history without international law, there will be madmen hungry for power will keep plunging not only their own people but also rest of the world into misery. And the best example is Napoleon who waged aggressive war, even though he was wiped out by fierce Russian military tactics and his enemies chose not to execute him but exiled him to Elba. This leniency allowed him to escape and return to power causing many more deaths in Waterloo, after which he exile again as there was no law against waging aggressive war. But that was the time where neither international governance was matured enough nor many individual states domestic one.

 

In 1998 in Rome, some 150 countries attempted to establish a permanent international criminal court; the negotiations eventually resulted in the adoption by 120 countries of a governing statute for an International Criminal Court (ICC) to be located permanently at The Hague. The statute provided the ICC with jurisdiction for the crimes of aggression, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The court came into existence on July 1, 2002, and by 2016 the statute had been ratified by some 120 countries; three of the permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, and the United States), however, had not yet approved it.

 In Florence just like all over Europe mal-administration of justice prevailed in the middle Ages. In Florence it was as bad as or worse than anywhere else. The respect for law and legal tribunals had sunk very low; the immense number of lawyers and the intense ignorance and inability of most of them had brought the profession into contempt. There was complete uncertainty as to the actual state of the laws, in the midst of the rapid and radical changes which were constantly made in them. "In Florence," ran a proverb, "a law is made one evening and repealed the next morning"; and Dante complained of this state of things quite as much as Cosimo's· contemporaries. The confusion of different kinds of law, ecclesiastical, civil, municipal, the elaboration of forms, the complete liberty left to criminal judges in affixing penalties, all added to the confusion. An old proverb ran, "May sorrow, evil and the lawyers be far from, thee!" Corruption was the rule, not the exception; the law was naturally converted into a political weapon, more especially since it carried with it authority for the use of torture.

 

There was no proof of the virulent assertions of their enemies that the Medici schemed to hinder the success of the siege of Lucca for which Cosimo was imprisoned in the Palazzo Vecchio for his part in a failure to conquer the Republic of Lucca, but he managed to turn the jail term into one of exile. Nor can it be proved that Cosimo’s brother, when Ambassador to Milan in 1430 to prevent the Duke from interfering in the war, was really engaged in secretly arranging Francesco Sforza's expedition to embarrass Florence and lengthen out hostilities. It cannot well be decided which party was responsible for the final outbreak of hostilities in 1433. Rinaldo struck the first blow, nobody know how much provocation he may have received. The struggle had certainly been going on with more or less secrecy for some time, each party scheming to get its members into the public offices, particularly into the Signoria. Accusations were freely bandied about; there were plots and intrigues on all sides. Rinaldo was ready to risk anything against Cosimo. He seems to have been quite overwrought with excited jealousy; he who used to boast of his openness exclaimed angrily that he dared not speak even in private, because all that was said was repeated to the Signoria. In May 1433, when his work on the Dieci (Council of Ten to conduct foreign and military affairs) was over, Cosimo retired to his country house in the Mugello, either to mature his plans or because, not feeling himself able to strike at his opponents, he really wished to escape them for a time. It is said that he was warned by a prophetic friar that his life would shortly be in danger. Perhaps he hoped that during his retirement Rinaldo's attention would be diverted elsewhere. Public excitement was not decreased by Cosimo's retirement; "everything that happened was made into a political question." The secrecy which was supposed to attend the appointment of the Signoria was violated; everyone could guess who would be the next Gonfalonier of Justice and Priors; speculation on their probable action much increased the general excitement. For the Signoria of September and October, the Gonfalonier was almost certain to be Bernardo Guadagni, whose father had been Rinaldo's closest friend; most of the other members of the Signoria would be of the same party. Rinaldo felt that his opportunity had come, and prepared to seize it. Guadagni was "a specchio," that is to say, he was behindhand in the payment of his taxes, and so would forfeit his right to hold office. Rinaldo paid the money which he owed to the Commune, and in return received from Bernardo a pledge to act under his directions.

 

The events of the next few days will best be described in Cosimo's own words, quoted from his diary. “When the new Signoria was drawn, there began to be a rumor that during their rule there would be a revolution, and it was written to me in the MugeIlo, where I had been for some months in order to escape from the contests and divisions of the city, that I ought to return, and so I returned on September 4th. On the same day I visited the Gonfalonier and one of the Priors, whom I considered to be my friend, and who was under great obligations to me; and when I told them what was rumored they immediately denied it, and told me to be of a good heart, for they hoped to leave the city at the end of their office in the same condition as they had found it. On the 5^th September they called a council of eight citizens, saying that they wished for their advice,  amongst the eight were Rinaldo and Cosimo themselves, and although it was spread abroad about the town that a revolution was to be made, yet having had the assurances of the Signoria, I did not credit the report. It followed that on the morning of the 7th September 1433, under color of the said Council, they sent for me, and when I had arrived at the Palace I found the greater part of the company there; and, remaining there to deliberate, after some time I was commanded by the Signoria to go upstairs, and by the Captain of the Infantry” (the Signol'ial bodyguard) “I was put into a room called the Barberia" (in the bell-tower of the Palace). Such underhand proceedings were indeed unlike the Rinaldo of former days!

"On hearing this all the city was moved," added Cosimo and another writer of his party said that the people "were all terrified and did not know what to do. “Amongst the lower classes” everyone prayed with vows and tears that the Divine Justice would save him from a violent death." The Signoria themselves seem to have been rather frightened at what they had done. Someone going to the Palace found "arms everywhere; some ran upstairs, some down, some talked, some shouted; everything was full of passion, excitement, and fear." Rinaldo's son Ormanno and some other young members of his party filled the Piazza round the Palace with armed followers, to keep down the danger of a popular tumult, or to prevent any attempt to rescue Cosimo by force. The noise in the square beneath his prison must have been sufficiently alarming to the prisoner, who was not, like Rinaldo, inclined to make any display of personal courage. Indeed, we are told that he "fell down in a swoon" when his jailer entered his prison to announce his sentence. Until reassured on the word of honor of the jailer, who was rather favorable to him than otherwise, Cosimo refused to touch any food but a little bread, from fear of poison. His fear was probably not misplaced; obnoxious prisoners of whom it was difficult to get rid by legal means did not unfrequently die sudden and unexplained deaths in Italian prisons in the fifteenth century. Had Cosimo resisted, refused to appear at the Palace, thrown himself upon his party and raised a popular revolution in the city, it is difficult to tell what the result would have been. He seems to have been afraid to run the risk, and when he was in prison his party was afraid to run it for him.

The Signoria had made an effort to capture Cosimo’s brother Lorenzo, but he escaped to the Mugello, where he collected a number of peasants who were attached to the Medici house; and on the day after Cosimo's imprisonment the Condottiere Tolentino, who was supposed to have a secret understanding with the Medici, marched his troops to within a few miles of the city, perhaps expecting to be encouraged to proceed by a rising there. Then, however, he or his employers lost heart. "They were counseled," Cosimo wrote, “not to raise a revolt, which might cause personal violence to be used against me.” Tolentino withdrew therefore, making excuses to the Signoria for moving without their orders. Meanwhile the question of what to do with Cosimo now they had captured him remained to be settled by the captors. They had hoped at least to compass his financial ruin, but this hope was disappointed; Cosimo's connections were too widely extended without Florence for his business to be so easily ruined. "For we," he himself wrote, "did not lose credit, but great sums of money were offered to us by many foreign merchants and princes." Some of his more violent enemies wished him to be murdered in prison; but the majority at least desired everything to be done in constitutional form.

Immediately after his seizure, the Signoria, as they had the power to do, banished Cosimo, his brother for five years each. Then, because it was felt that such a very moderate punishment of its leaders was not sufficient to crush their party, and in order to gain, at least nominally, the popular sanction for more stringent measures, a Parliament was held in the square of the Palace on 9^th September. The great bell of the Palace was rung, the approaches to the square were guarded by Ormanno degli Albizzi and his armed followers, such citizens as could be got together. Cosimo said that there were only twenty-three, and he may have been able to count from the window of his prison were assembled in the square, and shouted lustily" Si! Si!" (Yes ! Yes !) to the proposals made by the Chancellor of the Signoria from the railing. Authority was given to a Committee of over two hundred persons, including, of course, all the leading members of the Albizzi party, and also, in order to give an appearance of impartiality, a certain number of people who were thought to be compliant. The first duty of the authority was to decide on Cosimo's fate, and then the radical weakness of the party at once manifested itself. Some of the members of the authority, says Machiavelli, "urged Cosimo's death, some his exile, some were silent, either out of compassion for him or out of fear" for themselves. Another measure, we learn, could not be passed for some hours, and then only by the pertinacity of the Signoria. So difficult was it even to get the members to attend meetings of the authority that a provision was made by which two-thirds of those present, instead of two-thirds of the whole number, constituted a legal majority. At first the authority would only pass short sentences of banishment on the Medici; these were afterwards extended to ten years, but no more could be obtained against them, although Cosimo was kept in prison on purpose to frighten his friends by threats against his life.

The fact was that, as usual the oligarchs could not cling together. The Gonfalonier of Justice himself, pledged as he was to Rinaldo, was now intriguing in Cosimo's favor. For, as soon as Cosimo, through the kindly help of his jailer, obtained communications with the outer world, he fell back upon his family policy. The Gonfalonier of Justice was bribed with a thousand florins, and another member of the Signoria with a less sum. Cosimo thought his personal safety cheap at the price. "They had little spirit," he said, "for if they had wanted money, they should have had ten thousand or more to deliver me from that peril" Not without effect either was the pleading in his favour of ambassadors from Venice, where the Medici banking firm was held in high repute, and it was felt that its loss of credit would cause a widespread dislocation of finance. In Venice, at least, the charge against Cosimo of intriguing with Milan cannot have been believed. At length, on October 3rd, after four weeks of imprisonment, Cosimo was liberated, and sent to the frontier under Safe escort, the Signoria being quite ready to protect him from assassination. His journey was a small triumph in itself. The Contadini (country people), with whom the Medici were always very popular, crowded to meet him and give him presents, more as if he were an ambassador than a fallen politician going into banishment. Venice petitioned the Signoria of Florence that he might be allowed to reside anywhere within her territories, and the Signoria were again complaisant. Cosimo went to live in Venice itself, which was already his brother's place of exile.

Florentine justice system was flawed as in 1433, spurred on by Rinaldo degli Albizzi who rallied some of oligarchs jealous of Cosimo's popularity and fearful of his democratic tendencies. They had Cosimo arrested with the intention of putting him to death and fix the trial to found Cosimo guilty which later by Cosimo’s influence changed into his exile. With strong pre-existing institutions, Rinaldo couldn’t have tried to kill a man to order and instead he would have followed the law which sounds as a pure conjecture given the dangerous priggish belligerent character of Rinaldo degli Albizzi quite similar to Hitler. So we leave conjecture out of it and stick to facts that the lack of strong and just institutions will always tend to inspire chaos creating character.

Failed Dream: 

On the deaths Maso degli Albizzi, Rinaldo knighted with great ceremony by the Commune, as if to take his father’s place. "The city of Florence," wrote a contemporary, "was at this time in the happiest condition, full of men gifted in every direction, each one trying to surpass the other in merit." Supreme amongst these were half a dozen men whose wealth, wisdom, and political experience enabled them to lead the others. These were Gino Capponi, the "Conqueror of Pisa," Lorenzo Ridolfi, Agnolo Pandolfini, Palla Strozzi, Matteo Castellani, Niccolo Uzzano etc. all men who took part in the Pratiche, conducted foreign embassies, sat in the Dieci (Council of Ten to conduct foreign and military affairs), and frequently held other offices. But the chief of all was Maso degli Albizzi, whose ability and energy had enabled him to gain so commanding a position that it almost seemed as if before long the Rule of the Few might be converted into the Rule of One. After Maso's death the nominal head of the Government was Niccolo Uzzano, an elderly man, cautious and experienced. Rinaldo degli Albizzi, Maso's son, a young man of great talents, who had already served an apprenticeship in most of the Government offices and in numerous foreign embassies, was probably ill contented with Uzzano's supremacy. The man to whom the popular party seems later to have turned for a head was Giovanni de' Medici, whose enormous wealth gave him both social and financial predominance in a commercial city like Florence. The oligarchs, wrapped up in their personal pride and private squabbles, had been long in recognizing the danger which threatened them, and when they did see it were too much divided amongst themselves to act with a strong hand all together. They preferred to make personal adherents amongst the discontented classes, and to use them as instruments against each other in their faction fights. Rinaldo was one of the few who believed that, to maintain the position of the oligarchy, concessions must be made to some of their opponents. He hoped to gain the lower classes by the Catasto and the Lucchese war.

A guild was an association of artisans or merchants who oversee the practice of their craft/trade in a particular area. Medici gave the guilds a prominent role in the government of Florence, in 1427, Florentine greater nobles, led by Rinaldo degli Albizzi and his allies, attempted to introduce measures in the Signoria of Florence to reduce the number of minor guilds from fourteen to seven, thereby reducing the number of their representatives in the government. This attempt was narrowly defeated, largely by the singular efforts of Cosimo and his father Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici, an action which cemented the popularity of the Medici family among the common burghers and helped them rise to power. The influence that they had already obtained was shown by their success in forcing the Government to grant the Catasto, but what they really wanted was a share in political power. The introduction of the Catasto had quite changed the views of the lower classes upon foreign policy. They now believed that money would be easily forthcoming, but not out of their pockets; and the people assembled in crowds in the streets to make demonstrations in favor of war. The popular cry was taken up by some of the younger members of the oligarchy, especially by Rinaldo degli Albizzi hoping to obtain popularity for themselves, and he expected that the conquest of Lucca would give them the prestige that his father who had gained by the conquest of Pisa. No doubt too he hoped to distract the minds of the people from domestic politics. After a fortnight's disputing, Albizzi's party gained the day; in a united assembly of all the Councils the war was approved by a majority of four to one. Rinaldo was one of the War Commissioners sent to the camp (December 1429). From the first, however, the Peace party were determined that the war should not succeed, as the success should give too much power to those who had advocated it. When the war began Florence was conscious of the possession of great resources, but all these seemed to be exhausted. Her finances were in confusion, her courage consequently gone. By 1430, Albizzi’s military policy had cost the Florentine taxpayer a fortune and much of their support. During this campaign, Rinaldo, while serving as War Commissioner under the Ten of war, was accused of attempting to increase his own wealth through sacking. He was eventually removed from his position. The Luccan war of 1929 to 1433 was indisputably a crucial episode for in Florentine politics, a conflict whose ultimate failure and expense downfall of the Albizzi regime.

Rinaldo was by character a jealous man, a man who wished to be first, or nothing, but he was not calculated to be a party leader. He had many of the best qualifications of a citizen; he was active and energetic, ready to endure any hardships for the sake of the city, if not willing to deny himself the satisfaction of grumbling about them. But he had the worst qualifications for a leader, he was hard and unsympathetic, rather feared than loved; his very rectitude of character made him unpopular; he had none of his father's gift of making friends. Though possessing some political insight, he had not the power to convince other people of his views. He was impatient of blame, always feverishly anxious to justify his actions, painfully sensitive to public opinion. Impatient of advice, he was yet easily managed by those who knew how to work on his jealousy. Yet his chief fault was his fickleness of purpose. "He had neither firmness nor constancy, any more than has a swallow in the air. He was full of an incomprehensible ill-temper; he could not make up his mind to which party to belong. Sometimes he seemed all for the Medici, at other times all for Uzzano’s; so that as time is measured by hours and moments, even so often did he change party. Many said that he did not himself know what he wished, but all these fox-like turns and twists were really made because he desired to be head of a party and leader of the people."

Rinaldo’s enmity to Cosimo was caused by his jealousy at the great increase of Cosimo's importance between the years 1430 and 1433. In 1430, Cosimo became a member of the Dieci (Council of Ten to conduct foreign and military affairs), and, in spite of his efforts, Rinaldo never succeeded in getting himself elected to that office during the Lucchese war. But Cosimo's increased importance suggested more than this to Rinaldo, and not to Rinaldo only. His name made him heir to the old tradition of popular leadership, heir to Salvestro de' Medici; it recalled the ‘Ciompi Revolt of 1378’ times, and suggested the restoration of the lower middle classes to a share in the government. Cosimo was seized upon as their natural head by all those groups of discontented people, who merely needed a leader to unite them into a powerful party.

Rinaldo believed that it was really Cosimo who was dangerous, it was therefore natural that Rinaldo should fix upon him as his enemy. Fifty years ago Albizzi and Medici had been bitterly opposed: the Albizzi as heads of the oligarchy, the Medici of the popular party; they seemed to be taking up the same positions now. "Little is wanting to Cosimo," Rinaldo is supposed to have said, "but the actual scepter of government; or rather he has the scepter, but hides it under his cloak . . . The people has chosen him as their advocate, and look upon him as a god. . . . The people are all Mediceans." When Albizzi was momentarily triumphant, he charged the Medici in the accusations drawn up against them, with complicity in all the revolts and plots against the Government since 1378, and made Cosimo appear responsible for all.

But Cosimo was also popular with the nobles, with many of whom he had family connections. His immense wealth was still more the cause of his influence. His father had probably begun that policy of buying up adherents by pecuniary assistance, of which Cosimo made a regular system. In a city of merchants and financiers, the richest banker, who has the control of foreign markets, and who can influence the financial transactions of the whole known world, must necessarily be a person of great importance, and it was exactly this position which Cosimo held. He was not above employing direct bribery, but he could do much that was not direct bribery, by rendering the financial position of his fellow-citizens satisfactory or intolerable to them as he pleased. He secured the favor of the poor and of the Church, by no means an inconsiderable force, by his liberal almsgiving and ecclesiastical buildings and endowments. Besides all this, he possessed exactly those valuable characteristics which Rinaldo lacked. He was patient and could wait his opportunity, silent and able to appear not to notice an affront; a good, if cynical judge of character, a man who could both choose men and silently but thoroughly rule them. By aiming low, he always attained his mark, and could then afford to aim higher. He was respected by his bitterest enemies, also he could accommodate himself to any circumstances, and suit his conversation to any company, and he never tried to force an uncomfortably high standard upon his unwilling contemporaries. He was supported by a little phalanx of men of much ability, yet all a little less scrupulous than himself; men whom he could employ in all sorts of dirty work without soiling his own fingers.

No doubt the Medici did make capital out of the circumstances of the war. The alliance with Rinaldo during its earlier months was profitable. The question of how long and how far Cosimo had been deliberately scheming to make himself master of the Republic, or whether he ever schemed for the position at all before it was thrust upon him, is a difficult one to answer. It was certainly not he and his friends who began the Lucchese war, but did they not deliberately try to prolong it in order to increase their own importance, and to seize upon the dissensions it caused as their opportunity? It was said that “because they had so much money they felt themselves to. be rulers of everything in time of war” and “they made themselves great by keeping the war going, and by lending money to the Commune; which was safe and of great advantage to them, for to the people they appeared to be the supporters of the Commune; so that to them there accrued honor and power and position.” Cosimo certainly did come to the assistance of the Commune with large voluntary loans, which he could easily afford, and which enabled the Republic to tide over her financial difficulties. To Cosimo this was but another useful way of investing his wealth, buying adherents wholesale instead of singly, in fact, and while lesser men found their business seriously damaged by the heavy taxation, the Medici house could stand the strain with ease, and provide these loans into the bargain.

During exile, Cosimo lived quietly at Venice, seeming to attend, only to his business, and to the building of a library as a kind of thank-offering to his hosts; he was content to let the Albizzi party "fill up the cup," and complete their ruin by their own mistakes. As was only to be expected, Cosimo's banishment did not in the least improve the state of affairs in Florence. It caused much discontent amongst the lower classes, who felt that they had lost a real benefactor. However, prompted by his influence and his money, others followed him, such as the architect Michelozzo whose work emulates the ancients, in proportion and symmetry. Cosimo commissioned Michelozzo to design a library as a gift to the Venetian people. News traveled fast to Florence, she could see Cosimo’s philanthropy while suffering under Albizzi command. Albizzi had the government in a stranglehold, as nobody to stand up to him in the Medici’s absence, Rinaldo brought more mercenaries strengthening his position to help him rule the Florence punishing anyone who speaks out with levies and confiscations. Many realized the damage Rinaldo Albizzi doing to city of Florence could not be undone. The Florentines moderates disapproved strongly of what had been done and opposed much of Rinaldo’s policy.

 

They lamented “the banishment of so glorious a citizen as was Cosimo, the pillar, fountain, and banner of all Italy, and the father of the poor." No doubt, too, the commercial inconvenience of the absence of all the Medici from Florence was found very great; and such heads of business firms as were not devoted to the Albizzi were eager to have them back. Fresh military expenses in the following year made the Republic feel the want of Cosimo's purse, ever open to supply her needs. Machiavelli wrote, “Florence, remaining widowed of a citizen so universally loved, everyone was confounded, both the conquered and the conquerors.” For now that their chief danger was apparently removed, the triumphant oligarchs continued to prosecute their private ambitions and enmities, most of them without a thought that the banishment of Cosimo did not involve the extinction of his party. Rinaldo knew better; he realized that “either a great man should not be touched at all, or, if he is touched, should be crushed utterly”; but Rinaldo was almost powerless. The jealousy which had lately been directed upon Cosimo was now turned against himself; his own followers feared that he would become too powerful, now that he had no great rival. His honest refusal to permit the suspension of the Catasto no doubt added to his unpopularity with them. The Government, from September 1433 to September 1434, was accordingly distinguished by its futility, incapacity, and uncertainty.

Rinaldo's first attempts to rule were made through the ‘Balia’. With much difficulty he persuaded it to grant new and important powers to the Police Magistracy, called the" Otto di Balia," so that it might prevent any attempts at a counter-revolution. But the most important point to secure was the control of the election of the Signoria, for if a Signoria, the majority of whose members were favorable to Cosimo, should obtain office, a new struggle must certainly take place. Here Rinaldo was hampered by his own scruples. Afraid of in any way infringing the Constitution, he had only allowed the Balia the power to add new names to the Borse from which the Signoria were drawn, and the old names still remained in them. There was no danger in this so long as each Signoria, instead of being drawn by lot, was selected from the Borse by a carefully-chosen committee of the Balia, called the Accopiatori; but Rinaldo seems to have been so anxious to govern constitutionally that the power of the Accopiatori was limited in duration, and was to expire within a year, when the Signoria would again be drawn by lot. This may have been justice, but it was none the less dangerous. Rinaldo never quite realized that the chief object of a party trying to rule Florence should be to get the official government entirely under its control. There was much complaint, both now and always, that" the citizens were more powerful than the laws." Rinaldo, in trying to act according to the Constitution and obey the laws, forgot that in so doing he was freeing the official government from its dependence upon his party, a partial freedom of which the official government made use before long to destroy the domination of his party altogether.

 

In May Signoria, little attached to Rinaldo, went so far as to threaten to hold a new parliament and make another revolution. Rinaldo's most statesmanlike scheme for securing the supremacy of his party was his proposed alliance with the nobles, to whom he wished to open all the offices of the Republic , thus giving them the status of full citizenship. But the scheme only called forth angry assertions that "liberty and free government" would be endangered by giving political power to the nobles,-a maxim which was true enough in the fourteenth century, but which should have been quite exploded by this time, since the nobles had long ago ceased to be powerful enough to be dangerous. Some small concessions which Rinaldo procured did not conciliate them, and helped to alienate his own supporters. Rinaldo was almost desperate. We find him speaking in the Pratiche, language strangely humble and unlike his former self, entreating instead of commanding. The weakness of his position appears in the imposition of a new “Oath of Unity” upon all the leading citizens, an oath taken, indeed, but never kept. He seems to have turned in despair to foreign politics, hoping through them to strengthen himself at home. Pope Eugenius IV driven from Rome by Visconti's threatening Condottieri without and discontented citizens within, was offered an asylum in Florence, which he gladly accepted. Rinaldo hoped that the Pope's gratitude might make him a powerful ally, but at the same time he was playing a double game, and negotiating secretly with Visconti, the Pope's enemy, and with Visconti's chief Condottiere, Piccinino.

 

We cannot ascertain the precise extent of this intrigue, into which Rinaldo was probably driven by the favor shown to Cosimo by Venice; but certainly, when Rinaldo himself became an exile, he retired at once to Milan, as if he counted on finding help there. For the present the intrigue only alienated the Pope, since he found Rinaldo unwilling to let Florentine troops join his own to withstand Visconti's new attacks on Rome. Rinaldo was, however, overruled; the troops were sent, and in August suffered a heavy defeat, which only served to increase the unpopularity of the Government. And just as the news of this defeat was upsetting the Florentines, another event threw all parties into a turmoil the power of Rinaldo's Accopiatori came to an end, and the selection of the Signoria was again by lot. The very first Signoria thus drawn, that of September

and October 1434, was found to include the names of several persons openly favorable to Cosimo. A few days elapsed between the drawing of the Signoria and its entrance into office. Soon after coming into office, they showed their intentions by the trial and condemnation of the last Gonfalonier, a follower of Rinaldo, for peculation. Then it was discovered that arms were being collected in the Palace, and preparations made for a struggle. A message was sent to Cosimo, bidding him start for Florence; "offering, when they should hear that I was near, to restore me to the city," wrote Cosimo himself. It was obvious that Rinaldo must resort to force if he wished to avert the coming revolution.

 

Rinaldo and his more energetic followers were anxious to seize this brief opportunity of striking the first blow and averting the threatened danger. and, as success in these urban contests usually lay with those who struck the first blow, Rinaldo and his most active adherents, planned to seize the Palace by a surprise attack on September 25th, to make the Signoria prisoners, then to raise the lower classes and employ them in the congenial amusement of house burning, the houses of the Medici. The plot was discovered by the Signoria, preparations were made to resist the attack on the Palace j food, arms, and soldiers collected within it, and the attempt was frustrated. On the following day, September 26th, Rinaldo called a meeting of his party in arms on the large Piazza of Signoria. In the rear of the Palace, intending, as soon as troops of peasants which he had been raising in the country districts should arrive, to march from thence to the Piazza of the Signoria, and so surround the Palace on all sides. But of the respectable lower and middle class citizens there were none. Their sympathies were with Cosimo, but they disliked fighting and disturbances too much to take up arms on either side, so they merely closed their shops and shut themselves up at home. Still more serious for Rinaldo was the defection of some greater men on whom he had counted.

The Signoria, much frightened at the collection of some eight hundred armed men close to the Palace, dispatched a messenger to some troops in Florentine pay, who were not far from the city, with orders to march to their aid. Rinaldo sent a counter-message bidding them stay where they were, but the revolution was all over before they could have arrived. Meanwhile, the Signoria called upon all loyal citizens to defend the legal magistracy against armed rebellion. Rinaldo had in fact put himself technically in the wrong by taking up arms. Rinaldo was acting the part of a rebel to his own government. On the 29th the Piazza was well guarded with troops, and a Parliament was held authority was given to three hundred and fifty persons, including all the Medici party, and many moderate men. A day or two later sentences of banishment were passed against Rinaldo degli Albizzi and his son Ormanno. It was impossible that Cosimo and he should remain together in the same city. Rinaldo must have left the Florentine territory almost on the same day that his triumphant rival reentered it.

If, as Germany’s neo-Rankean historians proclaimed, the old European balance of power was giving way to a new world balance, then the future would surely belong to the Anglo-Saxons (British Empire and America) and Slavs (Russian Empire) unless Germany were able to achieve its own place in the sun. In 1919, the abject humiliation of Germany losing the First World War cut to the core. The subsequent Treaty of Versailles striped her territories, forced disarmament, and instituted crippling monetary reparations of $30 billion. The country went into a great tailspin, economically, militarily and socially. The Great Depression overturned parliamentary governments throughout Europe and the Americas. Yet the dictatorships that replaced them were not, reactionary absolutisms of the kind re-established in Europe after Napoleon. These dictators aspired to be modernizers and none more so than Adolf Hitler. There were all sorts of upheavals. Germans were far more concerned with the Versailles Treaty, with the economic circumstances of Germany. Also Lenin seizing power caused alarm across Europe, a terrible political situation. Hitler played upon the fear that German people had. Emboldened by the lack of international condemnation, Hitler pushes with his plans for a great German nation with expansion. The British historian A.J.P. Taylor challenged the thesis of sole Nazi guilt in 1961, coincidently the same year in which Fritz Fischer revived the notion of German guilt for World War I. Taylor boldly suggested that Hitler’s “ideology” was nothing more than the sort of nationalist ravings “which echo the conversation of any Austrian cafe or German beer-house”; that Hitler’s ends and means resembled those of any “traditional German statesman”; and that the war came because Britain and France dithered between appeasement and resistance, leading Hitler to miscalculate and bring on the accident of September 1939. Needless to say, revisionism on a figure so odious as Hitler sparked vigorous rebuttal and debate. If Hitler had been a traditional statesman, then appeasement would have worked, said some. If the British had been consistent in appeasement or resisted earlier the war would not have happened, said others.

 

Fischer’s theses on World War I were also significant, for, if Germany at that earlier time was bent on European hegemony and world power, then one could argue continuity in German foreign policy from at least 1890 to 1945. Devotees of the “primacy of domestic policy” even made comparisons between Hitler’s use of foreign policy to crush domestic dissent and similar practices under the Kaiser and Bismarck. But how, critics retorted, could one argue for continuity between the traditional imperialism of Wilhelmine Germany and the fanatical racial extermination of Nazi Germany after 1941? At bottom, Hitler was not trying to preserve traditional elites but to destroy the domestic and international order alike. Soviet writers tried, without success, to draw a convincing causal chain between capitalist development and Fascism, but the researches of the British Marxist T.W. Mason exposed the German economic crisis of 1937, suggesting that the timing of World War II was partly a function of economic pressures. Finally, Alan Bullock suggested a synthesis: Hitler knew where he wanted to go his will was unbending but as to how to get there he was flexible, an opportunist. Gerhard Weinberg’s exhaustive study of the German documents then confirmed a neo-traditional interpretation to the effect that Hitler was bent on war and Lebensraum and that appeasement only delayed his gratification. Publication of British and French documents, in turn, enabled historians to sketch a subtler portrait of appeasement. Chamberlain’s reputation improved during the 1970s as American historians, conscious of U.S. overextension in the world and sympathetic to détente with the Soviets, came to appreciate the plight of Britain in the 1930s. Financial, military, and strategic rationalizations, however, could not erase the gross misunderstanding of the nature of the enemy that underlay appeasement. The British historian Anthony Adamthwaite concluded in 1984 that despite the accumulation of sources the fact remains that the appeasers’ determination to reach Munich agreement with Hitler blinded them to reality. If to understand is not to forgive, neither is it to give the past the odour of inevitability. Hitler wanted war, and Western and Soviet policies throughout the 1930s helped him to achieve it.

 

Adam Tooze’s studied economic history of World War II; his The Wages of Destruction traces a new history of 20^th century. “The United States has the Earth, and Germany wants it.” Thus might Hitler’s war aims have been summed up by a latter-day Woodrow Wilson. From the start, the United States was Hitler’s ultimate target. “In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler’s aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the United States as the dominant global superpower,” Adam Tooze writes. “The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order.” Of course, Hitler was not engaged in rational calculation. He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, “this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death.” He dreamed of conquering Poland, Ukraine, and Russia as a means of gaining the resources to match those of the United States. The vast landscape in between Berlin and Moscow would become Germany’s equivalent of the American west, filled with German homesteaders living comfortably on land and labor appropriated from conquered peoples a nightmare parody of the American experience with which to challenge American power.

 

Could this vision have ever been realized? Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that Germany had already missed its chance. “In 1870, at the time of German national unification, the population of the United States and Germany was roughly equal and the total output of America, despite its enormous abundance of land and resources, was only one-third larger than that of Germany,” he writes. “Just before the outbreak of World War I the American economy had expanded to roughly twice the size of that of Imperial Germany. By 1943, before the aerial bombardment had hit top gear, total American output was almost four times that of the Third Reich.” The years leading up to 1917, when the US joined the World War One, were a transformative period for the nation, and in many ways were when the US became a great power. By 1910, the US had become the world’s leading industrial power, and by the war we have numbers like the US possessing 35.5% of the world’s manufacturing capacity, compared to 16% for Germany, and just under 15% for Britain, and American industry and finance would be important to the war.

 

Germany was a weaker and poorer country in 1939 than it had been in 1914. Compared with Britain, let alone the United States, it lacked the basic elements of modernity: There were just 486,000 automobiles in Germany in 1932, and one-quarter of all Germans still worked as farmers as of 1925. Yet this backward land, with an income per capita comparable to contemporary “South Africa, Iran and Tunisia,” wagered on a second world war even more audacious than the first. The reckless desperation of Hitler’s war provides context for the horrific crimes of his regime. Hitler’s empire could not feed itself, so his invasion plan for the Soviet Union contemplated the death by starvation of 20 to 30 million Soviet urban dwellers after the invaders stole all foodstuffs for their own use. Germany lacked workers, so it plundered the labor of its conquered peoples. By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today’s liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born). On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe collapsed. The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy.

Peacemakers entered in the Political Arena 

The Albizzi were once of the oldest families in Florence and led the republican government for two generations. By 1427, they were the most powerful family in the city, and far richer than the Medici. Rinaldo was striving to restore the old order to gain the position once his father held but not with progress sustaining commercial viability but by waging wars just like his father but that was old era when the feudal nobility, whose property surrounded the city, had been always at war with the burghers and the hasty recourse to brute force in all matters of dispute, the possession of land was still the one mark of social status, political theory and diplomacy were yet in their infancy. Rinaldo rallied some of jealous nobles to his cause offering them positions of power in a new Signoria, which he meant to control after Cosimo execution with the flawed justice system of weak Florentine democracy. He brought the republic to the brink of ruin overthrowing democratic rule to be the prince of Florence. The Albizzis enfeebled themselves by decades of easy privilege and city was stagnating under their influence. The victory of 1871, the Unification of Germany into German Empire, a Prussia-dominated state with federal states was officially proclaimed and a conservative German statesman who masterminded it was Otto von Bismarck. The defeat of 1918 after World War One did undo it. Hitler wanted to achieve the same unification again. Both Albizzi and Hitler embraced war to accomplish their goal and both were outdated unable to adopt the changing world with time to dissociate politics from force because force now had no utility. The Florence city wanted new leadership which exactly Medici provided it. Cosimo himself contributed to what had already been acquired the theory of the Balance of Power among states, and, with some help from Francesco Sforza, invented and elaborated those methods of diplomatic intrigue by which the balance of power was maintained, and which were to lasted for 40 years giving Florence the peace that nurtured and flourished renaissance which shaped the world with progress.

 

 

In the early part of the war in 1939 the 1943 the grand area was defined as the western hemisphere routinely the former British Empire which the US would take over and the Far East that would be the grand area they assumed at the time that there would be a German led world, the rest so would be a non-German world that's us in the German world as the Russians gradually a ground down the Nazi armies. After 1942 it became pretty clear that there wouldn't be a German world, so the grand area was expanded to be as much of the world as could be controlled the limitless that's simply pursuing the old position that expansion is the path to security for the nascent Empire of 1776 the these policies were laid down during the war. 19th century the initial run at an effort at an international order in the modern era the Vienna system, the concert of powers when the great powers of the year a band together like Russia, German Empire, Britain, France, Austria in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars to have to coordinate their ambitions and activities to avoid future wars, yet later many wars happened. Vienna system, to fashion a peace repudiating the nationalist and democratic principles of the French Revolution. Now, democratic statesmen would convene in the capital of liberty, Paris, to remake a Europe that had overthrown monarchical imperialism once and for all in this “war to end war.” The League of Nations after World War One when you have a similar lesson learned becomes the idea of an order to make World War one the war that ends all wars. The 1930s were a decade of unmitigated crisis culminating in the outbreak of a second total war. The treaties and settlements of the first postwar era collapsed with shocking suddenness under the impact of the Great Depression and the aggressive revisionism of Japan, Italy, and Germany. In fact, the immense destruction done to the political and economic landmarks of the prewar world would have made the task of peacemaking daunting even if the victors had shared a united vision, which they did not. Germany seemed to be moving less toward democracy than toward anarchy. By 1933 hardly one stone stood on another of the economic structures raised in the 1920s. By 1935 Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime had torn up the Treaty of Versailles and by 1936 the Locarno treaties as well. Armed conflict began in Manchuria in 1931 and spread to Abyssinia in 1935, Spain in 1936, China in 1937, Europe in 1939, and the United States and U.S.S.R. in 1941.

The United States was off the bandwagon almost from the beginning as it was not part of Vienna system and even though US president Wilson got noble prize for his contribution for establishing the League of Nations, US Congress chose not to be part of the same. But when US joined the post-war order which was by far the most well-established and universal of these narratives one based on economic and political liberalization, democratization to a certain degree on global economic integration and sovereignty which certainly prevented world war and flourished globalized world, flourishing humanity as never before.

American planners envisioned postwar reconstruction in terms of Wilsonian internationalism but were determined to avoid the mistakes that resulted after 1918 in inflation, tariffs, debts, and reparations. In 1943 the United States sponsored the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration to distribute food and medicine to the stricken peoples in the war zones. At the Bretton Woods Conference (summer of 1944) the United States presided over the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The dollar was returned to gold convertibility at $35 per ounce and would serve as the world’s reserve currency, while the pound, the franc, and other currencies were pegged to the dollar. Such stability would permit the recovery of world trade, while a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (ratified in 1948) would ensure low tariffs and prevent a return to policies of economic nationalism. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau tried to entice the Soviets to join the Bretton Woods system, but the U.S.S.R. opted out of the new economic order. The American Universalist program seemingly had more luck in the political realm. Roosevelt was convinced that the League of Nations had been doomed by the absence of the United States and the Soviet Union and thus was anxious to win Soviet participation in the compromises at Yalta. The Big Four powers accordingly drafted the Charter of the United Nations at the San Francisco Conference in April 1945. Roosevelt wisely appointed several leading Republicans to the U.S. delegation, avoiding Wilson’s fatal error and securing the Senate ratification of the UN Charter on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89–2. Like Wilson, Roosevelt and Truman hoped that future quarrels could be settled peacefully in the international body.

 

The difference between Cosimo’s steady self-control and the passionate instability of Rinaldo degli Albizzi it was easy to appreciate and the Florentines marked their sense of the distinction by the great trust which, in spite of sundry grumblings, they reposed in Cosimo. Without this confidence, he could never have ruled as he did; and it is in itself the most certain sign that, although he made himself a tyrant, the tyranny was not established over unwilling subjects, nor used, when established, at variance with what the subjects themselves considered to be their own best interests.

Conqueror of Pisa: Imperial Power in the Pacific

Before Medici arrival Florence under these oligarchy families so called "Conqueror of Pisa” among them were Gino Capponi, Lorenzo Ridolfi, Agnolo Pandolfini, Palla Strozzi, Niccolo Uzzano men who took part in the Pratiche (practices), conducted foreign embassies, sat in the Dieci, and frequently held other offices. But the chief of all was Maso degli Albizzi, whose ability and energy had enabled him to gain so commanding a position that it almost seemed as if before long the Rule of the Few might be converted into the Rule of One. The victory of 1871, the Unification of Germany into German Empire, a Prussia-dominated state with federal states was officially proclaimed and a conservative German statesman who masterminded it was Otto von Bismarck. Rinaldo degli Albizzi and Neri Capponi, the brilliant young son of the famous Gino Capponi, now dead, hoping to obtain popularity for themselves, and they expected that the conquest of Lucca would give them the prestige that his father who had gained by the conquest of Pisa. Devotees of the “primacy of domestic policy” even made comparisons between Hitler’s use of foreign policy to crush domestic dissent and similar practices under the Kaiser and Bismarck.

Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union provided aid to China at the start of the second Sino-Japanese War. Although intense Sino-German cooperation lasted only from the Nazi takeover of Germany in 1933 to the start of the war with Imperial Japan in 1937, and concrete measures in earnest only in 1936 had profound effect on Chinese modernization and capability to resist the Japanese in the War. The example Japan set in the second Sino-Japanese War forced Hitler to replace to replace China with Japan as the Nazi’s strategic ally in East Asia. By 1940 the United States had become China’s main diplomatic, financial and military supporter. After Pearl Harbor attack on Pearl Harbor, USA increased its flow of aid to China. After Nagasaki atomic bomb attack, together with Britain and China, USA called for the unconditional surrender of Japanese armed forces.

 

During Maso degli Albizzi’s regime, Gino Capponi became an important intendant of Albizzi and in 1406 he was appointed governor of Pisa. While his son Neri Capponi during his political career was mediator between Albizzi and Medici, and emerged as a skilled politician and fine strategist always able to maintain balance between the various political factions. There is little proof of the rivalry between Cosimo and Neri Capponi, which historians have described as coming to a head in 1441. In fact Neri recalled Cosimo to his homeland. Neri, in spite of Rinaldo's fear of him, was not a man who ever seriously tried to put himself first. He took care, in 1434, to be on the winning side; and his great capabilities and the respect in which he was held made him a valuable ally to the party at that time, and a useful servant afterwards. He was particularly interested in the welfare of the state rather than that of one of the larger family and continually in the employment of the Republic-a member of nearly all the Dieci, frequently Commissioner with the troops, often ambassador, usually one of the Accopiatori. In 1440 he participated in the ‘battle of Anghiari’, contributing significantly to the victory of his associates.

 

One of the victorious ‘Allies’ of the Second World War (locally known as the Second Sino-Japanese War), the Republic of China joined the UN upon its founding in 1945. China became the one of the Charter members of United Nations and also one of the permanent members of Security Council.

 

Baldaccio d'Anghiari, the Condottiere who was assassinated by order of the Government in 1441, was one of Neri's many military friends. It was believed that Cosimo was afraid of the friendship between the Baldaccio and Neri Capponi and had therefore put an end to it in this summary fashion. After the end of the World War two in 1950, China and USA fought against each other in Korean War that resulted into division of Korea at the 38^th parallel. It was a war between North Korea (along with China and Russia) and South Korea (United States and United Nations).

So that makes,

Gino Capponi: Qing Dynasty

Neri Capponi: Republic of China

Maso degli Albizzi: German Empire in 1871

Rinaldo degli Albizzi: Hitler’s Nazi Germany

Baldaccio d'Anghiari: Korea (before division)

Axis Powers: Rinaldo’s Adherents 

In September 1433 when Cosimo was summoned by the Florentine government, known as the Signoria where the Albizzi were waiting for him they enhance the plot to wipe out the upstart Medici. Palla Strozzi was Italian nobleman born in banking Strozzi family was one of the richest man in Florence. Despite his abundant wealth, Strozzi lived well beyond his means and had little interest in his family’s banking business, which would help lead to his eventual economic and political downfall in the later half of the 15^th century. In his sixties, together with Rinaldo he became the leader of the opposition against Cosimo. Palla also helped Rinaldo in the imprisonment of Cosimo and then forcing him into exile in 1433.

 

 There is a story that Rinaldo's warmest supporter, Niccolo Barbadori, had, quite two years previously, formed a plan for banishing Cosimo when he himself should be Gonfalonier, but that Niccolo Uzzano had dissuaded him. The story is rather improbable, since the rivalry between Rinaldo and Cosimo could then have been hardly in existence; yet it may be true that Uzzano tried to play them off against one another, and thus to recover his own predominance; so it is possible that he may have been responsible for the beginning of the enmity between them. Though but a few years before he had recommended a Parliament as a remedy for all the difficulties of the oligarchy, Uzzano seems by this time to have become averse to such a measure, if Barbadori really suggested it. "Whoever first makes a Parliament will be digging his own grave," are the words now put into his mouth by the chronicler. Probably he realized that what might a few years since have been a useful measure would be most risky now that the strength of the opposition was so much increased. But Uzzano's death left Rinaldo with a free hand, and Rinaldo was ready to risk anything against Cosimo.

 

During Tokyo Trial convened on April 29, 1946, to try the leaders of the Empire of Japan for joint conspiracy to start and wage war (categorized as "Class A" crimes) as it was believed that Japanese were still engaged in negotiations with USA right up to the day of the attack on Pearl Harbor and so they may have been stalling for time while they made their war plans. And so Japans war time foreign minister Togo accused for being part of conspiracy as he was dealing with the Americans and knowing the Japanese leadership was planning war. While their other conspiracy theories that US Government officials had advance knowledge of Japans attack Pearl Harbor.

 

Roosevelt speech after the fall of France in 1940, his words, “Let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy. The peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties and those ignoring’s of humane instincts, which today are creating a state of international anarchy, international instability, from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality. America stands at the crossroads of its destiny. A few weeks have seen great nations fall.” By September 1940, Nazi Germany had conquered Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France and had begun a bombing campaign over England. At the end of September 1940, the Tripartite Pact formally united Japan, Italy, and Germany as the Axis Powers. The Tripartite Pact stipulated that any country which attacked any Axis Power would be forced to go to war against all three. The Axis expanded in November 1940 when Hungary, Slovakia and Romania joined. Romania and Hungary would make major contributions to the Axis war against the Soviet Union.

 

Immediately after his seizure, the Signoria, as they had the power to do, banished Cosimo, his brother, Balia (authority) was given to a Committee of over two hundred persons, including, of course, all the leading members of the .Albizzi party, and also, in order to give an appearance of impartiality, a certain number of people who were thought to be compliant. Amongst the names of the members we find those of Palla Strozzi, Niccolo Barbadori, and Ridolfo Peruzzi, Rinaldo's most active partisan, but neither Lorenzo Ridolfi nor Agnolo Pandolfini, who both disapproved of Albizzi’s these violent measures. The first duty of the Balia was to decide on Cosimo's fate, and then the radical weakness of the party at once manifested itself. Some of the members of the Balia" says Machiavelli, "urged Cosimo's death, some his exile, some were silent, either out of compassion for him or out of fear" for themselves. Neri Capponi’s attitude at the time of Cosimo's banishment seemed neutral; but, since just then the Signoria ordered Neri to return to his official duties at Pisa, he was possibly distrusted already.

 

In May Signoria, little attached to Rinaldo, went so far as to threaten to hold a new parliament and make another revolution, and were hardly deterred by the persuasions of Palla Strozzi, who was now trying to act the part of mediator. The power of Rinaldo's Accopiatori came to an end, and the selection of the Signoria was again by lot. The very first Signoria thus drawn, that of September 1434, was found to include the names of several persons openly favourable to Cosimo, amongst them Niccolo Donati, the Gonfalonier. A few days elapsed between the drawing of the Signoria and its entrance into office. Rinaldo and his more energetic followers were anxious to seize this brief opportunity of striking the first blow and averting the threatened danger. And when Cosimo was about to come back to Florence from exile, it was obvious that Rinaldo must resort to force if he wished to avert the coming revolution; and, as success in these urban contests usually lay with those who struck the first blow, Rinaldo and his most active adherents, Ridolfo Peruzzi and Niccolo Barbadori, planned to seize the Palace again by a surprise attack on September 25^th 1934, to make the Signoria prisoners, then to raise the lower classes and employ them in the congenial amusement of house burning, the houses of the Medici, Alamanno Salviati, and others were to suffer, while the revolution was being accomplished at the Palace. The plot was discovered by the Signoria, it is said through" the means of Neri Capponi; preparations were made to resist the attack on the Palace; food, arms, and soldiers collected within it, and the attempt was frustrated. On the following day, September 26^th, Rinaldo called a meeting of his party in arms on the large Piazza in the rear of the Palace, intending, as soon as troops of peasants which he had been raising in the country districts should arrive, to march from thence to the Piazza of the Signoria, and so surround the Palace on all sides. Peruzzi, Barbadori, and many others came, and there was, of course, a crowd of loafers and soldiers out of employment, "whose noses were longer than their honesty," says the chronicler, and who were willing to destroy and burn anything in the hopes of plunder. But of the respectable lower and middle class citizens there were none. Their sympathies were with Cosimo, but they disliked fighting and disturbances too much to take up arms on either side, so they merely closed their shops and shut themselves up at home. Still more serious for Rinaldo was the defection of some greater men on whom he had counted. Palla Strozzi is said to have appeared, but unarmed; and, when Rinaldo rebuked his slackness, to have returned home and taken no further part in the revolution. Palla's defection decided many waverers to follow his example.

 

Within a year after American entry into the war Axis power crested and began to ebb. The Allies rapid success there gradually undermined Mussolini’s eroding Fascist regime. Badoglio, Ciano and other leaders had all denounced Mussolini’s leadership and had been sacked by February 1943; Badoglio took power in the face of a complex dilemma. Italy wanted peace, but to break the alliance with Hitler might provoke a German attack and condemn Italy to prolonged fighting. Thus, while feigning continued loyalty to Germany, Badoglio made secret contact with Eisenhower in the hope of synchronizing an armistice and an Allied occupation. Badoglio agreed secretly to invite Allied occupation on September 3. The armistice was announced on the 8th, and Allied landings followed that night in the Bay of Salerno south of Naples. Four days later Hitler sent a crack team of commandos under Otto Skorzeny to rescue Mussolini and set him up as a puppet dictator in the north of Italy. In September 1943, the Allies began an invasion of Europe, landing in southern Italy. Roosevelt Speech after liberating Sicily,“ The first crack in the axis has come, Mussolini came to the reluctant conclusion that the jig was up he could see the shadow of the long arm of justice but he and his fascist gang will be brought to book and punished their crimes against humanity no criminal will be allowed to escape by expedience of a resignation. Our terms to Italy are still the same as our terms to Germany and Japan that unconditional surrender, ahead of us are much bigger fight we and allies go into them as we went into Sicily together and we shall carry on together. In the Pacific we are pushing the Japs around from the Aleutians to New Guinea, there too we have taken the initiatives and we are not going to let go of it. We shall not settle for less than total victory. ”

 

Rinaldo had in fact put himself technically in the wrong by taking up arms, and besides the regular Mediceans, Pitti, Alessandri, Martelli, and so forth, many moderate people, not greatly attached to Cosimo, obeyed the call of the Signoria on these grounds. Ridolfo Peruzzi, already losing heart, professed to be satisfied, and preceded to the Palace, where he met with an honorable reception. Rinaldo found his following melting away, while the Signoria grew stronger every minute.

 

After the tide of war turned against the Axis, Romania was bombed by allies from 1943 onwards and invaded by advancing Soviet armies. With popular support for Romania’s participation in the war faltering and German-Romanian fronts collapsing under the Soviet onslaught, King Michael of Romania led a coup d’état that deposed the Antonescu regime and put Romania on the side of the Allies for the remainder of the war. Also the Kingdom of Hungary was a member of the Axis Powers as in 1930s, it relied on increased trade with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy to pull out of the Great Depression. And hence Hungarian forces participated in the invasion of Yugoslavia. While waging the war against the Soviet Union, Hungary engaged in armistice negotiation with United States and the United Kingdom. Hitler discovered this betrayal and in March 1944, German forces occupied Hungary.

 

 

 

The reinforcements which he had expected from the country did not arrive; perhaps he had counted on help from others, but no help came. The Signoria called in troops from all parts to keep order in the town; Neri Capponi and others, who had hitherto held aloof to see what would happen, hastened to give in their adherence.

 

Balia was given to three hundred and fifty persons, including all the Medici party, and many moderate men. Their powers were almost unlimited; and their first action was, of course to decree, by an overwhelming majority, the recall of the exiles, Medici, Pucci, and Agnolo Acciaiuoli. A day or two later sentences of banishment were passed against Rinaldo degli Albizzi and his son Ormanno; and similar sentences upon Ridolfo Peruzzi, Niccolo Barbadori and others soon followed. So when Cosimo returned both Albizzi and Strozzi families were exiled in turn.

So that makes,

Palla Strozzi: Italy

Niccolo Barbadori: Imperial Japan

Alamanno Salviati: Yugoslavia

Rinaldo degli Albizzi: Hitler’s Nazi Germany

Ridolfo Peruzzi: Hungary

                                                Peruzzi Family: Austro-Hungarian Empire

Niccolo Donati: Canada

Further Analogies: Florentine Oligarchs and Modern Age Global Powers

At Giovanni’s death all this wealth and influence passed to his eldest son, Cosimo, who was then in the prime of life, thirty-nine years of age, and already a figure of some importance in political circles. In 1430, Rinaldo degli Albizzi was allied with the Medici and his principal enemy was Neri Capponi; he was also opposed, though less violently, to the party of old-fashioned politicians, Uzzano, Agnolo Pandolfini, etc. In 1433 Uzzano was dead, Pandolfini and Lorenzo Ridolfi were beginning to retire from politics; Neri Capponi seemed to occupy a neutral position between two parties, waiting to see which would win, in order that he might attach himself to the victors. Rinaldo was no longer afraid of him, all his enmity was now turned against the Medici; who had become the only objects of his fear and hatred.

 

French general Ferdinand Foch’s word on treaty of Versailles “This is not peace, but a truce for 20 years”, proved prophetic as after twenty year later on Germany’s triumphant victory over the French during the World War II. By September 1940, Nazi Germany had conquered Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, and France and had begun a bombing campaign over England. So America initiated help by not participating in war but providing raw materials. The air planes, tanks, shipping, equipment, ammunition, oil which would allow Britain to hold on. Roosevelt had no illusions that German aggression would one day suck America into the war so he began the long job of preparing American public opinion in July 1940 he got approval for a massive expansion of the US Navy including the building of six large battleships and a new class of aircraft carriers. Roosevelt gave speech his words, “Let no one imagine that America will escape, that America may expect mercy. The peace-loving nations must make a concerted effort in opposition to those violations of treaties and those ignoring’s of humane instincts, which today are creating a state of international anarchy, international instability, from which there is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality. America stands at the crossroads of its destiny. Later after Pearl Harbor attack, Nazi Germany declared war on USA.

 

In 1420, the Peace party was, however, the most popular. The people disliked war and an adventurous foreign policy. They were “little Florentiners”; they did not care about opening up distant markets, as did the greater merchants; they were absolutely indifferent to the intangible advantages of honor and glory; all that they wanted was peace, prosperity at home, and low taxation. And we find the names of Giovanni de' Medici and Agnolo Pandolfini put forward as exponents of their views.

 

Even before world war one various peace movements sprang up to counter the spirit of militarism before 1914. A liberal peace movement with a middle-class constituency flourished around the turn of the century. As many as 425 peace organizations are estimated to have existed in 1900, fully half of them in Scandinavia and most others in Germany, Britain, and the United States. Their greatest achievements were The Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907, at which the powers agreed to ban certain inhumane weapons but made no progress toward general disarmament. Netherlands-USA relations described as ‘excellent and close’ by both countries ministries, there official relations established in 1782 and the two were never at war or in serious conflict, were referred by US President Ronald Reagan as “the longest unbroken, peaceful relationship that we have had with any other nation”. The Hague became the first American embassy in the world as the house purchased by Adams in 1778. The Netherlands was steadfastly neutral, yet neutrality did not stop the Nazi invasion in 1940, and after its liberation 1945 neutrality was no longer attractive. The Dutch were politically close to the UK and were opposed to European affairs being dominated by either a renewed France or a resurgent Germany.

 

Rinaldo was held in check by Niccolo Uzzano as long as he lived and so does the Germany by the France before World War Two. Agnolo Pandolfini’s father named Filippo, was wealthy merchant of the Por Santa Maria guild in Florence who probably dealt in silks and spices; he later joined the Signoria of Florence and in 1393 and in 1400, became Gonfalonier. Dutch presence on the Indian subcontinent lasted from 1605 to 1825. Merchants of the Dutch East India Company were looking for textiles to exchange with the spices they traded in the East Indies. Agnolo Pandolfini himself served in many political offices, becoming a major figure of the first half of the 15^th century in Florence.

 

So that makes,

Niccolo Uzzano: France

Agnolo Pandolfini: Netherlands

Filippo Pandolfini: The Kingdom of Netherlands

Discussions over War

Discussions about the war had rendered the contests between the members of the governing party more bitter than ever. Lorenzo Ridolfi remarked that all these attacks on the authors of the war revealed only the discord within the city, “and this our enemies know, and it gives them boldness against us.” Uzzano went near the root of the matter when he said that the cause of the discontent was "to see some in higher dignities than they are worthy of, and others kept under." But his suggested remedy showed the fatal weakness of his discrimination. “Justice ought to be done, and dignities given to those who merit them on account of their families.” It seemed impossible to find a satisfactory remedy. In1429, on the proposal of Lorenzo Ridolfi, a great meeting of citizens was held, at which all swore peace with one another upon the Book of the Gospels. This plan was tried again in April 1430, but quite as fruitlessly. At last, early in 1432, Neri Capponi was banished on a frivolous pretext under the “Scandalous Law,” but was immediately recalled by the next Signoria. Rinaldo has been accused of compassing this as a private revenge, but Rinaldo was out of Florence at the time. Besides, he had often spoken of the law with severe disapproval, and Rinaldo's actions, even his attacks upon his enemies, had always been open and above board.

 

Debate over the origins of World War I was from the start partisan and moral in tone. Each of the belligerents published documentary collections selected to shift the blame and prove that it was fighting in self-defense. Serbia was defending itself against Austrian aggression. Austria-Hungary was defending its very existence against terror plotted on foreign soil. Russia was defending Serbia and the Slavic cause against German imperialism. Germany was defending its lone reliable ally from attack and itself from entente encirclement. France, with most justification, was defending itself against unprovoked German attack. And Britain was fighting in defense of Belgium, international law, and the balance of power. In the Treaty of Versailles (1919) the victorious coalition justified its peace terms by forcing Germany and its allies to acknowledge guilt for the war. This tactic was historically dubious and politically disastrous, but it stemmed from the liberal conviction, as old as the Enlightenment, that peace was normal and war an aberration or crime for which clear responsibility guilt could be established. Almost at once, revisionist historians examined the thousands of documents that governments made available after 1920 and challenged the Versailles verdict. Yes, the German government had issued the risky “blank check” and urged Vienna on an aggressive course. It had swept aside all proposals for mediation until events had gained irreversible momentum. It had, finally, surrendered its authority to a military plan that ensured the war could not be localized. Indeed, the whole course of German foreign policy since 1890 had been restless and counter-productive, calling into existence the very ring of enemies it then took extreme risks to break.

 

Following collapse of the Qing dynasty, China fell into a brief period of civil war. The ‘May Fourth Movement’ was an anti-imperialist, cultural, and political movement which grew out of student protests in Beijing on 4^th May 1919. In retaliation to the Treaty of Versailles, students protested against the government’s decision to allow Japan to retain territories in Shandong that had been surrendered by Germany after the ‘Siege of Tsingtao’ in 1914. The demonstrations sparked nation-wide protest and spurred an upsurge in Chinese nationalism, a shift towards political mobilization, a shift away from cultural activities, a move towards a mass base and a move away from traditional intellectual and political elites.

 

The German historian Fritz Fischer published a massive study of German war aims during 1914-18 and held that Germany’s government, social elites, and even broad masses had consciously pursued a breakthrough to world power in the years before World War I and that the German government, fully aware of the risks of world war and of British belligerency, had deliberately provoked the 1914 crisis. Other historians saw links to the Bismarckian technique of using foreign policy excursions to stifle domestic reform, a technique dubbed “social imperialism.” Germany’s rulers, it appeared, had resolved before 1914 to overthrow the world order in hopes of preserving the domestic order.

 

The German army executed over 6,500 French and Belgian civilians between August and November 1914, usually in near-random large-scale shootings of civilians ordered by junior German officers. The German Army destroyed 15,000-20,000 buildings most famously the university library at Louvain and generated a wave of refugees of over a million people. Over half the German regiments in Belgium were involved in major incidents. Thousands of workers were shipped to Germany to work in factories. British propaganda dramatizing the Rape of Belgium attracted much attention in the United States, while Berlin said it was both lawful and necessary because of the threat of franc-tireurs like those in France in 1870. The British and French magnified the reports and disseminated them at home and in the United States, where they played a major role in dissolving support for Germany.

So that makes,

Gino Capponi: Qing Dynasty

Neri Capponi: Republic of China

Maso degli Albizzi: German Empire in 1871

Rinaldo degli Albizzi: Hitler’s Nazi Germany

Lorenzo Ridolfi: Belgium

 Contessina de’ Bardi: Britain after World War

The marriage of Contessina de’ Bardi, daughter of the Bardi family to Cosimo de’ Medici around 1415 was a key factor in establishing the House of Medici in power in Florence. She was regularly involved in negotiating and approving marriages for the more important families in Florence. Bardi family was an influential Florentine banking family in the 14^th century who started banking company ‘Compagnia dei Bardi’ extending their operations beyond the Alps established branches in England and became main European banker; they became so powerful that the Florentine government considered them a threat. They eventually were forced to sell their castle to Florence because “fortified castles near the city were seen as a danger to the republic.” But later as they lent Edward III of England 900,000 gold florins during the ‘Hundred Years War’, a debt which he failed to repay leading to collapse of Bardi family bank, centuries of prosperity ruined by a single unpaid loan to the King of England. The Medici never gave huge loans to princes and kings, who were notoriously bad investments. Cosimo rewarded the Bardi family for their support, restoring their political rights upon his ascent in 1434. In 1444, he exempted them from paying particular taxes. During the 15th century the Bardi family provided aid to Florence in a war with the rival city of Lucca and continued to operate in various European centers, playing a notable role in financing some of the early voyages of discovery to America including those by Christopher Columbus and John Cabot. Quite crucial for the Age of Discovery or Exploration, the period in European history in which extensive overseas exploration emerged as a powerful factor in European culture, most notably the discovery of the Americas, and during which time was the beginning of what is known today as globalization. It also marks the rise of the widespread adoption of colonialism and mercantilism as national policies in Europe.

Britain regularly involved in various international meetings during wars like the Versailles peace negotiations and the 1922 Conference of Genoa, to deal with the Germany and Russia, both of which had been excluded from the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, planned by wartime British Prime Minister Lloyd George’s and by Churchill during second World War. By 1914, Great Britain controlled the largest number of colonies, and the phrase, “the sun never sets on the British Empire” describes vastness on its holdings. The dawn of the 20th century was thus a time of anxiety for the British Empire as well, challenged for the first time by the commercial, naval, and many other industrializing nations. Post World War One, British Empire of 1919 near its peak in terms of geographic scope and complexity was giving not taking independence to places like Ireland and Afghanistan. These, Tooze insinuates, are signs of a search for global order ‘ab imperio’, not of continued good luck and domination. While facing down all of these challenges, moreover, London faced huge debt payments to Washington.

 

Without a renewed European financial architecture, London would remain bogged down in debt and facing enemies from Mesopotamia to Mitteleuropa. The challenges facing "imperialism," recognized Lloyd George, were clearly far more daunting than those of the Victorian Era. They were challenges that could only be met with the financial, political, and military resources of the United States. On the other hand American anti-imperialism was not the same as anti-racism or anti-colonialism. The disruptive vigor of the American economy was no device to usher in racial equality and national liberation in markets like China, India, or the Middle East. Instead American anti-imperialism meant opposition to "the 'selfish' and violent rivalry of France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan that threatened to divide one world into segmented spheres of interest." The late explosion of the American economy into a globalizing world would mean the end to imperial preference, not the end of empire qua white domination. 

During World War Two, of the three great allies Britain was the weakest and most interested in restoring a balance of power in Europe. In financial terms, World War II had cost more than the combined total of all European wars since the middle Ages. Even Britain, which had been spared invasion, had been transformed from the world’s biggest creditor to the world’s biggest debtor, and much of continental Europe was obliged to continue living on credit and aid. Economically, all Europe’s once great powers were dwarfed by the world’s superpowers. Their status was diminished still further when their remaining colonies were freed.

The period 1957–62 was also the climax of decolonization. As early as 1946–47, when Britain was granting independence to India and states of the Middle East, the Attlee government sponsored the Cohen–Caine plan for a new approach to West Africa as well. It aimed at preparing tropical Africa for self-rule by gradually transferring local authority from tribal chiefs to members of the Western-educated elite. Accordingly, the Colonial Office drafted elaborate constitutions, most of which had little relevance to real conditions in primitive countries that had no natural boundaries, no ethnic unity or sense of nationalism, and no civic tradition. When the Gold Coast (Ghana) elected the radical leader Kwame Nkrumah, who then demanded immediate independence and got it in 1957, the British felt unable to deny similar grants to neighboring colonies. Britain had, in fact, when the matter was faced squarely, little desire to hang on, given the exorbitant financial and political costs of late imperialism. In 1959 the Cabinet quietly decided to withdraw from Africa as soon as it won reelection. Macmillan then announced the new policy in Cape Town on Feb. 3, 1960, when he spoke of “the winds of change” sweeping across the continent. White residents of Southern Rhodesia, however, declared their own independence in defiance of London and the UN.

During World War in January 1917, British intelligence intercepted and decoded a diplomatic communication known as the ‘Zimmerman Telegram’, in which Germany asked Mexico to ally with them against the United States. Result of this then Wilson asked congress for “a war to end all wars” that would “make the world safe for democracy” and congress voted war on Germany during World War One. While back in Florence I am not sure of this but as some says Contessina stayed in Florence handling banking business keeping Medici affairs in order while Cosimo and his brother were in exile, also as an ear and eyes of Cosimo in Florence providing him information to use against Albizzi to undermine his authority which could beneficial for Cosimo’s case to come back in Florence. Also some say the marriage of Cosimo and Contessina was kind of a transaction or business deal and she had love affair prior to marriage I would relate that as a Dutch, Britain’s biggest and closest ally before USA.

Italic League: United Nations

Foreign relations, both as a backdrop to Cosimo's rise to power and during first twenty years of his rule, were dominated by the Wars in Lombardy. This series of conflicts between the Venetian Republic and the Duchy of Milan for hegemony in Northern Italy lasted from 1423 to 1454 and involved a number of Italian states, which occasionally switched sides according to their changing interests. Death of Filippo Maria Visconti in 1447 led to a major change in the alliances. In 1450 Cosimo's current ally Francesco Sforza established himself as the Duke of Milan. Florentine trade interests made her support Sforza's Milan in the war against Venice, while the fall of Constantinople in 1453 dealt a blow to Venetian finances. Cosimo was the principal architect of an alliance with the Sforza of Milan that culminated in the Peace of Lodi (1454). By this pact Milan, soon months after following the Peace or Treaty of Lodi, the Italic League or Most Holy League was an international agreement concluded in Venice on 30 August 1454, between the Papal States, the Republic of Venice, the Duchy of Milan, the Republic of Florence and the Kingdom of Naples. “Italian League” bound them together in and against any power, Italian or foreign, that should disturb the existing balance of power. At the same time, the treaty established special machinery for the peaceful settlement of any disputes that might arise among the states. The relative peace and stability resulting from Lodi and the League, promoted by Sforza, allowed him to consolidate his rule over Milan and it was Cosimo de' Medici's most important foreign policy decision to end the traditional rivalry between his Florence and Sforza's Milan. The Milan-Florence alliance played a major role in stabilizing the peninsula for the next 40 years. Eventually, the Peace of Lodi recognized Venetian and Florentine territorial gains and the legitimacy of the Sforza rule in Milan and despite some local conflicts, the creation of the Italian League brought about a much more peaceful era in the second half of the century. Peace was assisted, above all, by a general exhaustion among most of the major powers, whose economies and societies could no longer support the strains imposed upon them by wars.

 

World War I showed how much America’s influence had grown. Not only was American intervention a decisive factor in the war's end, But President Wilson attended the Paris Peace Conference which ended the war and attempted to set the terms of the peace. He spearheaded America’s most ambitious foreign policy initiative yet, an international organization, called the League of Nations, designed to promote peace and cooperation globally. Wilsonianism, as it came to be called, derived from the liberal internationalism that had captured large segments of the Anglo-American intellectual elite before and during the war. It interpreted war as essentially an atavism associated with authoritarian monarchy, aristocracy, imperialism, and economic nationalism. Such governments still practiced an old diplomacy of secret alliances, militarism, and balance of power politics that bred distrust, suspicion, and conflict. The antidotes were democratic control of diplomacy, self-determination for all nations, open negotiations, disarmament, free trade, and especially a system of international law and collective security to replace raw power as the arbiter of disputes among states. This last idea, developed by the American League to Enforce Peace (founded in 1915), found expression in the Fourteen Points as “a general association of nations” and was to be the cornerstone of Wilson’s edifice. The League, a wholesale effort to remake global politics, showed just how ambitious American foreign policy had become. He expected a functioning League of Nations to correct whatever errors and injustices might creep in to the treaties themselves. Yet isolationism was still a major force in the United States. Congress blocked the United States from joining the League of Nations, dooming Wilson’s project.

On 10 January 1920, the League of Nations formally came into being when the Covenant of the League of Nations, ratified by 42 nations in 1919, took effect. However, at some point the League became ineffective when it failed to act against the Japanese invasion of Manchuria as in February 1933, 40 nations voted for Japan to withdraw from Manchuria but Japan voted against it and walked out of the League instead of withdrawing from Manchuria. It also failed against the Second Italo-Ethiopian War despite trying to talk to Benito Mussolini as he used the time to send an army to Africa, so the League had a plan for Mussolini to just take a part of Ethiopia, but he ignored the League and invaded Ethiopia, the League tried putting sanctions on Italy, but Italy had already conquered Ethiopia and the League had failed. After Italy conquered Ethiopia, Italy and other nations left the league. But all of them realized that it had failed and they began to re-arm as fast as possible. During 1938, Britain and France tried negotiating directly with Hitler but this failed in 1939 when Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia. When war broke out in 1939, the League closed down and its headquarters in Geneva remained empty throughout the war. Although the United States never joined the League, the country did support its economic and social missions through the work of private philanthropies and by sending representatives to committees.

The U.S. entry into World War II had brought an end to isolation, and President Roosevelt was determined to prevent a retreat into isolationism once the war was over. After a series of conferences in December 1941, Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill announced the formation of the United Nations, a wartime alliance of 26 nations. In 1943 Roosevelt began planning the organization of a postwar United Nations, meeting with congressional leaders to assure bipartisan support. The public supported Roosevelt’s efforts, and that fall Congress passed resolutions committing the United States to membership in an international body “with power adequate to establish and to maintain a just and lasting peace.” In the spring on 25^th April 1945, 50 governments met in San Francisco for a conference and started drafting the UN Charter, which was adopted on 25 June 1945; delegates of those 50 nations signed the charter for a permanent United Nations. According to its Charter, the UN aims: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights,…to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. Finally, United Nations (UN), international organization established on October 24, 1945 after World War II with the aim of preventing future wars, succeeding the ineffective League of Nations which was created by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and disbanded in 1946. Pursuant to the Charter, the organization's objectives include maintaining peace and security, developing friendly relations among countries based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples; achieving worldwide cooperation to solve international economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian problems; respecting and promoting human rights; and serving as a center where countries can coordinate their actions and activities toward these various ends.

 

Within five years, in an extraordinary burst of energy and imagination, statesmen endowed the world with almost all its existing network of global institutions: the United Nations (UN), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Monetary Fund (the IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the IBRD, or World Bank), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), the International Court of Justice, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the International Refugee Organization (IRO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). Some of these, especially the UN, were to reveal limitations. But they embodied serious efforts to replace outdated national and bilateral diplomacy with permanent multilateral institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were created to bar a return of the cutthroat economic nationalism that had prevailed before the war. At its founding, the UN had 51 member states; this number grew to 193 in 2011, representing almost all of the world's sovereign states. Back then in Florence Medici too offered a significant contribution to the betterment of their beloved city. Their generosity included charitable projects such as the Spedale degli Innocenti (a hospital for orphans) employing Medici’s favorite architect Filippo Brunelleschi for the job.

Cold War effect: Mediceans and Latin America

In the aftermath of battle of Anghiari and the subsequent Peace, Cosimo was much more popular amongst the people than were the Albizzi. All that was left to the exiles was to bear their banishment as patiently as they could, and those who had offended least might hope for ultimate restoration to their homes. Rinaldo himself made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and returned to Italy only to die suddenly in 1442. Free from the pressure of external danger, Cosimo could now turn his attention to enlarging the sphere of his authority within Florence. It was his aim to found a dynastic power; and now that he was himself tolerably secure he could look forward to future events, and choose with deliberate purpose the· directions in which he intended to extend his influence and the means of so doing. It was in view of these dynastic ambitions that he embarked upon the independent and constructive foreign policy of which the Peace of Lodi formed the culminating point. But to carry through a policy like this Cosimo had need of more than the ill-planned machinery by which foreign affairs had hitherto been managed. He had to be his own "Foreign Minister," and supersede, by direct relations between himself and foreign Powers, the clumsy, old-fashioned methods of acting through the Signoria and Dieci. It is true that the ambassadors were still nominally appointed by one or other of these bodies, and still continued to direct official correspondence and make reports to them; but it was Cosimo by whom they were really commissioned and to whom they were really responsible. On one occasion we find him deliberately cancelling the appointment of two ambassadors to Venice, and providing that Neri Capponi should go in their place; on another he recalled his son Piero from an embassy to Venice, and Piero's fellow-ambassadors felt obliged, though much against their will, to follow him home. The ambassadors corresponded privately with Cosimo, and were entrusted by him with much diplomatic business of which the Dieci knew nothing. We hear of Dietisalvi Neroni and Bernadetto de 'Medici (Cosimo’s trusted cousin), on their return from a mission to Milan, first of all explaining to Cosimo all that they had accomplished, and from him receiving instructions how much they were to impart to the Signoria and how much to withhold.

At the same time he established private relations between himself and some of the foreign rulers with whom he had to deal, and especially with Sforza, who carried on a long and intimate correspondence with him. Of great assistance to him in· this respect were the banking houses of the Medici firm, already established everywhere in Italy and in some foreign towns, and usually in close relations with the various governments upon financial matters. The failure of the effort made by Venice to ignore the fact that Cosimo was absolute "Minister for External Affairs," and to treat directly with the Signoria, has already been narrated. All the Powers learned that they had to instruct their ambassadors as Sforza instructed his: "Go to Florence and have an interview with Cosimo; and then, if Cosimo thinks well, present yourself to the Signoria. Tell the Signoria more or less of your commission as Cosimo thinks good." Such a complete appropriation of power was not gained without a struggle. Cosimo's foreign policy was warmly opposed, not only by the ignorant, but by men otherwise of his own party, like Neri Capponi; and even a professed Medicean like Agnolo Acciaiuoli hesitated before embracing it. Cosimo had to trust entirely to his personal influence over such men to persuade them to let him have his own way.

 

In the aftermath of World War II, the Soviet Union created a sphere of influence as a political fact in the territories of the nations of eastern Europe, similar to the Monroe Doctrine formalized under President James Monroe which already asserted a U.S. sphere of influence in the “New World” by removing European encroachment in the Americas, presaging later U.S. interventions in the internal affairs of smaller neighbors. As the U.S. emerged as a world power, few nations dared to trespass on this sphere. A notable exception occurred with the Soviet Union and the Cuban Missile Crisis. One reason Latin American nations avoided an overly close association with fascism was a desire not to offend the dominant power of the hemisphere, the United States. During the 1920s it had already begun a retreat from the policy of active intervention in Latin America. This policy, adopted in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War and the United States’ open support of Panamanian secession from Colombia, had featured the creation of formal and informal protectorates over many Caribbean and Central American states. Franklin D. Roosevelt completed the shift. His domestic policies were much admired in Latin America and in some cases copied by moderate reformists, but his Good Neighbor Policy won the warm approval of almost all Latin American rulers, since it entailed formal renunciation of the right of intervention in favor of peaceful cajoling and assorted economic, military, and technical aid programs. These programs were launched on the eve of World War II to help hemispheric neighbors prepare for the emergency. They were expanded after the start of the conflict, whose economic impact on Latin America was generally comparable to that of World War I but more intense because of the earlier and deeper involvement of the United States. The war emergency naturally gave still further impetus to the development of national industries to replace scarce imports.

The Good Neighbor approach proved far more effective in promoting U.S. hegemony than the occasional dispatch of gunboats. In 1938 Roosevelt calmly accepted Mexico’s expropriation of the petroleum installations of U.S. and British companies, and he was rewarded several times over when Mexico loyally cooperated with the United States in World War II, even sending an air force squadron to serve in the Philippines. The one other Latin American country to send forces overseas was Brazil, which put an expeditionary force in Italy. In general Latin America’s wartime collaboration left little to be desired. In the end all countries not only broke relations with the Axis powers but declared war, though Argentina took the latter step only at the last possible moment, in March 1945. In Latin America as elsewhere, the close of World War II was accompanied by expectations, only partly fulfilled, of steady economic development and democratic consolidation. Economies grew, but at a slower rate than in most of Europe or East Asia, so that Latin America’s relative share of world production and trade declined and the gap in personal income per capita separating it from the leading industrial democracies increased. Popular education also increased, as did exposure to the mass media and mass culture which in light of the economic lag served to feed dissatisfaction. Military dictatorships and Marxist revolution were among the solutions put forward, but none were truly successful.

Whatever policies Latin American countries adopted in the postwar era, they had to take into account the probable reaction of the United States, now more than ever the dominant power in the hemisphere. It was the principal trading partner and source of loans, grants, and private investment for almost all countries, and Latin American leaders considered its favor worth having. Policy makers in Washington, on their part, were unenthusiastic about ISI and state-owned enterprises, but, as long as North American investors were not hindered in their own activities, the inward-directed policy orientation did not pose major problems. During the Cold War, the Monroe Doctrine was continually applied to Latin America by the framers of U.S. foreign policy. Moreover, as the Cold War furthered between the United States and the Soviet Union, the great majority of Latin American governments sided willingly with the former, even though they complained of being neglected by Washington’s preoccupation with the threat of communism in Europe and Asia. Prior to the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, Cuba maintained strong economic and political ties to the United States. From 1902 until its abrogation in 1934, the Platt Amendment authorized the US to use military force to preserve Cuba's independence. In 1917, Cuba entered World War I on the side of the allies. Cuba joined the League of Nations in 1920. In 1941, Cuba declared war on Italy, Germany, and Japan. Cuba joined the United Nations in 1945. Cuba joined the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1948. During the Presidency of Fulgencio Batista, Cuba did not initially face trade restrictions. In mid-1958, the United States imposed an arms embargo on the Batista administration. When the Cuban Revolution (1953–1959) established a Communist government with ties to the Soviet Union, it was argued that the Monroe Doctrine should be invoked to prevent the spread of Soviet-backed Communism in Latin America. Under this rationale, the U.S. provided intelligence and military aid to Latin and South American governments that claimed or appeared to be threatened by Communist subversion as in the case of “Operation Condor”.

 

The Cuban missile crisis seemed at the time a clear victory for Kennedy and the United States and was widely attributed to American superiority in nuclear weapons. In fact, neither side showed the slightest willingness even to bluff a nuclear strike. It was probably the overwhelming U.S. superiority in conventional naval and air power in its home waters that left the U.S.S.R. no option but retreat. Nor was the crisis an unmitigated American victory. Kennedy’s pledge never to overthrow Castro by force meant that the United States would have to tolerate whatever mischief he, backed by $300,000,000 a year in Soviet aid, might contrive in the future. To be sure, Kennedy warned that the United States would never tolerate any expansion of Communism in the hemisphere. (This pledge was underwritten by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 when he sent U.S. troops into the Dominican Republic to prevent a leftist takeover, but such interventionism only reminded Latin Americans of past “Yankee imperialism” and gave credence to Castro’s anti-American propaganda.) The existence of a Communist base in the Caribbean, therefore, was to be a source of unending vexation for future American presidents. What is more, the Cuban missile crisis hardened Soviet determination never again to be humiliated by military inferiority. Khrushchev and his successors accordingly began the largest peacetime military buildup in history, which, by the 1970s, accorded the Soviet Union parity with the United States in nuclear forces and the ability to project naval power into every ocean of the world.

 

We (the U.S.) have not only supported a dictatorship in Cuba, we have propped up dictators in Venezuela, Argentina, Colombia, Paraguay and the Dominican Republic. We not only ignored poverty and distress in Cuba, we have failed in the past eight years to relieve poverty and distress throughout the hemisphere. – President John F. Kennedy, October 6, 1960.

Pandolfo Pandolfini: Netherlands during Cold War

On the death of Cosimos one of two son named Giovanni in 1441, Cosimo filled his place upon with young Pandolfo Pandolfini, who had just shown himself worthy of high trust. As after 1441, the officials were elected by the Government, and no longer chosen by lot as heretofore. Cosimo was one of them himself, and was very careful in the selection of the others. Pandolfo was the grandson of the famous Agnolo Pandolfini.

 

The Netherlands was positive towards a US-led-free-trade regime and during Cold War was wholly committed to building a managed post-war economic and political order based around international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Dutch body politic, dominated as it was by the democratic socialists and Christian parties, was resoundingly anti-communist in outlook. The US was generous with ‘Marshall Plan’ funds designed to modernize Dutch technology and help it integrate into what became European Union.

So as we know,

Agnolo Pandolfini: Netherlands

Filippo Pandolfini: The Kingdom of Netherlands

Now that makes,

Pandolfo Pandolfini: Netherlands during Cold War

“New World” and USA’s Monroe Doctrine: Mediceans and Cosimo’s Foreign Policy

Cosimo was always supported by a little phalanx of men of much ability, yet all a little less scrupulous than himself: men whom he could employ in all sorts of dirty work without soiling his own fingers: his cousin Averardo, bold, cunning, cruel; Puccio Pucci, a member of the Minor Arts, who had greatly distinguished himself on the Dieci, sagacious, prudent, crafty; Martino Martini, and a host of lesser men. Many of the younger, ambitious politicians crowded to his party, in which there seemed more room for individual expansion than with Rinaldo, who must be everything himself, and could brook no rival. There were Alamanno Salviati, Agnolo Acciaiuoli, Dietisalvi Neroni, Niccolo Soderini and Luca Pitti, all of whose names were to become historical during Cosimo’s reign. It was the interest of these lesser men to foster jealousy between their leaders in order to gain importance for themselves in the general struggle for power. Cosimo never attempted the impossible; he was content with what he had obtained, and strove after nothing that was not absolutely essential. To control the appointment of the chief officials, to direct the foreign policy, and, indirectly, to manage the taxation of the Republic, was the extent of his ambitions, not a small one, indeed, but yet not unlimited.

 

Until the end of the 19th century, the US had a special relationship primarily with nearby Mexico and Cuba. (Apart from Mexico and the Spanish colony of Cuba) was largely tied to Britain. The United States had no involvement in the process by which Spanish colonies broke away and became independent around 1820. In cooperation with, and help from Britain, the United States issued the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, warning against the establishment of any additional European colonies in Latin America. The doctrine was an outgrowth of concern in both Britain and the United States that the continental powers would attempt to restore Spain’s former colonies, in Latin America, many of which had become newly independent nations. The United States was also concerned about Russia’s territorial ambitions in the northwest coast of North America. As a consequence, George Canning, the British foreign minister, suggested a joint U.S.-British declaration forbidding future colonization in Latin America. President James Monroe first stated clearly that the doctrine during his seventh annual State of the Union Address to the Congress. The doctrine asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence. The separation intended to avoid situations that could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers so that the U.S. could exert its influence undisturbed. By the end of the 19th century, Monroe's declaration was seen as a defining moment in the foreign policy of the United States and one of its longest-standing tenets. The intent and impact of the doctrine persisted more than a century, with only small variations, and would be invoked by many U.S. statesmen and several U.S. presidents, including Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.

 

The Mexican Revolution started in 1911; it alarmed American business interests that had invested in Mexican mines and railways. The United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution, include, among other violations of sovereignty, the ambassadorial backing of a coup and assassination of President Francisco I. Madero and the military occupation of Veracruz. Large numbers of Mexicans fled the war-torn revolution into the southwestern United States. Meanwhile, the United States increasingly replaced Britain as the major trade partner and financier throughout Latin America. The US adopted a "Good Neighbor Policy" in the 1930s, which meant friendly trade relations would continue regardless of political conditions or dictatorships. This policy responded to longstanding Latin American diplomatic pressure for a regional declaration of nonintervention, as well as the increasing resistance and cost of US occupations in Central America and the Caribbean. One effect of the two world wars was a reduction in European presence in Latin America and an increasing solidification of the US position. "The proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine that the hemisphere was closed to European powers, which was presumptuous in 1823, had become effective by the eve of the World War I, at least in terms of military alliances," Friedman and Long note. During the war the State Department endorsed all-American oil concessions, but, in accordance with the principle of reciprocity, Hughes instructed his Latin-American ambassadors in 1921 to respect foreign interests. Latin America in general became far more of an American sphere of influence during the war than ever before owing to the growth of American commerce at Britain’s expense. Central American governments now relied on New York banks to manage their public finance rather than those of London and Paris, while the U.S. share of Latin-American trade totaled 32 percent, double Britain’s share, though British capital still predominated in the economics of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile.

 

From the first Cosimo, owing his restoration to his adherents, had been unable to rule them absolutely; “his authority”, says Guicciardini, “not being firmly grounded, the power of the other members of his party was so great that he had to put up with their infinite extortions.” Yet until age descended upon him he was able to keep them well in hand. There is little proof of the rivalry between him and Neri Capponi, which historians have described as coming to a head in 1441. He took care, in 1434, to be on the winning side; and his great capabilities and the respect in which he was held made him a valuable ally to the party at that time, and a useful servant afterwards. He was continually in the employment of the Republic-a member of nearly all the Dieci, frequently Commissioner with the troops, often ambassador, usually one of the Accopiatori In everything which he undertook he was successful; he had a great popularity with the soldiers, and could keep the peace between rival Condottieri, and make them do the work for which they were paid in what seemed to the other harassed Commissioners a truly marvelous manner. There was not a Court or Republic in Italy where he was not held in the highest respect as Ambassador. He seems to have been content with his position; from his own account of his life he appears thoroughly satisfied both with it and with himself; there is no indication that he wished to be considered Cosimo's rival. He did not indeed approve of Cosimo's foreign policy, preferring the Venetian to the Sforzescan alliance; but even Cosimo's most devoted followers were often inclined to agree with him there, and Neri's opposition, though firm, was never extended to any act of overt hostility or rebellion in internal politics. For the rest, Cosimo found him useful to counterbalance the growing power of a younger politician, Luca Pitti, who during the Forties was rapidly coming to the front.

 

Wilson’s proposed League of Nations seemed to offer Latin America a means of circumventing U.S. influence. But the United States inserted Article 21 to the effect that “Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine.” Secretary of State Hughes later defended U.S. behavior by candidly questioning the ability of some Latin-American states to maintain public order, sound finance, and the rule of law. When the Chaco dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay erupted into war, League of Nations President Briand offered his personal good offices, but he refused to assert League authority for fear of irritating the United States. In the end, the Pan-American Commission of Inquiry assumed jurisdiction.

 

United States signed up the major countries as allies against Germany and Japan in World War II. However, some countries like Argentina, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela only declared war on Axis powers in 1945 (though most had broken relations previously). The era of the Good Neighbor Policy ended with the ramp-up of the Cold War in 1945, as the United States felt there was a greater need to protect the western hemisphere from Soviet Union influence and a potential rise of communism. These changes conflicted with the Good Neighbor

Policy's fundamental principle of non-intervention and led to a new wave of US involvement in Latin American affairs. Control of the Monroe doctrine thus shifted to the multilateral Organization of American States (OAS) founded in 1948. In the 1950s, the United States shifted from an earlier tradition of direct military intervention to covert and proxy interventions in the cases of Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1961), Guyana (1961–64), Chile (1970–73), and Nicaragua (1981–90), as well as outright military invasions of the Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), and Panama (1989).

“The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the OAS and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.” - President John F. Kennedy (August 29, 1962 news conference)

In 1902, Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier acknowledged that the Monroe Doctrine was essential to his country's protection. The doctrine provided Canada with a de facto security guarantee by the United States; the US Navy in the Pacific, and the British Navy in the Atlantic, made invading North America almost impossible. Because of the peaceful relations between the two countries, Canada could assist Britain in a European war without having to defend itself at home.

Concerns, Actions and Consequences:

In 1945 Soviet and American troops occupied the peninsula, ruled by Japan since 1910. In North Korea indigenous Marxists under Kim Il-sung took control with Soviet assistance and began to organize a totalitarian state. In South Korea General John R. Hodge, lacking firm instructions from Washington, began as early as the autumn of 1945 to establish defense forces and police and to move toward a separate administration. He also permitted the return of the nationalist leader Syngman Rhee. By the time Washington and Moscow noticed Korea, the Cold War had already set in and the de facto partition, as in Germany, became permanent. South and North Korean governments formally arose in 1948, each claiming legitimacy for the whole country and threatening to unify Korea by force. Between October 1949 and June 1950 several thousand soldiers were killed in border incidents along the parallel. The war that followed, therefore, was not so much a new departure as a denouement. The Truman administration responded with alacrity, viewing Korea as a test case for the policy of containment. The United States appealed to the Security Council (which the Soviets were boycotting for its continued seating of Nationalist China). On 25 June 1950, the United Nations Security Council unanimously condemned the North Korean invasion of South Korea, with UN Security Council Resolution 82. The Soviet Union, a veto-wielding power, had boycotted the Council meetings since January 1950, protesting that the Taiwanese "Republic of China" and not the mainland "People's Republic of China" held a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. After debating the matter, the Security Council, on 27 June 1950, published Resolution 83 recommending member states provide military assistance to the Republic of Korea. On 27 June President Truman ordered US air and sea forces to help South Korea. On 4 July the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister accused the US of starting armed intervention on behalf of South Korea. The Soviet Union challenged the legitimacy of the war for several reasons. The ROK intelligence upon which Resolution 83 was based came from US Intelligence; North Korea was not invited as a sitting temporary member of the UN, which violated UN Charter Article 32.

Ultimately, 16 UN member states provided troops for this “police action,” but U.S. and South Korean troops bore the brunt of the fighting. Truman and Acheson discussed a US invasion response and agreed that the US was obligated to act, paralleling the North Korean invasion with Adolf Hitler's aggressions in the 1930s, with the conclusion being that the mistake of appeasement must not be repeated, Truman later acknowledged that he believed fighting the invasion was essential to the US goal of the global containment of communism.

Baldo di Piero Bruni, was born around 1400 from an ancient and rich family of Anghiari, and was a great army leader. Baldaccio was renamed for his impetuous and violent character, which caused him several problems with justice. The army life, suitable for his temperament, trained him to become a valiant fighter, yet known for his wartime switching of sides. He was a mercenary soldier, fighting for those willing to pay the highest price for his services. His prowess was mentioned by Machiavelli in Florentine Histories "Among many other leaders of the Florentine army was Baldaccio d’Anghiari, a most excellent man of war, because at that time there was no one in Italy who surpassed him in virtue of body and soul". Others described him as a valiant, adventurous and war seeking man, but also a prudent captain with a great spirit.
Often hired by the Florentines, he also fought for the greatest rulers of the time: the Malatesta, Piccinino, the Count of Urbino, and even the Pope. His fame grew to such an extent that all the murder convictions he had collected over the years, were dismissed, and he was even granted Florentine citizenship. His increased prestige was increasingly feared by many, Cosimo himself began to fear this courageous but dangerous personality, so much that, it seems that he was the instigator of his murder. Pulling the strings from behind the stage, he used his power to organize the assassination through the Gonfaloniere Orlandini, very close to the faction of Cosimo de 'Medici.

On September 6, 1441, on the charge of treason, Baldaccio was in fact summoned by the Gonfalonier to Palazzo Vecchio, where he was ambushed. The man was stabbed in the Tower of Arnolfo and thrown out one of the windows, in the courtyard. Below Not quite dead, the poor Baldaccio was dragged into Piazza della Signoria and beheaded. Baldaccio Bruni's body was buried in the cloister of Santo Spirito in Florence. Since then contemporary Florentines believed that the ghost of Baldaccio d'Anghiari, wanders restlessly in the corridors of Palazzo Vecchio and strange noises can be heard echoing in the rooms after closing time. The unfortunate event left Florence in shock and even the Pope Eugenio IV felt disdain for that brutal crime that had marked the end of the valiant Baldaccio d'Anghiari.

In Early 1950s USA’s the immediate concern in Latin America was Guatemalan democracy that had to go, turning the country into a hard chamber which it yet to escape, fundamental problem illustrated by Guatemala has always been that successful independent development, even in the tiniest corner in the world could become model that others try to follow as a virus that spread to contagion to borrow.

When democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz attempted a modest redistribution of land, he was overthrown in the 1954 CIA Guatemalan coup d'état. Arbenz pursued an ambitious social program that focused on income distribution and economic nationalism. President Arbenz created the first income tax in Guatemala and tried to break monopolies by creating governmental competition. This included agrarian land reform, which meant expropriating over 400,000 acres of land from the United Fruit Company (A US-based, banana production firm). The Guatemalan government determined that the lands had a monetary value of $1,185,000, while the United Fruit Company protested, claiming that the lands' true value was $19,355,000. The central disagreement came from the fact that the Guatemalan government did not place much value on the lands because they were not immediately being used for production. The United Fruit Company countered by arguing that they needed extra acres to avoid soil exhaustion, and to keep the plantations separated to avoid dissemination of plant disease. This conflict led to increasing tensions and arguments between President Arbenz, the United Fruit Company and the US State Department. In the end, the Eisenhower administration responded by approving a secret operation to overthrow Arbenz using some Guatemalan rebel forces stationed in Honduras. Part of the rationale for this measure was that the administration had come to view Arbenz as a communist threat. As would later be the case in conflicts with Cuba, Nicaragua, and other Latin American nations, the potential threat of lurking Communism was more than enough justification for intervention. Ultimately, the rebel forces removed Arbenz from power, nullified his reforms, and United Fruit got their expropriated lands back.

 

Same concern also in Southeast Asia at the same time that’s when USA turns towards direct for France’s effort to reconquering its former Vietnamese colony, actually primary related concern was Japan; as it wasn’t  Guatemala, it was an important dependency and top civilian military. USA contemporary planners recognize that Japan could be controlled only when assured access to her historic markets and sources of food and raw material in Southeast Asia. The loss of south-east Asia to the western world would almost inevitably forced Japan into accommodation with communist controlled areas in Asia as USA didn’t want to lose the pacific phase of World war two thinking that Japanese accommodation with communist controlled areas would have dangerous repercussions as far as the middle east and western Europe, and lot of in stake loss of even single southeast Asian country was therefore intolerable because the virus effect of successful independent development. So to prevent the contagion of virus, decided to destroy viruses and that’s what USA tried to do in Latin America and Southeast Asia.

 

While war raged in Korea, the French were battling the nationalist and Communist Viet Minh in Indochina. When a French army became surrounded at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, Paris appealed to the United States for air support. American leaders viewed the insurgency as part of the worldwide Communist campaign and at first propounded the theory that if Indochina went Communist other Southeast Asian countries would also fall “like dominoes.” Eisenhower, however, was reluctant to send U.S. troops to Asian jungles, to arrogate war-making powers to the executive, or to sully the anti-imperialist reputation of the United States, which he considered an asset in the Cold War. In any case both he and the American people wanted “no more Koreas.” Vietnam didn't matter much to the United States I mean if the country was wiped off the map of the US didn't care as some says Eisenhower tried to build up some support for his early stage of the war by talking about rubber and so on but it was a joke as Vietnam had no resources of significance to the United States. The concern about Vietnam was what as I mentioned the virus infection theory there was deep concern that successful independent development in Vietnam might spur others to take on the same efforts the via the rot might spread to Thailand maybe to Indonesia maybe even Japan which was called the super domino by John Dow or leading Japan historian Japan might have to accommodate to an independent Southeast Asia that would have meant the United States has lost the Pacific War which they weren't prepared to do in 1950. So there was a concern about Vietnam but had nothing to do with its resources and in fact that the concern was overcome just by wiping the place out, so the US basically won the war in the nineteen seventies didn't achieve its maximal objectives but it did satisfy its basic war aims. The Korean War and the new administration brought significant changes in U.S. strategy. Eisenhower believed that the Cold War would be a protracted struggle and that the greatest danger for the United States would be the temptation to spend itself to death. If the United States were obliged to respond to endless Communist-instigated “brushfire wars,” it would soon lose the capacity and will to defend the free world. Hence Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles determined to solve “the great equation,” balancing a healthy economy with only what was essential by way of military force.

 

When the anti-Communist general Lon Nol overthrew Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia in March 1970, Nixon announced the Cambodian incursion and acceded to the U.S. army’s long-standing desire to destroy Communist sanctuaries inside that country. Cambodia was a neutral country neighboring Vietnam. By this time the Vietnam War provoked protests in USA itself and abroad too. Despite public disfavor and congressional attempts to limit such actions, Nixon ordered continued secret American bombing inside Cambodia without congressional approval and without the knowledge of the American people.

This major US attack against Cambodia started with the bombings in the early 1970 they reached a peak in 1973 and they continued up till 1975, they were directed against inner Cambodia very little is known about because the media wanted it to be secret. They knew what was going on they just didn't want to know what was happening, the CIA estimates about 600,000 killed during that five-year period which is mostly either US bombing or a US sponsored war. So that's pretty significant killing, also the conditions in which it left Cambodia were such that high US officials predicted that about a million people would die in the aftermath just from hunger and disease, because of the wreckage of the country pretty good evidence from US government sources and his fellow resources that the intense bombardment was a significant force maybe a critical force and building a peasant support for the Khmer Rouge. The Communist Khmer Rouge cut off the capital, Phnom Penh, in January 1975 and in mid-April the Khmer Rouge took control. Its leader, Pol Pot, was a French-educated disciple of Maoist “total revolution” to whom everything traditional was anathema. The Khmer Rouge reign of terror became one of the worst holocausts of the 20th century. All urban dwellers, including hospital patients, were forced into the countryside in order to build a new society of rural communes. More than 100,000 Cambodians, including all “bourgeois,” or educated people, were killed outright, and 400,000 succumbed in the death marches; in all, 1,200,000 people (a fifth of the Cambodian nation) perished. This action completed the conquest of Indochina by North Vietnam, for Laos, too, became Communist after the fall of Saigon. Thus the domino theory was at last put to the test and to a large extent borne out.

 

It is of course possible that Baldaccio d'Anghiari, the Condottiere who was assassinated by order of the Government in 1441, was one of Neri's many military friends. It was believed that Cosimo was afraid of the friendship between the Baldaccio and Neri Capponi, as Rinaldo degli Albizzi had been of that between Neri and Fortebraccio and had therefore put an end to it in this summary fashion. Yet the death of Baldaccio is amply accounted for by the use which Cosimo believed the Pope was going to make of him; the theory that Neri was especially interested in the

Condottiere rests upon the assertion of only one prejudiced and not very trustworthy contemporary, and it may perhaps be noted that one of the Capponi family was on the Signoria at the time, and consented to the assassination. Only a year before this, Neri was laboring gallantly to defend Florence from Piccinino and the exiles, and making special provision for Cosimo's personal safety in case of danger, while very soon afterwards we find him acting on Cosimo's special commission for the reform of the Riformagioni; and, during the very years in which he was opposing Cosimo's foreign policy, he was all the while holding the trusted position of Accopiatore. Just at this time also he was working hand in hand with Cosimo for the restoration of the Bentivogli family in Bologna. Yet Cosimo no doubt preferred that his able lieutenant should be kept well employed, and for the most part absent from Florence, thus diminishing the danger of any serious rivalry from him.

As we already discussed that Baldaccio d'Anghiari, the Condottiere who was assassinated by order of the Government in 1441, was one of Neri's many military friends. It was believed that Cosimo was afraid of the friendship between the Baldaccio and Neri Capponi and had therefore put an end to it in this summary fashion. After the end of the World War two in 1950, China and USA fought against each other in Korean War that resulted into division of Korea at the 38^th parallel. It was a war between North Korea (along with China and Russia) and South Korea (United States and United Nations).

So that makes,

Gino Capponi: Qing Dynasty

Neri Capponi: Republic of China

Baldaccio d'Anghiari: Korea (before division)

Luca Pitti’s Opposition: Cuban Revolution and influenced Latin America

Luca Pitti was a Florentine banker during the period of the republic presided over by Cosimo de' Medici. He was awarded a knighthood, and received lavish presents from both the Signoria of Firenze and the Medici family as a reward for helping maintain the government during the last years of Cosimo's rule when Cosimo was too old and feeble to maintain power alone. As the head magistrate of Florence, known as "The Gonfalonier of Justice," he wielded great power and influence. In August, 1458, he staged a coup to seize control of Florentine government in the name of its existing ruler, the elderly and now frail Cosimo de' Medici. In effect he wished to strengthen the existing government, as a result many leading citizens were banished, and many other citizens were driven from power. The newly formed government was to last eight years with Cosimo as its figurehead, the reality being he was too frail to maintain power alone. Pitti's chief opponent at this time was Girolamo Machiavelli who was banished. However, he travelled the neighboring principalities whipping up opposition to the new Florentine government. He was consequently declared a rebel, betrayed and returned to Florence where he mysteriously died in prison.

Pitti was then ennobled and very wealthy indeed, Niccolò Machiavelli in his History of Florence estimates no less a sum than twenty thousand ducats was presented to him. It was then that he sought to rival the glory, if not power, of the Medici and began construction of the Palazzo Pitti intended to rival the palazzo of the Medici. He also began work on a villa at Rusciano. For the Palazzo Pitti, legend has it he "decided to employ the most brilliant architect of the times, whom he ordered to make the windows as big as the doors of the Medici residence and create an internal courtyard that was large enough to contain the whole of the Medici's palace on the Via Larga". This is almost certainly apocryphal as the architect Brunelleschi often credited with the design had been dead since twelve years. The true architect, often thought to be Luca Fancelli, was less well known at the time and the new palazzo, while awe inspiring, was not a true rival to the magnificence of the Medici residences. Machiavelli also states that Pitti would give sanctuary to any criminal within his walls if they could be of use in their building or decoration. Machiavelli also hints that Pitti's wealth was further increased by bribes and presents in return for favours. These allegations may or may not be true, one should remember that Machiavelli was not only opposed to the Medici himself, but also a kinsman of Pitti's arch enemy Girolamo Machiavelli who had been most likely murdered by the government which in effect Pitti controlled. It has been said that Pitti wished to become first citizen and dictator himself. After the death of Cosimo in 1464, he conspired to overthrow and murder Piero di Cosimo de' Medici. He was pardoned by Piero after the failure of the plot and thereafter supported him.

 

As unrest in Cuba escalated in the 1890s, the United States demanded reforms that Spain was unable to accomplish. The result was the short Spanish–American War of 1898, in which United States acquired Puerto Rico and set up a protectorate over Cuba under the Platt Amendment rule passed as part of the 1901 Army Appropriations Bill. Prior to the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, Cuba maintained strong economic and political ties to the United States. From 1902 until its abrogation in 1934, the Platt Amendment authorized the US to use military force to preserve Cuba's independence. In 1917, Cuba entered World War One on the side of the allies. Wartime disruptions were only temporary, and they gave way to a frenzied boom in the immediate postwar period as Latin American exporters cashed in on pent-up demand in the former warring powers. An extreme case was the “dance of the millions” in Cuba, where the price of sugar reached a peak of 23 cents per pound in 1920, only to fall back to 3.5 cents within the space of a few months, as European production of beet sugar returned to normal. Similar postwar booms and busts occurred elsewhere, even if less sharply, and demonstrated some of the hazards of Latin America’s increasing dependence on the world economy. Cuba joined the League of Nations in 1920. In 1941, Cuba declared war on Italy, Germany, and Japan. Cuba joined the United Nations in 1945. Cuba joined the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1948.

The rise of General Fulgencio Batista in the 1930s to de facto leader and President of Cuba for two terms (1940–44 and 1952–59) led to an era of close co-operation between the governments of Cuba and the United States. The United States and Cuba signed another Treaty of Relations in 1934. Batista's second term as president was initiated by a military coup planned in Florida, and U.S. President Harry S. Truman quickly recognized Batista's return to rule providing military and economic aid. The Batista era witnessed the almost complete domination of Cuba's economy

by the United States, as the number of American corporations continued to swell, though corruption was rife and Havana also became a popular sanctuary for American organized crime figures, notably hosting the infamous Havana Conference in 1946. “Until Castro, the U.S. was so overwhelmingly influential in Cuba that the American ambassador was the second most important man, sometimes even more important than the Cuban president.” — Earl E. T. Smith, former American Ambassador to Cuba, during 1960 testimony to the U.S. Senate

 

During the Presidency of Fulgencio Batista, Cuba did not initially face trade restrictions. In 1952 by most social and economic indicators, Cuba by mid-century was among Latin America’s most highly developed countries. However, in the postwar period it was afflicted with lackluster economic growth and a corrupt political dictatorship set up in 1952 by the same Batista who earlier had helped put his country on a seemingly democratic path. It was also a country whose long history of economic and other dependence on the United States had fed nationalist resentment, although control of the sugar industry and other economic sectors by U.S. interests was gradually declining. In mid-1958, the United States imposed an arms embargo on the Batista administration. While conditions for revolutionary change were thus present, the particular direction that Cuba took owed much to the idiosyncratic genius of Fidel Castro, who, after ousting Batista at the beginning of 1959, proceeded by stages to turn the island into the hemisphere’s first communist state, in close alliance with the Soviet Union. The Cuban Revolution achieved major advances in health and education, though frankly sacrificing economic efficiency to social objectives. Expropriation of most private enterprise together with Castro’s highly personalistic dictatorship drove many members of the middle and upper classes into exile, but a serious decline in productivity was offset for a time by Soviet subsidies. At the same time, thanks to its successful defiance of the United States which tried and failed to overthrow it by backing a Cuban exiles’ invasion in April 1961 and its evident social advances, Castro’s Cuba was looked to as a model throughout Latin America, not only by established leftist parties but also by disaffected students and intellectuals of mainly middle-class origin. The turn of Castro's revolution in Cuba after 1959 toward Soviet communism alienated Cuba from the United States, though reactions to the revolution varied considerably across Latin America.

The Cuban Revolution was a crucial turning point in U.S.-Cuban relations. Although the United States government was initially willing to recognize Castro's new government, it soon came to fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through the nations of Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, Castro's government resented the Americans for providing aid to Cuba’s dictator Batista's government during the revolution. Castro's victory and post-revolutionary foreign policy had global repercussions as influenced by the expansion of the Soviet Union into Eastern Europe after the 1917 October Revolution. In line with his call for revolution in Latin America and beyond against imperial powers, laid out in his Declarations of Havana, Castro immediately sought to "export" his revolution to other countries in the Caribbean and beyond, sending weapons to Algerian rebels as early as 1960. In the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, President John F. Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine as grounds for America's confrontation with the Soviet Union over the installation of Soviet ballistic missiles on Cuban soil. In response to the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961 and the presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev agreed to Cuba's request to place nuclear weapons on the island to deter a future invasion. An agreement was reached during a secret meeting between Khrushchev and Fidel Castro in July 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis threatened major war as the Soviet Union installed nuclear weapons in Cuba to defend it from an American invasion. The crisis also shook the domestic politics of Latin American countries, where governments initially exhibited little sympathy for Cuba. The nuclear arms race brought the two superpowers to the brink of nuclear war. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy responded to the installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba with a naval blockade a show of force that brought the world close to nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis showed that neither superpower was ready to use nuclear weapons for fear of the other's retaliation, and thus of mutually assured destruction. The aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis led to the first efforts toward nuclear disarmament and improving relations. After several days of tense negotiations, an agreement was reached between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a US public declaration and agreement to avoid invading Cuba again. Secretly, the United States agreed that it would dismantle all US-built Jupiter MRBMs, which had been deployed in Turkey against the Soviet Union; there has been debate on whether or not Italy was included in the agreement as well.

 

Cuba perceived the outcome as a betrayal by the Soviets, as decisions on how to resolve the crisis had been made exclusively by Kennedy and Khrushchev. Castro was especially upset that certain issues of interest to Cuba, such as the status of the US Naval Base in Guantánamo, were not addressed. That caused Cuban–Soviet relations to deteriorate for years to come. On the other hand, Cuba continued to be protected from invasion. In the following decades, Cuba became heavily involved in supporting Communist insurgencies and independence movements in many developing countries, sending military aid to insurgents in Ghana, Nicaragua, Yemen and Angola, among others. Castro's intervention in the Angolan Civil War in the 1970s and 1980s was particularly significant, involving as many as 60,000 Cuban soldiers.

“The greatest threat presented by Castro's Cuba is as an example to other Latin American states which are beset by poverty, corruption, feudalism, and plutocratic exploitation ... his influence in Latin America might be overwhelming and irresistible if, with Soviet help, he could establish in Cuba a Communist utopia.” said Walter Lippmann, Newsweek, 27 April 1964.

 

 

The first decade of the Cold War saw relative high degrees of consensus between US and Latin American elites, centered on anti-communism, though with divergences over the direction of economic policy. Later decades of the Cold War saw higher levels of violence in conflicts with overlapping local, US-Latin American, and global Cold War dimensions, referred to by historian Tanya Harmer as the “inter-American Cold War.” Kennedy’s first crisis stemmed from his endorsement of the CIA plan to unseat Castro. The CIA had trained Cuban exiles in Guatemala and flown them to Florida, whence they were to stage an invasion of Cuba in expectation of a popular revolt there. Instead, the landing at the Bay of Pigs on April 17, 1961, was a fiasco. No coordination had been achieved with dissidents inside Cuba, while the failure to provide U.S. air cover (perhaps for fear of retaliation in Berlin) doomed the invasion. Castro’s army killed or captured most of the 1,500-man force in two days. The U.S.S.R. reaped a propaganda harvest and pledged to defend Cuba in the future. Kennedy had to content himself with a promise to resist any efforts by Castro and the guerrilla leader Che Guevara to export revolution elsewhere in Latin America. Following the 1959 Cuban Revolution and the local implementation in several countries of Che Guevara's foco theory, the US waged a war in South America against what it called "Communist subversives", leading to support of coups against democratically elected presidents such as the backing of the Chilean right wing, which would culminate with Augusto Pinochet's 1973 Chilean coup against democratically elected Salvador Allende. By 1976, all of South America was covered by similar military dictatorships, called juntas. In Paraguay, Alfredo Stroessner had been in power since 1954; in Brazil, left-wing President João Goulart was overthrown by a military coup in 1964 with the assistance of the US in what was known as Operation Brother Sam; in Bolivia, General Hugo Banzer overthrew leftist General Juan José Torres in 1971; in Uruguay, considered the "Switzerland" of South America, Juan María Bordaberry seized power in the 27 June 1973 coup. In Peru, leftist General Velasco Alvarado in power since 1968, planned to use the recently empowered Peruvian military to overwhelm Chilean armed forces in a planned invasion of Pinochet’s Chile. With the election of President Jimmy Carter in 1977, the US moderated for a short time its support to authoritarian regimes in Latin America. It was during that year that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, an agency of the OAS, was created. At the same time, voices in the US began to denounce Pinochet's violation of human rights, in particular after the 1976 assassination of former Chilean minister Orlando Letelier in Washington D.C.

Moscow saw Cuba as having far more appeal with new revolutionary movements, western intellectuals, and members of the New Left with Cuba's perceived David and Goliath struggle against US imperialism. Donatello’s David perhaps just a boy against Michelangelo David, hence as the symbol of Florence republic it clearly shows how weak it democratic principles of the republic and also it was commissioned by Cosimo, and so it was symbol of his version of Florence’s republic. After the Cuban Missile Crisis, Cuba became increasingly dependent on Soviet markets and military and economic aid. Castro was able to build a formidable military force with the help of Soviet equipment and military advisors. The KGB kept in close touch with Havana, and Castro tightened Communist Party control over all levels of government, the media, and the educational system, while developing a Soviet-style internal police force.

 

On 24 October 1963, U.S. President John F. Kennedy interview with Jean Daniel, “I believe that there is no country in the world, including the African regions, including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country's policies during the Batista regime. I believe that we created, built and manufactured the Castro movement out of whole cloth and without realizing it. I believe that the accumulation of these mistakes has jeopardized all of Latin America. The great aim of the Alliance for Progress is to reverse this unfortunate policy. This is one of the most, if not the most, important problems in America foreign policy. I can assure you that I have understood the Cubans. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries.”

 

Luca Pitti, who during the Forties was rapidly coming to the front, had been one of the Priors who recalled Cosimo. He had gained some reputation from his prompt action in the Vitelleschi affair, had acted frequently as Gonfalonier, as an official for the imposition of taxes or on the Dieci, and had been almost permanently one of the Accopiatori Luca was an “huomo animoso”; “One who would dare much for his friends; excellent as an instrument in other men's hands, but dangerous if allowed to become independent.” He was high-spirited, energetic, and daring just like Fidel Castro, as free in speech and bold in action as Cosimo was silent, cautious, and slow; a man who easily gained popularity and quickly made a party, but was incapable of steady persistence in any line of policy, and, if easily leading others, was equally amenable to others' influence. But besides Luca Pitti there were two other politicians, somewhat Cosimo's juniors, who from 1447 onwards played leading parts. One of these was Dietisalvi Neroni, whose father Nerone had been instrumental in recalling Cosimo from exile. Dietisalvi was a clever and able man, much trusted by Cosimo, and admitted by him more nearly into the secrets of his policy than anyone else out of his family. He acted as Accopiatore during the greater part of Cosimo's rule; and was no doubt one of Cosimo's specially trusted agents on that committee. He alone loyally supported Cosimo's foreign policy with regard to Sforza, and during the critical year 1453, as a member of the Dieci, he pressed Cosimo's views upon that unwilling body. Not less important was Agnolo Acciaiuoli, who had suffered exile with Cosimo and with him returned in triumph. Since that time he had acted loyally under him, had been employed as Accopiatore and on many foreign embassies. During the years which preceded 1454, these more ambitious spirits were kept employed in foreign politics, and had little time to think about their position at home. But the Peace of Lodi, by putting an end to their occupations, gave them leisure to turn their thoughts to internal politics, and to discover that, while Cosimo was growing old, and his son Piero showed no special signs of political talent, they were in the full flower of their age, and had just been proving their capabilities in organization and diplomacy. It was natural that they should think it possible to change the character of the government by acquiring a greater share in the supreme power themselves, to revert in fact from the rule of one to the rule of several. They must have felt it impossible to do without Cosimo altogether, since it was upon his wealth and foreign connections that the supremacy of the party was based.

 

It seemed to Pitti, Neroni and Acciaiuoli, the leaders of a new opposition, that Cosimo's authority was chiefly maintained by the Balia; therefore their first measure was to take advantage of the excuse furnished by the conclusion of peace to put an end to its authority. This was done in June 1454, when Neroni was Gonfalonier, and so popular was the measure that only twenty-six in the Council of the People, and seven in that of the Commune opposed it. The removal of the Balia had little result, however, as long as the Scrutiny which it had made was still in force, and the Accopiatori whom it had appointed still exercised their office. In November of the same year, therefore, when Agnolo Acciaiuoli was Gonfalonier, a new Scrutiny was made to supersede that

drawn up by the Balia, and immediately afterwards, during the first Signoria of 1455, a still further step was taken, and it was ruled that, from the July following, the power of the Accopiatori was to cease, and the Signoria once more be chosen by lot. What precisely Pitti and his party hoped to gain by these measures it is very difficult to ascertain from the vague accounts which have reached us. They were all Accopiatori themselves, Pitti, Neroni. Acciaiuoli and Agnolo della Stufa, who was Gonfalonier in January 1455, and they must have arranged their own elections as Gonfalonier in order to carry out these measures. But in putting an end to the office of Accopiatori, they appear to have been deliberately cutting away their own power. On the other hand, they do not seem always to have commanded a majority of the Accopiatori, and perhaps they hoped that the chances of the lot might be more favorable to them. When Acciaiuoli was made Gonfalonier in November 1454, Neri Capponi had succeeded, in spite of their opposition, in forcing into the Signoria a youth of great capability and courage, Pandolfo Pandolfini.

 

Pandolfo Pandolfini successfully withstood many of the measures which Acciaiuoli wished to have passed, amongst them one for rendering the Priors powerless to act without the Gonfalonier,-an arrangement which would have made the control of the Signoria easier to the Government, since it would then have been necessary to manage only one man instead of nine. Acciaiuoli also intended to make new proscriptions; he said that he wanted to settle affairs in Florence, so that there could be no more disturbances about them. Everyone in Florence trembled, “each thinking his turn was come”, and there was so much terror in the city that it seemed as if not only the citizens trembled but the walls also." Pandolfo Pandolfini contrived, however, to frustrate all Acciaiuoli's plans, and in particular to save one citizen of great importance, perhaps Neri himself, whom the Gonfalonier wished to banish. So far Cosimo had made no attempt to interfere openly. Neri had been there to check the independence of the Accopiatori if it went too far, and Pandolfini was rewarded not long afterwards by an appointment as official of the Monte. Cosimo was quite clever enough to see that in abolishing the office of Accopiatori the new party was cutting their own throats as the same happening in Cuba among Castro’s own supporters. His personal reputation and influence secured his own position; and he felt that, when the right opportunity came, he would easily be able to recover anything he might temporarily lose. The numbers of the new party were not sufficient and its individual members not influential enough to be able to establish a powerful oligarchy, nor was Cosimo's personal popularity amongst the lower classes extended to them. They had no influence independent of him; their real importance was merely as members of the Medicean party. So Cosimo quietly waited, and let them feel the result of their own hot-headedness.

 

The revival of appointment by lot was of course a very popular measure. It was accepted in the Councils by large majorities. The first result was, as might have been expected, an end to the monopoly of office which Pitti and his friends had hitherto enjoyed. The next, which they had by no means contemplated, was a re-assessment of the Catasto, the work of a very independent Signoria at the beginning of 1458. A few months before, one of the opportunities for acquiring ill-gotten wealth had been removed by a law which made it illegal to buy up public debts at a low rate, and then obtain full payment of them from the Commune. This touched the pockets of a good many hangers-on of the Medici party; but they felt the restoration of the Catasto to be much worse. An entirely new register of property, after the method of the original Catasto, would of course include all the gains they had made since 1431, and most of them had in those twenty seven years prospered exceedingly. Above all, they dreaded the application of the Scala to all this newly acquired wealth. All the pecuniary advantages which they had possessed as members of the governing party were gone in an instant if taxation was no longer to be arbitrarily assessed by themselves in their own favor, but was to be imposed on a regular system in proportion to the means of the payers.

 

Cosimo, with his vast wealth, cared little personally whether he were taxed by Catasto or not. What he paid under any system of taxation was a trifle to the sums which he privately devoted to the service of the State. Yet Cosimo hesitated whether to approve or not. Nicodemo wrote to Sforza, "On the one hand, he does not want to offend the rich, on the other he does not wish to lose the favor of the common people, who all wish for the Catasto… If the Catasto does not pass the Council of the People," he added, "the city will be all upside down; perhaps there will be a revolution. Cosimo’s cousin Bernadetto de' Medici and Dietisalvi Neroni are both much disturbed about it." The Catasto did, however, pass all the Councils and then Pitti and his party were left to consider how to improve the situation into which they had brought themselves. The remedy which immediately occurred to them was a new Balia, a new Scrutiny, new Acoopiatori, the resumption, in fact, of the reins of government into the hands of the party. But they were powerless to carry through a measure requiring so much skill and so great authority without Cosimo's help, and Cosimo willing that they should learn how ill they could do without him, positively refused, when approached on the subject, to sanction the renewal of the Balia, unless it could be obtained in the ordinary way through the Colleges and Councils, and would not listen to the suggestion of holding a Parliament.

 

But the Councils having found their power and were not willing to surrender it. Even the Signoria, far from supporting the Gonfalonier of March 1458 in his proposal for a new Balia, made a law by which Balia could only be obtained from the Signoria, Colleges, and Councils by unanimous votes in all of these bodies. But Luca Pitti was the next Gonfalonier but one, and he was determined to succeed by fair means or foul. He first proposed to the Councils to appoint a new Balia, which they indignantly refused to do. Unluckily for himself, Girolamo Machiavelli, a somewhat hot-headed but well-intentioned person, with Republican ideas, made a speech in one of the Councils declaiming against Balia generally, and all other attempts to destroy the freedom

of the citizens. Not a moment was lost in arresting Machiavelli on the charge of calling the Signoria tyrants; “he had disseminated new terms of tyrant and slave in a free city.” Where a plot is wanted, a plot is usually found. Machiavelli was in correspondence with other citizens who shared his Republican views. There were arrests, examinations by torture, confessions, all the paraphernalia of a full-blown conspiracy.

 

Nothing but a Balia could act vigorously enough in so dangerous a crisis, Pitti maintained; and Cosimo, deprived of the services of Capponi by his death, thought that the experiment in “free government” had lasted long enough, that the too independent members of his party must have learned their lesson, and that it was time to tighten again the reins of power. He thought it best, in order to impress the ignorant at home, and any foreign governments which might have fancied his power to be waning, to make a demonstration of his strength by holding a parliament. They made a Balla as they wished, by which they can settle the taxes and elections and all the government according to their desires. The first work of the new Balia was to follow up the conspiracy which Pitti believed himself to have unearthed, but Cosimo took care that the prosecutions should not go far, and that the supposed conspirators should escape with their lives. Nicodemo at least understood that their punishment was merely intended as a warning to other ambitious Republicans. “They have beaten the kittens in order to frighten the lions,” he wrote home, "and to show them that if they will not be tamed their turn will come next.

 

Cosimo was quite conscious of this opposition, and it troubled him not a little. Pitti might be a dreamer; but at least he was a "big dog," too formidable to be attacked and beaten like a Giannozzo Manetti. A few soldiers, collected by the Signoria which recalled Cosimo to guard the Palace and keep order in the town, were dismissed by Cosimo himself as soon as he was Gonfalonier. There were very few people in Florence to whom, and very few matters on which, he could give any direct commands. It is impossible to call a government, which rested so completely on the open acquiescence of the governed, an ordinary tyranny. Yet, throughout his life, not excepting the years in which Luca Pitti exercised a show of power, Cosimo was practically absolute in all matters about which he chose to exert his authority.

 

After a tour of Latin America in 1950, the American diplomat George Kennan wrote a memo despairing that the region would ever achieve a modest degree of economic dynamism, social mobility, or liberal politics. The culture itself was, in his view, inhospitable to middle-class values. As late as 1945 almost all the Latin-American republics were governed by landowning oligarchies allied with the church and army, while illiterate, apolitical masses produced the mineral and agricultural goods to be exported in exchange for manufactures from Europe and North America. To Castro and other radical intellectuals, a stagnant Latin America without strong middle classes was precisely suited for a Marxist, not a democratic, revolution. Before 1958 the United States the “colossus to the north” had used its influence to quell revolutionary disturbances, whether out of fear of Communism, to preserve economic interests, or to shelter strategic assets such as the Panama Canal. After Castro’s triumph of 1959, however, the United States undertook to improve its own image through the Alliance for Progress and to distance itself from especially obnoxious authoritarian regimes. Nonetheless, Latin-American development programs largely failed to keep pace with population growth and inflation, and frequently they were brought to naught by overly ambitious schemes or official corruption. By the 1980s the wealthiest and largest states like Brazil and Mexico faced a crushing burden of foreign debt.

 

The ingredient of economic crisis that attracted widest attention was Latin America’s inability to maintain full service on its foreign debt, which had grown to dangerously high levels. Both Mexico and Venezuela, as major petroleum exporters, benefited from rising international oil prices during the 1970s, but, instead of concluding that foreign credit was no longer necessary, they assumed that any amount of indebtedness would be easy to pay back. Brazil’s generals drew a similar conclusion from their country’s better-than-average economic growth. Even where no such circumstances were present, foreign private and institutional lenders had lost their depression-induced caution in lending to Latin America, and they had at their disposal an ever-greater flood of dollars to be placed in world financial markets. Bankers used often aggressive tactics in pressuring Latin American governments to borrow, and the region’s total foreign debt increased from 1970 to 1980 by more than 1,000 percent.

 

Developments in the world economy soon brought Latin America a rude awakening. Whereas commodity prices were generally favorable in the 1970s, a world recession in the following decade caused them to fall sharply. At the same time, interest rates rose in the United States and western Europe as governments sought to curb inflationary pressures and make other difficult adjustments. Latin America thus faced an increased debt bill, with fewer resources to pay it. Colombia alone managed to avoid default or compulsory rescheduling, and all countries faced severe fiscal problems. Domestic expenditures had to be cut back or financed through unsupported issues of paper money. Most of Latin America experienced slow or negative economic growth, together with inflation; indeed, hyperinflation was the rule in Argentina and Brazil and in some smaller countries. Real wages fell everywhere except Colombia and Chile.

 

Neo-Marxist economists of the 1960s and ’70s argued that even the more enlightened policies of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations kept Latin America in a condition of stifling dependence on American capital and markets and on world commodity prices. Some endorsed the demands of the Third World bloc in the UN for a “new world economic order,” involving a massive shift of resources from the rich countries to the poor or the “empowerment” of the developing countries to control the terms of trade along the lines of OPEC. Others advocated social revolution to transform Latin states from within. At the same time the example of Cuba’s slide into the status of a Communist satellite fully dependent on the U.S.S.R. revived the fear and suspicion with which Americans habitually regarded Third World revolutions. There was no invasion, but the United States imposed an economic boycott on Cuba that remains in effect, as well as a broke off diplomatic relations, that lasted until 2015. The US also saw the rise of left-wing governments in Central America as a threat and, in some cases, overthrew democratically elected governments perceived at the time as becoming left-wing or unfriendly to U.S. interests. Examples include the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état, the 1973 Chilean coup d'état and the support of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. After 1960, Latin America increasingly supplied illegal drugs, especially marijuana and cocaine to the rich American market. One consequence was the growth of extremely violent drug gangs in Mexico and other parts of Central America attempting to control the drug supply. In the 1970s and 1980s, the United States gave strong support to violent anti-Communist forces in Latin America.

 

Over the following years of Cuba revolution much of Latin America saw an upsurge of rural guerrilla conflict and urban terrorism, in response to the persistence of stark social inequality and political repression. But this upsurge drew additional inspiration from the Cuban example, and in many cases Cuba provided training and material support to guerrillas. The response of Latin American establishments was twofold and eagerly supported by the United States. On one hand, governments strengthened their armed forces, with U.S. military aid preferentially geared to counter guerrilla operations. On the other hand, emphasis was placed on land reform and other measures designed to eliminate the root causes of insurgency, all generously aided by the United States through the Alliance for Progress launched by President John F. Kennedy. Even though much of the reactive social reformism was cosmetic or superficial, the counterrevolutionary thrust was nonetheless generally successful. A Marxist, Salvador Allende, became president of Chile in 1970, but he did so by democratic election, not violent revolution, and he was overthrown three years later. The only country that appeared to be following the Cuban pattern was Nicaragua under the Sandinista revolutionary government, which in the end could not withstand the onslaughts of its domestic and foreign foes. Moreover, the Cuban Revolution ultimately lost much of its lustre even in the eyes of the Latin American left, once the collapse of the Soviet Union caused Cuba to lose its chief foreign ally. Although the U.S. trade embargo imposed on Cuba had been a handicap all along, shortages of all kinds became acute only as Russian aid was cut back, clearly revealing the dysfunctional nature of Castro’s economic management.

So that certainly makes,

Luca Pitti: Cuba

 Girolamo Machiavelli: Che Guevara: Chile and Guatemala

Girolamo Machiavelli was an ordinary, qualified head of the Florence oligarchy for the first few decades of his life. The upheavals of 1433/34 and the seizure of power by Cosimo de Medici initially had no impact on Girolamo's life. In 1452 he was a member of the Balia, which tried to secure rule. After the controlled draw of the appointments had been lifted as early as 1455 and the Medici were in a struggle to maintain power, Girolamo Machiavelli rose to head the council opposition in 1458. The contemporary Marco Parenti claims that Girolamo was always an enemy of Cosimo de Medici, “semper stato inimico di Cosimo”. Luca Pitti (1398–1472) was related by marriage to the Machiavelli and looked back on centuries of spatial and kinship-related relationships, but was the leading party man of the Medici. He advocated the establishment of the so-called Cento, an assembly of hundred men of the loyal to Medici heads. When Luca Pitti was the Gonfalonier but one, and he was determined to succeed by fair means or foul. He first proposed to the Councils to appoint a new Balia, which they indignantly refused to do. Unluckily for himself, Girolamo Machiavelli, a somewhat hot-headed but well-intentioned person, with Republican ideas, made a speech in one of the Councils declaiming against Balia (government authorities) generally, and all other attempts to destroy the freedom of the citizens.

Like many families, the Machiavelli initially adjusted to the new reality of a Medici dominated Florence without incident (and likely without much difficulty, because the Machiavelli, like all middle class Florentines, had already been excluded from exercising real power by the aristocratic regime that preceded the Medici). In 1458, however, Girolamo Machiavelli joined the ranks of growing opposition movement intent on dismantling the Medici regime. For this, he and his brothers were severely persecuted. In the decision of the summer of 1458, Girolamo Machiavelli was defeated by being arrested on August 3rd. After the acceptance of Astorre II Manfredi (1412–1468), the mercenary leader and lord of Faenza , the dispute was decided on August 11 in a parliamento in the Piazza della Signoria in Florence and with the acclamation of a new order obeying the Medici. Girolamo was exiled. Since he left the place of exile assigned to him, he was declared a rebel, i.e. an enemy of the state. Later he met his traitor from the ranks of the petty potentates in the Lunigiana and was extradited to Florence. Since he denounced other citizens under torture, the Medici had a happy excuse to exile another 25 heads and to prorogate the controlled drawing of offices for another five years. Girolamo Machiavelli died on July 11, 1460 in the dungeon of his hometown. He was buried in the Church of Santa Croce. 

 

Ernesto "Che" Guevara was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary and a major figure of the Cuban Revolution. His true education comes from the trips he takes through undeveloped Latin America as he took a year off from his studies to embark with his friend Alberto Granado who proposed that to take off for a journey by motorbike the length of Latin American which awakened Che Guevara to the injustice of US domination in the hemisphere, and to the suffering colonialism brought to its original inhabitants. Guevara used notes taken during this trip to write an account, titled ‘The Motorcycle Diaries’. In January 1952 in Chile, Che Guevara found himself enraged by the working conditions of the miners in Anaconda's Chuquicamata copper mine and moved by his overnight encounter in the Atacama Desert with a persecuted communist couple who did not even own a blanket, describing them as "the shivering flesh-and-blood victims of capitalist exploitation". The world's greatest open pit Coppermine Chuquicamata which loomed large in the imaginations of Latin Americans at the time because it was US owned. It was this notion of the kind of monstrous capitalist enterprise exploiting the local workers. American companies like anaconda monopolized Chile's mining industry. American companies went to Latin America for two reasons cheap raw materials and cheap wages. To a young nationalist and a young idealist of the early 1950s it would be very hard to look upon US policies as practiced in Latin America. In December 1953 after visiting Guatemala, Guevara speaks of traversing the dominion of the United Fruit Company, a journey which convinced him that the Company's capitalist system was a terrible one. This affirmed indignation carried the more aggressive tone he adopted in order to frighten his more Conservative relatives, and ends with Guevara swearing on an image of the then recently deceased Joseph Stalin, not to rest until these “capitalist octopuses have been vanquished”. The first CIA sponsored coup in Latin America took place in Guatemala in 1954, the democratically elected Guatemalan government of Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán was toppled by U.S. backed forces led by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas who then took power on June 27th 1954 but he was seen by many as an American puppet. He begins arresting suspected communists and anyone connected to the old regime. Threatened with jail and possibly execution Che Guevara took refuge at the Argentine embassy, he came away convinced that the United States was as he famously later called it the ‘enemy of humanity’. Guatemalan president Arbenz changed his view as then he started considering himself a Marxist and communism seemed to offer a way forward and a ready-made ideology for the kind of new society that could rise from the ashes of the old. When Che Guevara left Guatemala, he was a much radicalized individual looking now for a revolution he could fight.

 

Che Guevara and Fidel Castro led the Cuban Revolution, but their visions for Cuba were very different. Castro wanted power and his country, Che Guevara wanted a different future with international revolution. Fidel Castro was a chameleon who changes his views to suit his audience. Pre-revolution Castro’s words, “There is no communism or Marxism in our ideas. Our political philosophy is representative democracy. I have to say it very clear that we are not communists”. And so US financed Castro’s guerilla war in Cuba because they believed he would be easy to control and Castro briefly played along after he took over in 1959. After the revolution Castro nationalized private companies and Marxist Che Guevara became head of the National Bank and so relations with the US soured quickly. Political and economic crises made Fidel Castro change his tune as he said later, “Above all we are Marxist-Leninists.” And he moved towards USSR after a failed CIA-backed invasion attempt of Cuba by USA. Meanwhile Che Guevara wanted Cuba to have its own communist vision to be spread across Latin America. He was obsessed with guerrilla warfare, revolution and justice, while Fidel Castro was a man obsessed with power and capable of corruption and changing course which Che was not. The outspoken Che became a nuisance and so Castro sent him overseas. On February 16^th 1959 just two months after the rebel’s victory Fidel Castro was sworn in as Prime Minister and the elections never take place. then certain segments of the professional class on the elite and middle class began to view Fidel Castro with the Suspicion, there was a debate that started almost from the day Castro took power about whether he was a communist or not and part of this debate focused on Che Guevara who obviously did get on the radar screen pretty quickly of the CIA fearing that an alliance with the known communists could jeopardize his position Fidel Castro keeps Che Guevara at a distance.

 

Realizing he has to appease us concerns, Fidel Castro travels to Washington on April 15th 1959 he met with Vice President Nixon claimed famously to the American press that he was not a Marxist denied it and said he was a democratic humanist. Fidel at least in those initial months kept everyone guessing but behind the scenes Fidel Castro had already aligned with Cuba's communist party.  It'll always be an open question whether Fidel became a Marxist himself because of pragmatic opportunity or evolved over time. There is no doubt Fidel Castro was influenced by Che Guevara's ideological convictions. Che Guevara was vital in being a sounding board and an advisor to Fidel during the key years in the Sierra when he built up his role as the revolutionary strongman and also in turning him leftward Fidel Castro shares Che Guevara's ideology and determination and changing the course of Cuba. Secretly he had Che and some of his more radical colleagues meeting and privately drafting the outlines of the future communist state of Cuba. The government begins to prepare for Cuba's agrarian reform law which calls for the seizure of private property. But before the plan is implemented Che was sent overseas. So to Americans spies watching Cuba and even a lot of Cubans thought that Fidel has marginalized Che, he's gotten that radical out of the way. On 12^th June 1959 Che leaves Cuba to visit Asia, Africa, and Europe and makes his first contacts with the Soviet Union. he offers them a deal the US had rejected to buy several million tons of Cuban sugar. It was the rule of the Cold War even that you don't think that these people will be your allies or your friends but if they trying to do something negative to your enemy then you have to help them. The Soviets agree to buy what the Americans want; they need weapons so Soviet Union started to sell their old Soviet tanks and some fighters airplanes. The Soviets also supplied them with oil which US own refineries in Cuba refused to process Che had a public face and a clandestine existence which was understood and encouraged by Fidel and rewarded by him. Che has given an important new role in the Cuban government as head of the industrialization Department and was appointed president of Cuba's National Bank. He showed his disdain for the mercantile world and money by merely signing the Cuban bank bills “Che”, it was an insult to the Cuban people when he signed the first currency like syllable ‘che’. The capitalist structure of Cuba is coming to an end. Castro decreased the standard of living so instead of making richer everybody he made poor everybody. Fidel Castro's Revolutionary Government can no longer be tolerable for most of the Cuban people. Within a year of Fidel Castro coming to power a capitalist economy in Cuba has crumbled. Che Guevara is directly involved in seizing land, foreign interests are nationalized, thousands of Cubans are leaving, relations with the US sour and Cuba sets its sights on the Soviet Union. After Khrushchev made a deal with Kennedy that American would never invade Cuba and Soviets took missiles, out to Fidel Castro and Che it was an act of absolute betrayal. The superpower came to an agreement and eventually, with promises of copious Soviet loans and arms shipments, Fidel Castro too came to accept it. But his right-hand man Che Guevara disagreed. And so disillusioned with the Soviets Che realizes he has to establish other strong left-wing partnerships he finds what he's looking for in China , Che was impressed by Mao’s plans to take China from an agrarian society to a modern communist one Che wants to do the same for Cuba. He had an ideal vision of the new socialist man one who contributes for the greater good and not personal profit. Che also had other more adventurous campaigns in mind, he wanted to focus much more on international revolution and so he began to revive his hopes of extending the socialist revolution to other parts of Latin America as a way to create breathing space open up a new lung for Cuba and the hemisphere. He began to be seen increasingly by the Soviets as a kind of dangerous radical who was Pro Chinese; they were critical of him with Fidel. Che realizes the situation in Cuba was getting complicated and starts making plans to leave. Che understood that Fidel was entirely now dependent on the Soviet Union and it was up to him to sally forth and revolutionized the socialist world. To succeed he will have to confront the Soviets, risk his relationship with Fidel Castro and put himself on the frontlines. In 1963 Cuba's economy has hit an all-time low Che Guevara’s plans to propel the country forward have failed. His solution was to end Cuba's reliance on the Soviets and spread the revolution around the world. Che became increasingly disenchanted with the way things were shaping up to being Cuba as a Soviet satellite. Che continues to the North African city of Algiers where he makes a speech openly criticizing the Soviet Union. Che in essence broke his sword with the Soviets. So when he returns to Havana Che Guevara and Fidel Castro have a closed-door meeting, having blasted the Soviets who were after all the hand that fed Cuba having bitten them in the end. Fidel had to say Che that it's time him to go and Che also agreed the same. Che hopes he can win back favor by leading a successful campaign in the Congo. The mission is to help support and train rebels in guerrilla warfare. Che had Fidel's Blessing and he essentially disappeared from the domestic political map of Cuba. Che and his men arrived on the Congolese shore of Lake Tanganyika on April 24th 1965. When Che had not been seen in almost a year CIA believed that he had died or might have even been killed when he left Cuba October 3rd 1965 responding to speculation that he had ordered Che Guevara’s death Fidel Castro reads a letter Che had written to him, “I feel that I have fulfilled a part of my duty that tied me to the Cuban Revolution in its territory and I say goodbye to you, to the comrades, to your people, who are now mine I formally resign my positions in the leadership of the party, my post as Minister, my rank of commander and my Cuban citizenship nothing legal binds me to Cuba.” Che Guevara had not expected the letter to be read publicly, the day that Fidel read that letter is when we found out about it was a very difficult moment he was neither the Cuban nor African leader. He almost start “World War three” a war that will wipe out capitalism and install communism in its place if he was successful he'd be able to change the world overturning the world order once and for all. Che didn’t contemplated failure and so after the failed mission in the Congo and his farewell letter to Fidel Castro read publicly, Che Guevara refuses to return to Cuba without a success and planned to expand the Revolution brought him to Bolivia. Only a day after Che Guevara is capture the Bolivian government orders his death. News reports falsely claimed he has been killed in battle. Che Guevara was killed in 1967 fighting a hopeless war in Bolivia.

 

Back in Florence, not a moment was lost in arresting Machiavelli on the charge of calling the Signoria tyrants; “he had disseminated new terms of tyrant and slave in a free city.” Where a plot is wanted, a plot is usually found. Machiavelli was in correspondence with other citizens who shared his Republican views. There were arrests, examinations by torture, confessions, all the paraphernalia of a full-blown conspiracy. Nothing but a Balia could act vigorously enough in so dangerous a crisis, Pitti maintained; and Cosimo, deprived of the services of Capponi by his death, thought that the experiment in "free government" had lasted long enough, that the too independent members of his party must have learned their lesson, and that it was time to tighten again the reins of power. He thought it best, in order to impress the ignorant at home, and any foreign governments which might have fancied his power to be waning, to make a demonstration of his strength by holding a parliament. How this design succeeded we learn from the letters to Sforza of Nicodemo, and of the Podesta, also a Milanese, upon this occasion. Their accounts are worth quoting. “Tomorrow,” wrote Nicodemo, a few days before the Parliament, “the lord of Faenza” (a Condottiere in the service of Florence) “will arrive here with 300 horse and 50 foot, besides the troops of Simonetto. On Thursday troops of country people will arrive. The morning of the day fixed for the Parliament, they will range themselves in order of battle upon the piazza. All the citizens will be there without arms. The Signoria will read a list of a number of citizens to whom Balia shall be given for the reform of the town, and will then ask the people if they are satisfied. The well-disposed will cry, Yes! Yes!' and the people, according to custom, will all do the same. The Signoria, exultant, will retire from the Ringhiera (Balcony) of the Palace, and the fete will be over. Then, little by little, the number of members of the Balia will be decreased; only a few will remain, who will reform the State according to their wishes. . . . "Piero di Cosimo" (Cosimo's son) arrived in Florence to-day. He wishes to be present at the performance, which rarely takes place, but will be unattended, by danger. . . . Cosimo acts very cautiously, and likes to appear neutral. In spite of the harmlessness of the “performance”, great precautions were taken that it should go off without a hitch. Numerous secret meetings were held by members of the party to arrange the details. In Cosimo's house was a great collections of arms “worth a treasure”; nowhere else in Italy could such a great number be found." Piero's wife and children were left in safety at the country house. But all passed off well. “This morning,” wrote Nicodemo, “between ten and eleven o'clock the Parliament was held with the greatest possible unanimity and without the least disturbance . . . . They made a Balia as they wished, by which they can settle the taxes and elections and all the government according to their desires.” The Podesta wrote, “As the names of the Balia were read out, they were unanimously accepted by all the people without the least uproar. It appeared to me most astonishing. If I had not been present I could not have believed that such a great crowd of people could be assembled, after the late agitations, without any disturbances arising. All called with one voice Yes! Yes!” The first work of the new Balia was to follow up the conspiracy which Pitti believed himself to have unearthed, but Cosimo took care that the prosecutions should not go far, and that the supposed conspirators should escape with their lives. Nicodemo at least understood that their punishment was merely intended as a warning to other ambitious Republicans. “They have beaten the kittens in order to frighten the lions,” he wrote home, “and to show them that if they will not be tamed their turn will come next. But they too shiver, and promise to behave like good children.”

 

After the revolution of 1959, Cuba soon took actions inimical to American trade interests on the island. In response, the U.S. stopped buying Cuban sugar and refused to supply its former trading partner with much needed oil. Relations between the countries deteriorated rapidly. In 1962, Cuba was expelled from the Organization of American States. Shortly afterwards, many nations throughout the Latin America broke ties with Cuba leaving the island increasingly isolated in the region and dependent on Soviet trade and cooperation. During the Cold War, Cuba's influence in the Americas was inhibited by the Monroe Doctrine and the dominance of the United States. Despite this Fidel Castro became an influential figurehead for leftist groups in the region, extending support to Marxist Revolutionary movements throughout Latin America, most notably aiding the Sandinistas in overthrowing Somoza in Nicaragua in 1979. In 1971, Fidel Castro took a month-long visit to Chile. The visit, in which Castro participated actively in the internal politics of the country, holding massive rallies and giving public advice to Salvador Allende, was seen by those on the political right as proof to support their view that "The Chilean Way to Socialism" was an effort to put Chile on the same path as Cuba.

 

“Cuba has a unique symbolic allure. It is the small country that confronted the U.S. empire and has survived despite the attempts by all U.S. presidents since to subdue its communist government. It is the island with iconic leaders like Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, and the Latin American country that in the language of revolutionaries everywhere embodies the struggle of socialist humanism against the materialism of capitalist societies. Cuba is also the small nation that in the past sent its troops to die in faraway lands in Latin America and even Africa fighting for the poor.”, said Moisés Naím in Newsweek.

 

Involvement of the United States in regime change in Latin America most commonly involved US-backed coups d'état aimed at replacing left-wing leaders with right-wing, usually military and authoritarian regimes. It was most prevalent during the Cold War in line with the Truman Doctrine of containment, although some instances occurred during the early-20th-century "Banana Republic" era of Latin American history to promote American business interests in the region. Brazil experienced several decades of authoritarian governments, especially after the US-backed 1964 Brazilian coup d'état against social democrat João Goulart. Under then-President John F. Kennedy, the US sought to "prevent Brazil from becoming another China or Cuba", a policy which was carried forward under Lyndon B. Johnson and which led to US military support for the coup in April 1964. In May 1961, the ruler of the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo was murdered with weapons supplied by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). An internal CIA memorandum states that a 1973 Office of Inspector General investigation into the murder disclosed "quite extensive Agency involvement with the plotters." The CIA described its role in "changing" the government of the Dominican Republic as a 'success' in that it assisted in moving the Dominican Republic from a totalitarian dictatorship to a Western-style democracy." Juan Bosch, an earlier recipient of CIA funding, was elected president of the Dominican Republic in 1962, and was deposed in 1963. After the democratic election of President Salvador Allende in 1970, an economic war ordered by President Richard Nixon, among other things, caused the 1973 Chilean coup d'état with the involvement of the CIA due to Allende’s democratic socialist leanings. What followed was the decades-long US-backed military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. After the Sandinista Revolution that overthrew pro-American dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle, Nicaragua fought the Contra guerrillas supported by the United States. Peasants and workers (mostly of indigenous descent) revolt during the first half of the 20th century due to harsh living conditions and the abuse from landlords and the government-supported American United Fruit Company. This revolt was brutally repressed, but led to the democratic election of Jacobo Arbenz. Arbenz was overthrown during the US-backed 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état leading to authoritarian governments endorsed by the United States. and nearly 40 years of civil war in the Central American country. Conservative Colorado Party in Paraguay ruled the country for 65 consecutive years, including the American-supported brutal dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner that lasted 35 years, from 1954 to 1989. The US government supported the 1971 coup led by General Hugo Banzer that toppled President Juan José Torres of Bolivia. Torres had displeased Washington by convening an "Asamblea del Pueblo" (People's Assembly or Popular Assembly), in which representatives of specific proletarian sectors of society were represented (miners, unionized teachers, students, peasants), and more generally by leading the country in what was perceived as a left wing direction. Banzer hatched a bloody military uprising starting on August 18, 1971, that succeeded in taking the reins of power by August 22, 1971. After Banzer took power, the US provided extensive military and other aid to the Banzer dictatorship as Banzer cracked down on freedom of speech and dissent, tortured thousands, "disappeared" and murdered hundreds, and closed labor unions and the universities. Torres, who had fled Bolivia, was kidnapped and assassinated in 1976 as part of Operation Condor, the US-supported campaign of political repression and state terrorism by South American right-wing dictators. However, in 1978 the Carter administration forced Banzer into a carefully regulated "democratic opening". A limited amnesty was declared and the country prepared for democratic elections. In Argentina, military forces overthrew the democratically elected President Isabel Perón in the 1976 Argentine coup d'état, starting the military dictatorship of General Jorge Rafael Videla, known as the National Reorganization Process, resulting in around 30,000 forced disappearances. Both the coup and the following authoritarian regime was eagerly endorsed and supported by the United States government with US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger paying several official visits to Argentina during the dictatorship. After 150 years of traditional democratic governments in Uruguay, a civic-military dictatorship of Uruguay backed by the United States started after the military-led 1973 Uruguayan coup d'état that suppressed the Constitution of Uruguay of 1967, empowering President Juan María Bordaberry as dictator.

 

The Balia did its duty about Scrutiny, Accopiatori, and new taxes; its last and most important act was the creation of a body intended to enable the Government to dispense altogether with Balias for the future. The necessity of frequently renewing them had caused constant fresh irritation; it was a reminder of the partial suspension of the Constitution very unpleasant to a people that at least liked to call itself free. Yet it was evidently necessary for the Government to have a body, more regular and more trustworthy than the Colleges and Councils, to elect Accopiatori and to make Scrutinizes. For this purpose therefore the Balia created in 1459 a new council, called the Council of a Hundred. It was to consist only of those who had duly passed the Scrutinizes and had been members of a Signoria since 1434, so that it could be depended upon to appoint government nominees as Accopiatori. It had indeed the same powers as the other Councils, and was to be consulted "on all matters of State", but its main function was to act as an elective body for the Accopiatori. We may consider it as Cosimo's latest endeavor towards solving the problem of how to keep the official executive well within his own control

Luca Pitti was able, during the period of his office as Gonfalonier, to temper the bitterness of the newly restored Catasto for himself and his fellow merchants. It was clear from the returns of the lately appointed assessors that many business-men did not show them their real books, but purposely falsified copies. It was therefore arranged that they should be allowed to make compositions with the assessors for that part of the tax which was to be levied on their business profits. No doubt Pitti and his friends were able to make compositions highly favorable to themselves. For the last six years of Cosimo's life the Government ran to all appearance smoothly enough. Cosimo recovered in the main his old authority, but the weight of years and ill-health pressed heavily upon him,-" he cannot be always in the Palace as he used to be,"-and to secure peace at home, in order that he might have a free hand in carrying out his foreign policy, he was obliged to leave a good deal of the show of power to Luca Pitti. Pitti began to be looked upon as the rising, Cosimo as the sinking, star in politics. People who wanted favor with the magistrates paid court to the younger man, followed him about, and made him presents as if he were a prince. Pitti, carried away by his sudden popularity, bore himself in princely fashion; he began to build two magnificent palaces, one five miles from Florence, the other on the rising ground just beyond the south bank of the Arno, which was intended to outshine far the modest family mansion of the Medici in the Via Larga. His party, which included Acciaiuoli and Neroni was accordingly nicknamed the " Mountain"; the Mediceans who remained faithful to Cosimo were called the" Plain," because the Via Larga was in the level part of the town. To this day the huge pile of building which Luca Pitti began, and which after his fall was completed by his rivals, whose property it became, frowns across the valley, a monument of the hopeless vanity of the man who tried to out-do the Medici in their own arts.

 

But at the moment all smiled on Pitti It was understood that people who wanted advancement could not do better than assist in his house-building, so that he got much of his labor and materials free. Just before Cosimo's death, he had himself knighted by the Commune in great state, the ceremony being performed by three knights appointed for the purpose. There was a great feast and procession; Pitti seemed for the moment the most prominent person in the city. But Cosimo, who had never seen the necessity of knighthood for himself, and had always preferred to remain a plain citizen, was able to gauge correctly Pitti's character and ambitions. “You aspire after the infinite, I seek only the finite,” he said to Pitti in a moment of unusual expansiveness; "you would climb up to the heavens, I wish to mount but little above the earth, and I do not try to fly, for  fear of falling. . . You and I are like two big dogs, who, coming together, sniff at one another; then, because each knows the other to have teeth, they separate and go about their business; will you then attend to your own business, and I will attend to mine! Pitti was obliged to act on the advice so long as the adviser lived; but the disappointment of his failure in 1454-58 smoldered on to burst into a flame so soon as Cosimo's strong hand was removed. Acciaiuoli also considered himself to have his grievances. Giannozzo Manetti, whom Cosimo had treated with such severity, was his intimate friend Cosimo too had disappointed him of the Archbishopric of Pisa, which he wanted for his son, while Cosimo secured it for his own cousin, Filippo de' Medici. Of Dietisalvi Neroni the Milanese envoy wrote in 1463, “Cosimo and his people have no greater nor more ambitious enemy than he.”

 

The Centre-right governments in Argentina, Mexico, Panama, Chile, and Colombia have closer relations with the U.S., with Mexico being the U.S.'s largest economic partner in Latin America and its third largest overall trade partner after Canada and China. In Mexico, for instance, the reorientation of economic policy aggravated the plight of Indian peasants in the southern state of Chiapas, who unleashed a renewal of guerrilla insurgency just as the country was entering NAFTA. Yet Latin America’s revitalized commitment to political democracy which did not mean sudden elimination of all human rights abuses and other deficiencies any more than in the rest of the world appeared to face few serious challenges. A "Dirty War" was waged all over the Latin American subcontinent, culminating with Operation Condor, an agreement between security services of the Southern Cone and other South American countries to repress and assassinate political opponents, which was backed by the US government. The armed forces also took power in Argentina in 1976, and then supported the 1980 "Cocaine Coup" of Luis García Meza Tejada in Bolivia, before training the "Contras" in Nicaragua, where the Sandinista National Liberation Front, headed by Daniel Ortega, had taken power in 1979, as well as militaries in Guatemala and in El Salvador. In the frame of Operation Charly, supported by the US, the Argentine military exported state terror tactics to Central America, where the "dirty war" was waged until well into the 1990s, making hundreds of thousands "disappeared". The US State Department saw Argentina as a bulwark of anti-communism in South America and in early April 1976, the US Congress approved a request by the Ford Administration, written and supported by Henry Kissinger, to grant $50,000,000 in security assistance to the Junta. The “Dirty War” is the name used by the military junta or civic-military dictatorship of Argentina for the period of United States backed state terrorism in Argentina from 1976-1983 as a part of Operation Condor, during which military and security forces and right-wing death squads in the form of the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (AAA) hunted down any political dissidents and anyone believed to be associated with socialism. Up to 30,000 people disappeared, of whom many were impossible to report formally due to the nature of state terrorism. Even Pope Francis has been criticized for his silence while a bishop in Argentina during the US backed military regime. Critics have argued that Francis was complicit in the terror campaign because of his public silence about the atrocities around him when he was in as position of authority within the Jesuit order. By 1977, human rights groups in USA were denouncing the "Dirty War" waged against leftist dissidents by the repressive military regime in Argentina. They demanded congressional control over foreign aid funding to regimes violating human rights.

 

Cosimo was quite conscious of this opposition, and it troubled him not a little. Pitti might be a dreamer; but at least he was a "big dog," too formidable to be attacked. Cosimo complained to Nicodemo about him that "one of the greatest, or perhaps the greatest temptation which he had in this world consisted in this, that our Lord God allowed such vicious and deceitful men to live so long." As he knew his own death to be approaching, Cosimo felt more and more that he left his descendants but ill-fitted to withstand the attacks of such determined adversaries. His favorite and most capable son, Giovanni, was already dead Piero was in constant ill-health, and inherited his father's slowness in action, without, apparently, his forethought and tenacity. Piero's sons were as yet children. It must have seemed to the old man as if the dynastic power that he had spent so many years and so much labor upon building up would vanish like a shadow after his death. He said to a friend that, "knowing the character of my fellow-citizens, I am sure that in fifty years' time nothing will remain of my rule except the buildings which I have accomplished;

and I know that at my death my sons will be involved in more trouble than the sons of any citizen of Florence who has died for many years." Cosimo prophesied correctly for the immediate, but not for the distant, future. As we know Piero’s Son and Cosimo’s grandson turned out one of great leader in Florentine history who the renowned as “Lorenzo the Magnificent”.

 

The famous Niccolo Machiavelli came from a different line of the family, but counted the fate of his distant uncle Girolamo under his family tradition. After the death of Girolamo Machiavelli, The family’s sudden pariah status in Medici Florence led Niccolo Machiavelli’s father, Bernardo, to avoid politics and public life altogether. He largely abandoned his legal career and instead lived off the rents from various family properties. He never sought to reverse the formal disqualification from holding office imposed on him in 1458. The circumstance of Niccolo Machiavelli youth taught him two fundamental ways of relating to hierarchy and power. On the one hand, his family had a proud tradition of involvement in Florentine politics as respectable members of the ‘Popolo’, the city’s affluent middle class. In a culture that measured families by the achievement of their ancestors, the Machiavelli family had good reason to take pride in its name and to expect a share in the distribution of the city’s power. Girolamo no doubt thought in these terms when he decided to join the popolo challenge to the Medici and to attempt to reverse the steady centralization of the city’s government around an increasingly smaller number of elite families. On the other hand, the ease with which the Medici regime destroyed Girolamo and his brothers for their political presumption sharply and darkly underscored the preponderance of power enjoyed by the ruling circle and potentially lethal dangers of contesting or appearing to contest their hegemony.

At the end of 1971, the Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro made a four-week state visit to Chile, alarming Western observers worried about the "Chilean Way to Socialism". The U.S. feared the example of a "well-functioning socialist experiment" in the region and exerted diplomatic, economic, and covert pressure upon Chile's elected socialist government. The 1973 Chilean coup d'état was a military coup in Chile that deposed the Popular Unity government of President Salvador Allende. On 11 September 1973, after an extended period of social unrest and political tension between the opposition-controlled Congress and the socialist President, as well as economic warfare ordered by U.S President Richard Nixon, a group of military officers led by General Augusto Pinochet and Admiral José Toribio Merino seized power in a coup, ending civilian rule. The military established a junta that suspended all political activity in Chile and repressed left-wing movements, especially communist and socialist parties and the Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR). Pinochet rose to supreme power within a year of the coup and was formally declared President of Chile in late 1974. The Nixon administration, which had worked to create the conditions for the coup, promptly recognized the junta government and supported it in consolidating power. During the air raids and ground attacks that preceded the coup, Allende gave his final speech, vowing to stay in the presidential palace and refusing offers of safe passage should he choose exile over confrontation. Direct witness accounts of Allende's death agree that he killed himself in the palace.

 

President Allende died in La Moneda during the coup. The junta officially declared that he committed suicide with a rifle given to him by Fidel Castro; two doctors from the infirmary of La Moneda stated that they witnessed the suicide, and an autopsy labeled Allende's death a suicide. Vice Admiral Patricio Carvajal, one of the primary instigators of the coup, claimed that "Allende committed suicide and is dead now." Patricio Guijon, one of the president's doctors, had testified to witnessing Allende shoot himself under the chin with the rifle while seated on a sofa. At the time, few of Allende's supporters believed the explanation that Allende had killed himself. Allende's body was exhumed in May 2011. The exhumation was requested by members of the Allende family, including his daughter Isabel who viewed the question of her father's death as "an insult to scientific intelligence." A scientific autopsy was performed and the autopsy team delivered a unanimous finding on 19 July 2011 that Allende committed suicide using an AK-47 rifle. The team was composed of international forensic experts to assure an independent evaluation. However, on 31 May 2011, Chile's state television station reported that a top-secret military account of Allende's death had been discovered in the home of a former military justice official. The 300-page document was only found when the house was destroyed in the 2010 Chilean earthquake. After reviewing the report, two forensic experts told Televisión Nacional de Chile "that they are inclined to conclude that Allende was assassinated."

 

President Allende words: "Chilean democracy is a conquest by all of the people. It is neither the work nor the gift of the exploiting classes, and it will be defended by those who, with sacrifices accumulated over generations, have imposed it . . . With a tranquil conscience . . . I sustain that never before has Chile had a more democratic government than that over which I have the honor to preside . . . I solemnly reiterate my decision to develop democracy and a state of law to their ultimate consequences . . . Parliament has made itself a bastion against the transformations . . . and has done everything it can to perturb the functioning of the finances and of the institutions, sterilizing all creative initiatives".

 

The slogan 'we will not allow another Cuba' hides the possibility of perpetrating aggressions without fear of reprisal, such as the one carried out against the Dominican Republic or before that the massacre in Panama – and the clear warning stating that Yankee troops are ready to intervene anywhere in America where the ruling regime may be altered, thus endangering their interests. — Che Guevara, April 16, 1967

 

Like Caesar peering into the colonies from distant Rome, Nixon said the choice of government by the Chileans was unacceptable to the president of the United States. The attitude in the White House seemed to be, “If in the wake of Vietnam I can no longer send in the Marines, then I will send in the CIA.”—Senator Frank Church, 1976

 

Before the coup, Chile had been hailed as a beacon of democracy and political stability for decades, a period in which the rest of South America had been plagued by military juntas. The collapse of Chilean democracy ended a succession of democratic governments in Chile, which had held democratic elections since 1932. Historian Peter Winn characterized the 1973 coup as one of the most violent events in the history of Chile. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the United States government applauded the rebirth of democratic practices in Chile, despite having allowed and recognized the 1973 Chilean coup d'état and aided the subsequent military regime. Regarded as one of the least corrupt and most vibrant democracies in South America, with a healthy economy, Chile is noted as being one of the closest strategic allies of the United States in the Southern Hemisphere, along with Colombia.

 

During the World War two when the allied forces entered the outskirts of Lyon in France. Even at this last-minute hundreds of Jews were hoarded into a train in Lyon station. The passengers include even small children. The train’s next stop was a concentration camp in Germany. Even at the brink of loss, the man in charge of the Nazi occupation in Lyon did not rest. German SS officer and Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie was responsible for the deaths of 12,000 Jews in Lyon and escaped the trials after the war. He was commonly called as the Butcher of Lyon. Barbie personally tortured several resistance group members and killed them. There was an accusation that Barbie killed children and transported Jewish children from orphanages to concentration camps. After the war, Barbie’s life took a U-turn. Instead of a trial for his war crimes, United States intelligence services employed him for his anti-Marxist efforts and also aided his escape to Bolivia. Despite his crimes, as the CIA enlisted his help and he went on to be a pivotal figure in vicious cocaine trade in Latin America. 'Barbie may not have been physically involved in shipping kilos of drugs, but he played a decisive role in the growth of the cocaine trade in Bolivia, Peru and Columbia,' Mr. Peter McFarren said who is author of ‘The Devils Agent’, biography of the Klaus Barbie. 'He was the liaison between these kings of cocaine and the government, military and mercenaries.'

Barbie was appointed leader of Hitler's secret police in 1942 aged 29 when he was charged with hunting down members of the French Resistance. After the war, Barbie teamed up with some of the region's most feared drug lords, including Pablo Escobar from Colombia who amassed a £30 billion fortune and killed thousands of Colombians to maintain his empire, to whom Barbie most likely supplied with weapons, although Barbie's closest ally was Bolivian warlord Roberto Suarez Gomez, whom he met regularly in the early 1980s. Barbie was paranoid there would be a Communist revolution in Bolivia from where he would be deported to France to stand trial for war crimes. Suarez Gomez wanted the freedom to expand his cocaine empire without fear of prosecution. So they arranged a military coup to install General Luis Garcia Meza Tejada as commander of the army, then as president in 1980, all funded by cocaine cash. Mr. McFarren says: 'Overthrowing a democratic government with money from the drug trade was unheard of. It set a dangerous precedent of how democracy could be interrupted by the dollars and terrorism of cocaine trafficking bandits. 'In Colombia and Peru there were individual government officials and military police that were part of the cocaine trade. But I can't think of another regime that was completely in the pocket of the trade, and Barbie played a key part in that.' Barbie was able to live well in Bolivia and even became a public figure.

Oscar-winning British director Kevin Macdonald has raised the intriguing possibility that Che Guevara's capture by the CIA in the forests of Bolivia 40 years ago was orchestrated by Klaus Barbie, the Nazi war criminal called the 'Butcher of Lyon'. Guevara was the Marxist guerrilla who helped Fidel Castro to seize power in Cuba. Barbie was the Gestapo chief in Lyon whose crimes included the murder of 44 Jewish children, taken from an orphanage and sent to Auschwitz. Improbably, the men's paths crossed in Bolivia. My Enemy's Enemy, a documentary directed by Macdonald, whose previous films include Touching the Void and The Last King of Scotland, examines how Barbie's record was disregarded when he was recruited by US intelligence after the Second World War as a useful tool against communism. The Americans had been hunting Guevara and, according to the film, turned to Barbie for his first-hand knowledge of counter-guerrilla warfare: he had attempted to crush the French Resistance and was responsible for the death of its celebrated leader, Jean Moulin. Alvaro de Castro, a longtime confidant of Barbie interviewed for the film, says: He met Major Shelton, the commander of the unit from the US. Barbie no doubt gave him advice on how to fight this guerrilla war. He used the expertise gained doing this kind of work in World War Two. They made the most of the fact that he had this experience. De Castro adds that Barbie had little respect for Che Guevara. Barbie said once, "This poor man wouldn't have survived at all if he fought in the Second World War. He was a pitiful adventurer, nothing like his popular image. The people have turned him into a myth, a great figure. But what has he actually achieved? Absolutely nothing.”

France requested several times for the handover of Barbie from US custody, but it didn’t happen. Barbie, who had connections and known for his effective interrogation techniques, was sent to Bolivia with the help of ratlines from Europe to South America. Ratlines were illegal ways to travel in disguise from Europe to South American countries and hence used by many Nazi officials like Joseph Mengele, Adolf Eichmann, etc. during the end of the war to escape justice. Most Nazis who escaped prosecution disappeared, often to South America, but they stayed off the radar. But Barbie became a public figure. That makes him unique. And, despite that, he was able to live with impunity in Bolivia for more than 30 years. People who met Barbie during his time in Bolivia have told that he was a firm and fanatic believer in the Nazi ideology and an anti-Semite. Barbie and De Castro reportedly talked about the cases and searches for Josef Mengele and Eichmann, whom Barbie supported and wanted to assist in remaining on the run. After the collapse of the military dictatorship, Barbie’s run against the law came to an end as an anti-US government came to power in Bolivia. The new government approved the extradition of Barbie to France, where he can stand trial. In 1984 Barbie stood, many eyewitnesses testified against Barbie, and the French court gave a verdict of life sentence to Barbie. Klaus Barbie died in Lyon prison on 4 July 1987 at the age of 77. After World War two, like Barbie many few mastermind of the Holocaust vanished, and was never brought to trial at Nuremberg. In 1961 Adolf Eichmann, head of the Jewish office of the Gestapo during World War II, was convicted of war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people, and crimes against humanity. Although the crimes were not committed on the territory of Israel (which at the time did not exist as a state), the court held that such acts could be tried by any state that had custody of the defendant. (Eichmann had, in fact, been abducted from Argentina by Israeli agents.

So that makes,

Luca Pitti: Castro’s Cuba

Machiavelli Family: Chile

Agnolo Acciaiuoli: Bolivia

 

Inner Circle: Cosimo and Uncle Sam

Puccio Pucci was a merchant who became rich thanks to trade and financial activities in medieval Florence. Constant allies of the Medici during the Renaissance, the Pucci were among the families that Cosimo de' Medici called upon as a means of indirectly pursuing his own political interests. Trusted Medici allies from the Pucci family included Puccio Pucci, who provided Cosimo with money to improve his living conditions in prison whilst Cosimo was imprisoned prior to being exiled.

 

The Anderson–Gual Treaty (formally, the General Convention of Peace, Amity, Navigation, and Commerce) was an 1824 treaty between the United States and Gran Colombia (now the modern day countries of Venezuela, Colombia, Panama and Ecuador). It was the first bilateral treaty concluded by the United States with another American country. During the presidency of Juan Vicente Gómez, Venezuela provided a very favorable atmosphere for U.S. activities, as at that time petroleum was discovered under Lake Maracaibo basin in 1914. Gómez managed to deflate Venezuela's staggering debt by granting concessions to foreign oil companies, which won him the support of the United States and the European powers. The growth of the domestic oil industry strengthened the economic ties between the U.S. and Venezuela. Traditional American protectionism triumphed after the electoral victory of the Republicans. The Fordney–McCumber Tariff (September 1922) was the highest in U.S. history and angered the Europeans, whose efforts to acquire dollars through exports were hampered even as the United States demanded payment of war debts. In raw materials policy, however, the United States upheld the Open Door. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover rejected both statist economic competition that bred war and laissez-faire competition that bred cycles of boom and bust. Instead, he advocated formal cooperation among firms of various nations to stabilize the price and supply of commodities, raise living standards, and yet avoid the waste and oppression of regulatory bureaucracies. This “third alternative” would create “a new economic system, based neither on the capitalism of Adam Smith nor upon the Socialism of Karl Marx.” By dint of leverage and persuasion, the United States gradually brought Britain around to this model of informal entente. By late 1922 London bankers also took the American position on war debts, and the two nations also cooperated in such new areas as transoceanic cables and radio. Of surpassing importance for national power in the mechanized 20th century, however, was oil.

 

After the Great War, known oil reserves outside the industrial powers themselves were concentrated in the British mandates of the Middle East, Persia, the Dutch East Indies, and Venezuela. The Royal Dutch/Shell Group and Anglo-Persian Oil Company dominated oil exploration and production in Asia, but increasingly they confronted revolutionary nationalism, Bolshevik agitation (in Persia), and U.S. opposition to imperialism. In Venezuela and Central America the situation was the reverse. During the war the State Department endorsed all-American oil concessions, but, in accordance with the principle of reciprocity, Hughes instructed his Latin-American ambassadors in 1921 to respect foreign interests. Latin America in general became far more of an American sphere of influence during the war than ever before owing to the growth of American commerce at Britain’s expense. Central American governments now relied on New York banks to manage their public finance rather than those of London and Paris, while the U.S. share of Latin-American trade totaled 32 percent, double Britain’s share, though British capital still predominated in the economics of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. The leading party of post dictatorial Venezuela, Democratic Action (Acción Democrática; AD), was basically reformist in orientation but with populist overtones. Romulo Betancourt and other AD leaders were less personalistic in style than Perón, who was finally overthrown in 1955, but like him they stood for the granting of lavish benefits to the working and middle classes within a general framework of capitalism. In Venezuela oil wealth ultimately encouraged the national government to squander resources without adequate regard for the future.

 

Cosimo's intimate and trusted friend, Puccio Pucci, a rising young politician, had spoken strongly in the Pratiche against the war. Cosimo also adopted the policy, already traditional in his family, of supporting the lesser guilds and the poor against the wealthy aristocracy which ruled the city. Consequently they sought to destroy him and his family. During Rinaldo’s regime proscription of Cosimo's party was attempted: the less important Medici’s were banished, then Puccio Pucci and Puccio's brother Giovanni, and lastly Agnolo Acciaiuoli, whose crime, according to Cosimo, was merely “certain information he had written to Puccio and to me, which was not of any great importance.” According to his accusers he had advised Cosimo to do the very two things that they were most afraid he would do: stir up a foreign war, so that Florence might feel the want of his liberality, and make overtures of friendship to Neri Capponi. Neri's attitude at the time of Cosimo's banishment seemed neutral.

 

On the other hand emphasizing Wilson's 19th century provenance allows us to escape the banality of labels like "pacifism" or "isolationism". Wilson's "peace without victory" strategy as a natural extension of the logic of the USA’s earlier Open Door policy. But As per Adam Tooze, "it is important to be clear that this was not and also was not an appeal for free trade. Amongst the large economies, the United States was the most protectionist. Nor did the US welcome competition for its own sake but once the door was opened, it confidently expected American exporters and bankers to sweep all their rivals aside. In the long run the Open Door would thus undermine the Europeans exclusive imperial domains." The point, though, is that anti-imperialism was not the same as anti-racism or anti-colonialism. The disruptive vigor of the American economy was no device to usher in racial equality and national liberation in markets like China, India, or the Middle East. Instead, for Wilson as for other American strategists, American anti-imperialism meant opposition to "the 'selfish' and violent rivalry of France, Britain, Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan that threatened to divide one world into segmented spheres of interest." The late explosion of the American economy into a globalizing world would mean the end to imperial preference, not the end of empire qua white domination.

 

After the fall of Albizzi regime, first action of Signoria of Florence was, of course, the recall of the exiles, Medici, Pucci, and Agnolo Acciaiuoli. Cosimo, like all rulers who wish to be absolute, made it his aim to equalize as far as possible those whom he hoped to make his subjects. It was his object to break up the solidarity of classes, and destroy that strong class feeling which was so powerful, an incentive to discontent and disturbance. For this purpose he would have obliterated the distinction between Grandi and Popolani altogether, but that the existence of a Grandi class was too convenient for the purpose of political proscription. So that, instead of following Rinaldo's example of extending the rights of the Popolani to the Grandi, he pursued the opposite method of converting nearly all the Grandi into Popolani at the same time taking from those Grandi who remained mostly members of the Albizzi party, lately proscribed their peculiar rights to certain offices. The class as a class was broken up, while the newly made Popolani were wholly dependent on Cosmo himself to enable them to pass the Scrutinies and obtain the ordinary offices. On the other hand, the distinction between Major and Minor Arts was blurred and rendered indistinct by the elevation of the Pucci and other wealthy persons from the Minor to the Major.

 

This weakened the Major by destroying their exclusiveness, while it weakened the Minor by depriving them of their principal members. And Cosimo made a regular system of the employment of "new men" in this respect also like other rulers who wish to become tyrants. They were used as a means to depress the older families which had hitherto enjoyed a monopoly of government, and to supply the places left vacant by the exiles: "Two yards of red cloth," Cosimo said, "are enough to make a citizen." These" new men," dependent entirely on his favor for advancement, were ready to carry out his policy with docility under his directions. Cosimo had the gift of choosing men well, and those whom he selected were capable, if unscrupulous. They made him independent of the upper classes for officials, and, possessing an hereditary hatred against those who had so long oppressed them, they were willing to execute any scheme for the suppression of Cosimo's rivals.

 

As unrest in Cuba escalated in the 1890s, the United States demanded reforms that Spain was unable to accomplish. The result was the short Spanish–American War of 1898, in which United States acquired Puerto Rico and set up a protectorate over Cuba under the Platt Amendment rule passed as part of the 1901 Army Appropriations Bill. The building of the Panama Canal absorbed American attention from 1903. The US facilitated a revolt that made Panama independent from Colombia and set up the Panama Canal Zone as an American owned and operated district that was finally returned to Panama in 1979. The Canal opened in 1914 and proved a major factor in world trade. The United States paid special attention to protection of the military approaches to the Panama Canal, including threats by Germany. Repeatedly it seized temporary control of the finances of several countries, especially Haiti and Nicaragua. Latin-American protests grew in volume, especially in 1926, when a Mexican-supported leftist rebellion in Nicaragua prompted U.S. Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg to report to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on “Bolshevist Aims and Policies in Mexico and Latin America.” But intervention by United States marines in Nicaragua only paved the way for the dictatorial regime of the Somoza’s. At the Pan-American Conference of 1928, rivalry between Argentina and Brazil and the Chaco contestants, and the caution of other states, precluded their presenting a united Latin-American front. But the U.S. administrations of the decade did labor to improve the American image. The Clark Amendment of 1928 repudiated the Roosevelt Corollary, while Hoover toured 10 Latin-American nations after his election as president and repudiated the “big brother” role. In the 1920s, therefore, the United States continued to squeeze out European influence in Latin America but was itself moving slowly toward the “Good Neighbor” policy of the 1930s.

 

One large class of, people, if not enthusiastic followers of the Albizzi, had yet been offended by the violence of the revolution, or had friends and relations who suffered in the following proscriptions. Amongst these was Agnolo Pandolfini, who, on the banishment of Palla Strozzi, retired altogether from public life. Still more they were offended by the political methods of the new Government. They suffered in the law courts from the favor shown there to the Mediceans; they found themselves excluded from the offices and political influence which they considered themselves entitled by hereditary right to enjoy, while their places were taken by men from the Minor Arts or who had but lately come to settle in the city; Cavalcanti of the members of the older families thus excluded who said, “they would all have consented to lose one eye themselves, if he who had brought about this state of things might lose both.” The new officials were of course accused of peculation; Puccio Pucci, it was said, had piled up a huge fortune at the expense of the Commune, for, "since no stream becomes great with pure water only, so no one could become so rich without dishonest gains." He bought up government debts at low rates from the creditors, and then obtained full payment at the public exchequer. The money obtained, by taxation, it was asserted, did not all go to the objects for which it was intended; part found its way into the pockets of private citizens. Even Cosimo, although it was known that he voluntarily contributed much towards public expenses, did not escape suspicion, since all the finances of the Republic passed through his hands. His very liberality was condemned; it was said of his building, “is only his hypocrisy and ecclesiastical pride; it is paid for out of our purses under pretence of subsidies for Count Francesco” (Sforza). “Now he has begun to build a palace, which will make the Colosseum of Rome look small. Who indeed would not build magnificently if he could spend other people's money upon it” One day the doors of the Medici Palace were found to have been smeared with blood, but Cosimo was too wise to take any notice of the insult.

When the United States first launched the “War on drugs” in 1960s, not even the cleverest conspiracy theorists could have imagined the far-reaching consequences of this campaign would have around the world. From the CIA allowing drug traffickers to flourish in exchange for their assistance in toppling leftist leaders abroad to the deal made with infamous Nazi Klaus Barbie. A group called "The Fiancées of Death", which included German Nazis and Fascists, had links to some of Barbie's actions in Bolivia. Barbie earlier also carried out a large arms purchase of tanks from Austria to the Bolivian army. These were then used in a coup d'état turning it into Narco-state (also narco-capitalism or narco-economy), a political and economic term applied to countries where all legitimate institutions become penetrated by the power and wealth of the illegal drug trade. The term was first used to describe Bolivia itself following the 1980 coup of Luis García Meza which was seen to be primarily financed with the help of narcotics traffickers. 

Well known examples are Colombia and Mexico, where drug cartels produce, ship and sell drugs such as cocaine and marijuana. The term is often seen as ambiguous because of the differentiation between narco-states. The overall description would consist out of illegal organizations that either produce, ship or sell drugs and hold a grip on the legitimate institutions through force, bribe or blackmail. This situation can arise in different forms. For instance, Colombia where drug lord Pablo Escobar ran the Medellin Cartel during most of the 1970s and 1980s, producing and trafficking cocaine to the United States of America. Escobar managed to take over control of most of the police forces in Medellin and surrounding areas due to bribery, allowing him to expand his drug trafficking business. The term “narco-state” is oversimplified because of the underlying networks running the drug trafficking organizations. For example, the Guadalajara cartel in Mexico, led by Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo, who managed to combine several small drug trafficking families into one overarching cartel controlling the Marijuana production in the rural areas of Mexico while trafficking Colombian cocaine to the U.S.A at the same time. Over time the cocaine market expanded to Europe, leading to new routes being discovered from Colombia through Brazil and Venezuela. The one of the best example of Narco state in history is Panama under the dictatorship of General Manuel Noriega.

Problems in Central America, commanded the attention of the United States throughout the 1980s. In Nicaragua the broadly based Sandinista revolutionary movement challenged the oppressive regime of Anastasio Somoza Debayle, whose family had ruled the country since the 1930s. In accordance with its human rights policies, the Carter administration cut off aid to Somoza, permitting the Sandinistas to take power in 1979. They appeared to Americans as democratic patriots and received large sums of U.S. aid. A radical faction soon took control of the revolution, however, and moderates either departed or were forced out of the government in Managua. The Sandinistas then socialized the economy, suppressed freedom of the press and religion, and established close ties to Cuba and other Soviet-bloc countries. By the time Reagan took office, neighboring El Salvador had also succumbed to violence among leftist insurgents, authoritarian landowners supporting right-wing death squads, and a struggling reformist government. Reagan vigorously affirmed a last-minute decision by Carter to grant military aid to the Salvadoran government. Although Nicaragua and Cuba were identified as the sources of the insurgency, Americans became increasingly confused by evidence of atrocities on all sides and were again torn between their desire to promote human rights and their determination to halt the spread of Communism. Opponents of U.S. involvement warned of another Vietnam in Central America, while supporters warned of another Cuba. Nicaragua, meanwhile, built up one of the largest armies in the world in proportion to population, expanded its port facilities, and received heavy shipments of arms from the U.S.S.R. The CIA used this military buildup to justify the secret mining of Nicaraguan harbors in February 1984, which was, when revealed, universally condemned. The CIA also secretly organized and supplied a force of up to 15,000 anti-Sandinista “freedom fighters,” known as Contras, across the border in Honduras and Costa Rica, while U.S. armed forces conducted joint maneuvers with those states along the Nicaraguan border. The ostensible purpose of such exercises was to interdict the suspected flow of arms from Nicaragua to the Salvadoran rebels. In fact, American policy aimed at provoking a popular revolt in hopes of overthrowing the Sandinistas altogether.

Closer to home, the United States continued to face not only the aggressively hostile Sandinista regime in Nicaragua and the leftist rebellion in El Salvador (backed, the White House said, by Nicaragua, Cuba, and the Soviet Union) but also a growing rift with the Panamanian dictator General Manuel Noriega. For decades Noriega had collaborated with U.S. intelligence agencies, serving as an informant on events in Cuba and a supporter of the Contras in Central America. It came to light, however, that in addition to grabbing all power in Panama he had amassed a personal fortune by smuggling illegal drugs into the United States, and in 1988 a U.S. grand jury indicted Noriega on drug-trafficking charges. The Reagan administration offered to drop the charges if Noriega would agree to step down and leave Panama, but he refused. In May 1989, Panama staged elections monitored by an international team that included former U.S. President Carter. Although the opposition civilian candidate, Guillermo Endara, appeared to win by a 3-to-1 margin, Noriega annulled the vote, declared his own puppet candidate the victor, and had Endara and other opponents beaten in the streets. President Bush dispatched 2,000 additional soldiers to U.S. bases in the Panama Canal Zone, and the Organization of American States (OAS) called for a “peaceful transfer of power” to an elected government in Panama. In December 1989, Noriega bade the Panamanian National Assembly to name him “maximum leader” and declare a virtual “state of war” with the United States. Within days a U.S. soldier was ambushed and killed in Panama, an incident followed by the shooting of a Panamanian soldier by U.S. military guards. In 1989, the United States invaded Panama as part of Operation Just Cause, which involved 25,000 American troops. General Manuel Noriega, head of Panama's government, had been giving military assistance to Contra groups in Nicaragua at the request of the U.S. which, in exchange, allowed him to continue his drug-trafficking activities which they had known about since the 1960s. When the DEA tried to indict Noriega in 1971, the CIA prevented them from doing so. The CIA, which was then directed by future president George H. W. Bush, provided Noriega with hundreds of thousands of dollars per year as payment for his work in Latin America. However, when CIA pilot Eugene Hasenfus was shot down over Nicaragua by the Sandinistas, documents aboard the plane revealed many of the CIA's activities in Latin America, and the CIA's connections with Noriega became a public relations "liability" for the U.S. government, which finally allowed the DEA to indict him for drug trafficking, after decades of allowing his drug operations to proceed unchecked.

The U.S. conflict with the Nicaraguan revolutionary regime of Daniel Ortega also reached a climax in 1989. On February 14 five Central American presidents, inspired by the earlier initiatives of the Costa Rican president and Nobel Peace laureate Óscar Arias Sánchez, agreed to plans for a cease-fire in the entire region, the closing of Contra bases in Honduras, and monitored elections in Nicaragua to be held no later than February 1990. In April Nicaragua’s National Assembly approved the plan and passed laws relaxing the Sandinistas’ prohibitions of free speech and opposition political parties. Because the Sandinistas’ prospects for continued, large-scale aid from Cuba and the U.S.S.R. were slim in light of the Soviet “new thinking,” Ortega concluded that he must, after all, risk the fully free elections he had avoided ever since his takeover 10 years before. The five Central American presidents announced in August their schedule for the demobilization of the Contras, and in October the U.S. Congress acceded to Bush’s request for nonmilitary aid to the Nicaraguan opposition. The elections were held on February 25, 1990, and, to the surprise of almost everyone on both sides of the struggle, the Nicaraguan people favored National Opposition Union leader Violeta Barrios de Chamorro by 55 to 40 percent. Ortega acknowledged his defeat and pledged to “respect and obey the popular mandate.” The United States immediately suspended the aid to the Contras, lifted the economic sanctions against Nicaragua, and proposed to advance economic assistance to the new regime.

The 1960s were marked by the greatest changes in morals and manners since the 1920s. Young people, college students in particular, rebelled against what they viewed as the repressed conformist society of their parents. Opposition to U.S. involvement in Vietnam promoted the rise of a New Left, which was anti-capitalist as well as antiwar. The political activists of the New Left drew on the theories of political philosopher Herbert Marcuse, sociologist C. Wright Mills, and psychoanalyst and social philosopher Erich Fromm, among others. A “counterculture” sprang up that legitimized radical standards of taste and behavior in the arts as well as in life. Feminism was reborn and joined the ranks of radical causes. The Nixon campaign had two enemies, the anti-war left and black people. They knew that they couldn’t make it illegal to be either anti-war or black people, but getting public to associate the hippies with the marijuana and the blacks with heroin and then criminalizing both heavily, they could disrupt those communities by arresting their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them night after night on the evening news. So President Nixon kick started America’s war on drugs in 1971 (he called it an “offensive”) and created the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) two years later. Ironically, or perhaps not, the war on drugs was conceived by criminals. Four of the main architects of Nixon’s drug policy—Attorney General John Mitchell, White House aide John Erlichman (who later allegedly admitted the war on drugs was really a war on hippies and black people), Egil Bud Krogh (who famously arranged for a drug-addled Elvis Presley to receive an honorary DEA badge) as well as Watergate break-in conspirator G. Gordon Liddy were all imprisoned over Watergate. The Nixon’s top advisors allegedly admitted to a magazine writer this deception behind the origin of the “War on Drugs”, So the Nixon’s administration brought together the peace movements, the hippies, the counterculture, African-Americans and all of this can be captured and addressed by force with law enforcements under the rubric of the war on drugs and the trick is to create a system that deals with this without appearing to it.

 

But by the time Nixon declared a war on drugs, the real fighting had begun a decade earlier during America’s effort to overthrow Fidel Castro. In 1961, the CIA conspired with mobsters in Miami to assassinate Castro, whose revolution had put an end to the lucrative drug and vice networks operating on the island. Although the CIA-planned Bay of Pigs invasion failed, many of the agency’s Cuban assets survived; and after making their way back to Miami, they turned Southern Florida into an early epicenter of drug smuggling and drug-related violence. Meanwhile, the CIA had simultaneously helped introduce LSD to the American populace via clandestine programs that dosed countless citizens—all part of a Cold War mind-control operation titled ‘MK-Ultra’. In Southeast Asia, the CIA teamed up with Laotian general Vang Pao to help make Laos the world’s top exporter of heroin. By the time Nixon began ratcheting down U.S. troop presence in Vietnam to focus on the war against drugs, more troops were dying of heroin overdoses than actual combat, an epidemic that quickly found its way to the streets of urban America. A decade later, as a result of turning a blind eye to cocaine smugglers funding the CIA’s illegal war against the communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the CIA unwittingly helped unleash a nationwide crack-cocaine epidemic. Most notably, cocaine kingpin “Freeway” Ricky Ross was able to take his South Central L.A. based crack businesses nationwide thanks to his access to a cheap supply of coke from politically connected Nicaraguan suppliers.

“Dark Alliance,” Gary Webb’s landmark 1996 newspaper of articles published in the San Jose Mercury News alleging CIA involvement in the crack-cocaine epidemic, which investigated Nicaraguans linked to the CIA-backed Contras who had smuggled cocaine into the U.S. which was then distributed as crack cocaine into Los Angeles and funneled profits to the Contras. His articles asserted that the CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of drugs into the U.S. by the Contra personnel and directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras. That created a firestorm of controversy which ultimately drove Webb out of journalism and into a spiral of depression that led him to take his own life. Although there were problems with Webb’s reporting and the editing of his story that allowed it to be discredited by rival news organizations, it forced the CIA to reveal that for more than a decade it had protected its Nicaraguan allies from being prosecuted for smuggling cocaine into the U.S.

Veteran drug agents, including Phil Jordan, former director of the DEA’s El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), say they were repeatedly called off cases involving CIA-tied drug rings. “We had three or four cases where we arrested CIA contract workers with cocaine, and I get a phone call that the charges have been dismissed,” Jordan recalls in a new HISTORY Channel series, ‘America’s War on Drugs’. “You know, we are risking our lives, making cases against significant drug traffickers, then on the other hand you got another government agency allowing the drugs to come in . . . And we’re not talking about 100 pounds, we’re talking about tons. That introduction of white powder was killing black people.” The CIA’s collusion with anti-communist drug smugglers beginning in the 1960s played a direct role in the drug epidemic of the 1980s that was used to justify President Reagan‘s 1986 crime bill. The law introduced harsh mandatory sentencing for non-violent drug offenders, the legacy of which US are still dealing with today.

History Channel’s “America’s War on Drugs” is an immersive trip through the last five decades, uncovering how the CIA, obsessed with keeping America safe in the fight against communism, allied itself with the mafia and foreign drug traffickers. In exchange for support against foreign enemies, the groups were allowed to grow their drug trade in the United States. The series explores the unintended consequences of when gangsters, war lords, spies, outlaw entrepreneurs, street gangs and politicians vie for power and control of the global black market for narcotics – all told through the firsthand accounts of former CIA and DEA officers, major drug traffickers, gang members, noted experts and insiders. Night one of “America’s War on Drugs” divulges covert Cold War operations that empowered a generation of drug traffickers and reveals the peculiar details of secret CIA LSD experiments which helped fuel the counter-culture movement, leading to President Nixon’s crackdown and declaration of a war on drugs. The documentary series then delves into the rise of the cocaine cowboys, a secret island “cocaine base,” the CIA’s connection to the crack epidemic, the history of the cartels and their murderous tactics, the era of “Just Say No,” the negative effect of NAFTA, and the unlikely career of an almost famous Midwest meth queen. The final chapter of the series examines how the attacks on September 11th intertwined the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, transforming Afghanistan into a narco-state teeming with corruption. It also explores how American intervention in Mexico helped give rise to El Chapo and the Super Cartels, bringing unprecedented levels of violence and sending even more drugs across America’s borders. Five decades into the War on Drugs, a move to legalize marijuana gains momentum, mega-corporations have become richer and more powerful than any nation’s drug cartel, and continuing to rise is the demand for heroin and other illegal drugs. Nick Schou is author of Kill the Messenger: How the CIA’s Crack Cocaine Controversy Destroyed Journalist Gary Webb (Nation Books, 2006) and also appeared in the HISTORY limited series ‘America’s War on Drugs’. The 2014 movie ‘Kill the Messenger’ depicted actor Jeremy Renner as Gary Webb.

Félix Rodríguez is a Cuban American former Central Intelligence Agency Paramilitary Operations Officer in the Special Activities Division, known for his involvement in the Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba and the execution of communist revolutionary Che Guevara as well as his ties to George H. W. Bush during the Iran–Contra affair. In October 2013, two former DEA agents and a pilot who allegedly flew for the CIA claimed to the Mexican journal Proceso and told an American television network that CIA operatives were involved in the kidnapping and murder of DEA covert agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena in 1985 and that Felix Rodríguez had played a role. The alleged motive for the crime was that Camarena had supposedly discovered that the US government had collaborated with the Guadalajara Cartel in the importation and the transfer of drugs from Colombia to the United States via Mexico to use its share of the profits to finance the Nicaraguan Contra rebels in its war against the Sandinista government. “The Last Narc” is a docuseries about the 1985 death of U.S. DEA agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena. The series interviews DEA agents and witnesses to Camarena's death who state that he was murdered by Mexican drug lords, with the complicity of the CIA. The series was released by Amazon in July 2020. The documentary shows the testimonies of people like Phil Jordan, a former director of the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC); Héctor Berrellez, a former agent of the United States anti-drug administration who directed Operation Leyenda to clarify the murder, Mike Holm (a member of the DEA for 24 years), Manny Medrano (former assistant US Attorney and lead prosecutor in Camarena case) as well as Camarena's widow and three former police officers and former bodyguards of Ernesto Fonseca aka ‘Don Neto’. The documentary explores the claims of the details of the torture and the interrogation, including some of the questions that Rodríguez allegedly asked Camarena in relation to the association that the CIA had allegedly reached with the Guadalajara cartel to bring cocaine into the US, the final goal being to finance the Nicaraguan Contras. According to the Florida-based CE Noticias Financieras ‘The Last Narc’ is "notable" for approaching the story of Camarena's death beyond the ordinary patriotic narratives of the US and Mexican government. The newspaper writes that The Last Narc makes a convincing argument about Camarena's death: "In a blunt way, this work by Amazon also establishes something that has been ventilated before: the Sinaloa Cartel was a creation of the Mexican single ruling party PRI regime through the DFS  and the DFS, in turn, was a creation of the CIA." As after World War two, Mexico’s new president was eager to attract US investment, which meant picking a side in the Cold War. To prove Mexico could get tough on Ivan, the DFS (Mexico’s secret police, created by the CIA) was created, which basically meant CIA needed anything done in Mexico, DFS did it. Tapping phones, keeping an eye on Soviet and Cuban diplomats, and making sure any opposition to the ruling PRI party was kept in check. On 5 October 1986, the Corporate Air Services C-123, carrying Eugene Hasenfus was shot down over Nicaragua. Hasenfus told reporters that he worked for "Max Gomez," an alias for Felix Rodríguez. On 10 October 1986, Clair George, the head of CIA clandestine operations, testified before Congress that he did not know of any direct connection between Hasenfus and Reagan administration officials. In the fall of 1992, George was convicted on two charges of false statements and perjury before Congress but was pardoned on Christmas Eve that year by President Bush. Felix Rodriguez was also involved operation Phoenix in Vietnam where they identified and assassinated Vietcong commanders.

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. allied with anti-communist forces in Laos that leveraged our support to become some of the largest suppliers of opium on earth. Air America, a CIA front, flew supplies for the guerrillas into Laos and then flew drugs out, all with the knowledge and protection of U.S. operatives. The same dynamic developed in the 1980s as the Reagan administration tried to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The planes that secretly brought arms to the contras turned around and brought cocaine back to America, again shielded from U.S. law enforcement by the CIA. Several conspiracy theories assert that the CIA used Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport to smuggle weapons and ammunition to the Contras in Nicaragua, and drugs back into the United States. Some theories even invoke the involvement of political figures, including Oliver North and former presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The CIA's self-investigation, overseen by the CIA's inspector general, stated that the CIA had no involvement in or knowledge of any illegal activities that may have occurred in Mena. The report said that the agency had conducted a training exercise at the airport in partnership with another Federal agency and that companies located at the airport had performed "routine aviation-related services on equipment owned by the CIA". The Tom Cruise’s film ‘American Made’ is a fictionalized telling of the story of Barry Seal, a pilot and Medellin Cartel drug smuggler who based his operations in Mena. In 1986, the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations began investigating drug trafficking from Central and South America and the Caribbean to the United States. The investigation was conducted by the Sub-Committee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations, chaired by Senator John Kerry, so its final 1989 report was known as the Kerry Committee report. The Report concluded that "it is clear that individuals who provided support for the Contras were involved in drug trafficking, the supply network of the Contras was used by drug trafficking organizations, and elements of the Contras themselves knowingly received financial and material assistance from drug traffickers."

Colombia has far and away the worst human rights record in Latin America, since around 1990. Through the 1980s the worst atrocities were carried out by the US-backed dictatorships El Salvador, Guatemala was probably the worst but through the 1990s Colombia got the championship became the leading human rights violator and almost reflexively it became the leading recipient of US military aid in the hemisphere. Colombian government is the one close US ally, its stands out from the region and that's why the basis went to Colombia. As per Prof. Noam Chomsky with this question of the drugs, it's taken for granted in the United States that US have the right to establish military bases in other countries to send troops in and the CIA and DEA agents and so on to get them to stop producing a product that we don't like which was the Imperial mentality that doesn't register. You have to really ask yourself whether controlling a coca production has anything to do with the purpose of all of this. There’s a principle of law well-known principle of law so that you can infer intention from predictable consequences of actions.

For decades the United States has been fighting what's called a drug war to try to get rid of say opium production it's had essentially no effect on opium production, but it has had other effects perfectly predictable effects. In Colombia it's a cover for counter insurgency as Southern Colombia was a miserable place as peasants down there and indigenous people were being attacked by the military, paramilitaries and the guerrillas and in the United States it's a technique for reintroducing slavery, what it's done in effect in the United States since the drug war was escalated by Nixon and a little bit after that it made him since the Reagan years is to shoot the incarceration rate up to the sky and it's mostly black males. well you look at the history of African-Americans it's been slavery all the way I mean everybody knows you know aside from free blacks it was slavery up till the Civil War but what is less known is that there was a period ten-year period called reconstruction when that was sort of kind of freedom but after reconstruction there was a compact of the north and the south to essentially reinstate slavery and the way it was done was by criminalizing black life. so if a black man is standing on a street corner and you know you can arrest him for vagrancy he doesn't look down properly when a white woman passes you can arrest him for you know attempted rape or something and once they're in jail they're there forever because she can't pay the judges and you can't pay the lawyers and so on so essentially black life was criminalized and you had a new slave class which was worse than slavery. For good capitalist reasons if you own a slave he's capital you got to maintain him if you're just taking a slave out of the criminal system and putting him to work in a mine or a factory he's dispensable, it's kind of like free labor he just throw him out, so in fact it was worse than slavery and it's the basis for a large part of the American industrial revolution the mines and the steel mills and so on a lot of it was in this southern areas where was based on slave labor well that went on until the Second World War. During the Second World War you needed free labor for you know war plants and so on and then for a couple of decades after the Second World War, there was a substantial economic and industrial growth. So black men could get jobs as auto workers and start moving into relatively decent life, well by the 70s that essentially was over as the economy moved towards financialization, towards elimination of the industrial production. The neoliberal policies were introduced you've got this huge superfluous population again, what do you do with them throw them into jail and in fact that's exactly what happens. so the consequence of the drug war was primarily domestically to re-incarcerate a large part of the black and Hispanic population. In fact they are again factory labor, cheap and easily exploitable labor it's called voluntary as in jail. but then when people complain about say Guantanamo it's so kind of a little ironic because American prisons aren't that much different than torture chambers it's a horrible system. so that's one effect at home the effect abroad is counterinsurgency and there were other consequences it's a way of frightening the rest of the population here imposing what's called a law-and-order. so if you want to frighten and control the population they have to be afraid of something and they can be afraid of you know Hispanic narco traffickers trying to destroy us and that sort of thing and that worked very well, so it's had a and the fact that it consistently failed in its alleged purpose namely reducing drug use or even availability of drugs doesn't matter because it was succeeding in its actual purposes.

In fact the three quite conservative Latin-American ex-presidents made a deal ‘Latin American Commission on drugs and democracy’ co-shared Fernando Cardoso (Brasil) and Cesar Gaviria (Colombia) and Ernesto Zedillo (Mexico) which “declared the war on drugs a failure” relaxing attitude toward drugs prohibition, they say it's got nothing to do with controlling drugs and a lot of Latin American countries reducing deep slowly decriminalizing drugs for personal use and so on the US wants to maintain it. Late nighties Colombia may not be the main producer of poppy, but it was right the center of this and Mexico became a major narco-state as huge areas of Mexico near the border which are just given over to the northern border US border - opium production and the US pretends it doesn't know anything about it but journalists in Mexico say you could just fly over it in a Piper Cub or something you can just see it you can't miss it a lot of these are areas from which the population essentially fled as a result of NAFTA which undermines agricultural productions. One of its purposes so people flee to the cities and you have big open areas the drug cartels pick them up and they're apparently protected by the army and the narco traffickers who work together and it's claimed that about 25% of the Mexican economy is now just narco trafficking but US don't do certify Mexico because it's an ally but Colombia is the one real holdout in Latin America so far but it's you know it's a pretty ugly place on the other hand to get back to an earlier question I don't really think it can be used as a base for attacking other places and Latin America there's just not the capacity for them. In Netflix Narco series it is depicted that after capture of Pablo Escobar in Colombia War on drugs was a ‘stage show’ as USA sent billion of dollar aid package to dismantle the remaining drug cartels in Colombia declaring that Colombia almost on the verge of becoming Narco-state, but US has another agenda that give Colombians a check and built an army in the jungles there as Colombia is perfectly situated to help US in both Central and South America making it a beacon for the region. So many confirms that the core truth is: The war on drugs has always been a pointless sham. For decades the federal government has engaged in a shifting series of alliances of convenience with some of the world’s largest drug cartels. The fraud or political move designed to keep certain aspect of the culture under control. So while the U.S. incarceration rate has quintupled since President Richard Nixon first declared the war on drugs in 1971, top narcotics dealers have simultaneously enjoyed protection at the highest levels of power in America. The power dynamic that forged war on drugs reverberated across the decades as the total prison population in USA in 1973 was 200,000 which became 2,300,000 in 2016.

 

It should be noted, however, that though Cosimo's power actually rested upon a popular basis, he did not admit the poor as a class to any greater share in the government than that which they had previously enjoyed, but only certain of their individual members whom he raised from the lower to the upper classes. He kept his popularity with the poor by the economic advantages which they enjoyed under his rule, while he continued to govern by means of the upper classes, thus keeping both sections of the community contented, and at the same time blurring the distinctions between them. Cosimo's wealth was useful to him not only in enabling him to please the poor, but also in conciliating the richer merchant class. There was one of the popular open-air balls in the Mercato Nuovo, in which only the noblest youth and beauty in Florence might perform; but every dweller in the city, however humble, was permitted to look on.  Amongst the many youths of great families who took part in this procession were Lorenzo de' Medici, Cosimo's eldest grandson, two young Pazzi, a Pucci, and a son of Dietisalvi Neroni. And this festival was only a rather brilliant example amongst many.

The North American Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] opened the commercial floodgates between the United States Mexico and Canada. The ‘G3 free trade agreement’ between Colombia, Mexico, and Venezuela that came into effect a very next year of NAFTA agreement. NAFTA tripled trade across North America providing a boost to the economies of all three countries, what's less known is that it completely reshaped a different economy. Back in the 80s most of the cocaine smuggled into the US came from Colombia to Florida on planes and boats sent by Pablo Escobar and his colleagues, but throughout the 80s and early 90s the US clamped down on those drug routes through the Caribbean that forced the Colombians to get creative and they began paying Mexican cartels which historically trafficked in weed and heroin to smuggle cocaine into the USA. And weirdly NAFTA helped it phased out tariffs across North America making it easier for freight trucks to cross the US border. The number of trucks crossing entering from Mexico nearly doubled to more than four million in 2001 the US Border Patrol inspected only about 10% of them that meant millions of trucks sailing past checkpoints undisturbed mini ferry drugs hidden amidst legal cargo and stashed in secret compartments. A decade after NAFTA 90% of Colombian cocaine was smuggled across the southwest border Mexico which had always been the Walmart of marijuana and heroin was now the FedEx of the cocaine business. NAFTA didn't just make it easier to transport drugs by removing tariffs the trade agreement flooded Mexico with American subsidized corn putting almost 2 million Mexican farmers out of work, so factory sprung up along the border but there still weren't enough jobs to go around Mexican unemployment increased wages stalled and poverty spread across Nuevo Laredo Juarez and other border towns. Mexican drug cartels filled the void they contracted out of work farmers to grow poppies in marijuana in border leon slums, they offered steady work with good pay and glamour for young men willing to become foot soldiers in cartel turf wars. NAFTA's final unintended consequence came as a result of the Mexican and American governments fighting the first wave of unintended consequences in 2008 the US agreed to send billions of dollars of military aid to Mexico in the form of blackhawk helicopters and other hardware to help fight the cartels that security agreement fueled Mexico's militarized drug war which other than the occasional kingpin has been a spectacular failure Mexican cartels still rake in billions by smuggling the Colombians cocaine and increasingly by manufacturing and selling deadly opioids like heroin.

The youngest son of Tommaso Sassetti, Francesco Sassetti is first recorded as joining the famous Medici bank in either 1438 or 1439 (at seventeen or eighteen years of age) employed by Cosimo de' Medici. His rise was remarkably quick, and he became a junior partner in that branch, and then its general manager, investing his own money in the branch and receiving a share of the profits. By 1453, he had been transferred to the Geneva branch (which as before, he invested in though he maintained his investment in the Avignon branch), and in 1458 had returned home to Florence to a position as an adviser to Piero and Lorenzo de' Medici (who had succeeded Cosimo); he also married. Sometime after this, he was raised to the highest position in the Medici bank available to non-Medici: "General Manager" (and was referred to by Lorenzo as nostro ministro). Among the close associates of Piero di Cosimo de' Medici and his illustrious son, Lorenzo de' Medici, no one was more trusted by both father and son than Francesco Sassetti, their business partner and general manager. Among other things, Sassetti is vital to studies of the Medici bank because of some surviving documents kept by him: his "secret account book" or libro segreto, is a private set of account books that Sassetti meticulously kept between 1462 and 1472. They are invaluable for their full and honest statements of Sassetti's finances and for the light they shed on the internal workings of the bank when he was the general manager. They also are interesting in showing how Sassetti made liberal use of interest-bearing deposits and reinvested his earnings from the Medici branches in other enterprises. Sassetti is often figured in the ultimate decline of the Medici bank. An early sign of the decline was the near-failure of the Lyon branch because of its manager's venality, which Sassetti saved—but as general manager, he should have been suspicious of the high profits the branch manager responsible (Lionetto de' Rossi) reported and checked the books before events had come to such a pass, especially since he was a partner in that branch, even if he was not in the others. “It was his duty to control the local managers, to audit their accounts, and to lay down the rules which they were expected to follow...Careless managers were reprimanded and summoned to Florence to report. Sassetti, it seems, changed this policy and gave much more leeway to the managers of the affiliated companies.”

So that makes,

Francesco Sassetti: Mexico

Puccio Pucci: Gran Colombia (Venezuela, Colombia, Panama and Ecuador)

 

Besides Luca Pitti there were two other politicians, somewhat Cosimo's juniors, who from 1447 onwards played leading parts. One of these was Dietisalvi Neroni, whose father Nerone had been instrumental in recalling Cosimo from exile. Dietisalvi was a clever and able man, much trusted by Cosimo, and admitted by him more nearly into the secrets of his policy than anyone else out of his family. He acted as Accopiatore during the greater part of Cosimo's rule; and was no doubt one of Cosimo's specially trusted agents on that committee. He alone loyally supported Cosimo's foreign policy with regard to Sforza, and during the critical year 1453, as a member of the Dieci, he pressed Cosimo's views upon that unwilling body. Nerone Neroni always spoke strongly in the consgulte in favour of the Venetian league; and, before conquest of Milan at least, he was supported by his son, Diotisalvi Neroni. After holding countless public offices in Florence, Diotisalvi was sent as ambassador to Milan and was the propagonist of the peace of Lodi in 1454.

Brazil–United States relations are the bilateral relations between Brazil and the United States. Relations have a long history. Following the transfer of the Portuguese royal court to Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent opening of the ports to foreign ships, the United States was, in 1815, the first country to establish a consulate in Brazil, more precisely in Recife, Pernambuco. The United States was the first country to recognize Brazilian 1822 declaration of independence from Portugal in 1824, and Brazil was the only South American nation to send troops to fight alongside the Allies in World War II. Though never openly confrontational towards each other, the two countries have had relatively-distant relations, with brief periods of cooperation. Recognizing the independence of countries of the Americas from their European metropolies was a policy of the United States, which hoped to undermine European influence in the region. During the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, interaction between the two was limited to multilateral fora, such as the Conference of American States. At the first Pan-American Conference in 1890, many countries of the Americas, the U.S. and Brazil included, discussed a series of regional integration projects. Those ranged from military to economic integration. The United States planned to create a Pan-American, anti-European economic bloc, a customs union. It meant to suspend external tariffs applied to inter-American trade but not to European-American trade. During World War II, Brazil was a staunch ally of the United States and sent its military to fight against Germany, even as German U-boats sank Brazilian shipping. The U.S. provided $100 million in Lend Lease money in return for use of airfields to ferry troops and supplies across the Atlantic, and naval bases to fight U-boats. In sharp contrast, Argentina was officially neutral and at times favored Germany. Brazil–U.S. interactions increased during World War II. In 1942, during the first Getúlio Vargas presidential mandate (1930–1945), Brazil made some contributions to the Allies (the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom) against the Axis powers. This led to the creation of the Joint Brazil–U.S. Defense Commission, which was chaired by James Garesche Ord and worked to strengthen military ties between the two countries, reducing the likelihood of Axis attacks on US shipping as soldiers traveled across the Atlantic to Africa and Europe, and minimizing the influence of the Axis in South America. Brazil temporarily conceded the U.S. some space in Northeastern Brazil so the North American nation could launch its planes to fight the Axis in Europe and Africa (the Brazilian northeastern coastline is the easternmost point in the Americas). In 1944, Brazil also sent the Brazilian Expeditionary Force to be commanded by the U.S. army in Europe. Vargas was pleased by Franklin Roosevelt's promise that Brazil would be granted a permanent seat at the U.N. Security Council, a promise the U.S. was later unable to fulfill due to resistance from the Soviet Union and the U.K.

 

First councilor of Cosimo de ‘Medici, Diotisalvi helped Cosimo to return to Florence from exile; he held the highest political offices in Florence with such skill that before his death Cosimo himself recommended to his son Piero that “to govern the matters and the state according to the advice of Diotisalvi” (mentioned in Niccolo Machiavelli’s ‘Florentine histories’ Book Seventh, Chap. X). But the inexperience and greed of Piero de ‘Medici meant that the city fell to the brink of tyranny and so Diotisalvi was forced to ally himself with Luca Pitti, Agnolo Acciaiuoli (or Angelo Acciaiuoli) and Niccolo Soderini to make the city regain that freedom that Cosimo’s Son, Piero “the gouty” threatened. So Piero, feeling his power creak, thought it best to organize a trap against his opponents. By stirring up the people and with the compliant magistracy Piero had Diotisalvi and his sons declared “rebel” in 1466, having all the assets of the Neroni family requisitioned.

 

The presidency of Eurico Gaspar Dutra (1946–51) opened a brief period of democratic rule after ousting of Getúlio Vargas. During the Dutras administration, Brazil's foreign policy was aligned closely with that of the United States. Dutra outlawed the Brazilian Communist Party (PCB) in 1947 and broke off relations with the Soviet Union. In contradiction to the economic nationalism of his predecessor, he opened the country for foreign, mostly U.S., investments. Getúlio Vargas's return to power in 1951 in democratic fashion however signaled a cooling of relations and a return to economic nationalism. Vargas blamed the U.S. for his ouster in 1945 and appealed to Brazilian nationalism, a sentiment that was growing in many sectors, including the armed forces. In the new Vargas mandate, the old tensions with foreign capital returned in full force, especially after he tried to implement a bill that precluded 90% of the capital produced in the country from being sent to international banks. As a result of the many scandals in his second mandate which was mostly corruption scandals, tensions with the military etc. Vargas killed himself in 1954. He left behind a suicide letter, the Carta testamento, in which he points to media denigration and pressure from foreign banks as the blame for his depression and death.

 

In 1956 Juscelino Kubitschek took office (1956–1961). Like Vargas, Kubitschek had a pro-industries economic policy which he named "national developmentalism." But unlike Vargas's plan, Kubitschek's was open to investments by foreign capital. Though he strengthened relations with Latin America and Europe, Kubitschek also sought to improve ties with the United States. His economic policy attracted huge direct investments by foreign capital, much of which came from the U.S. He also proposed an ambitious plan for United States development aid in Latin America, the Pan-American Operation. The outgoing administration of President Dwight Eisenhower found the plan of no interest, but the administration of President John F. Kennedy appropriated funds in 1961 for the Alliance for Progress. Relations again cooled slightly after President Jânio Quadros took office. He ruled for only some months in 1961. Quadros was an out-and-out conservative, and his campaign had received support from UDN, Brazil's then-largest right-wing party which, five years later, would morph into ARENA, the military dictatorship party. But Quadros's foreign policy named "Independent Foreign Policy" quickly eroded his conservative support. In an attempt to forge new trade partnerships, the Brazilian president tried to create closer ties with some Communist countries. That included Cuba. Quadros openly supported Fidel Castro during the USA-led ‘Bay of Pigs invasion’. He visited the Caribbean nation after the event, and when Cuban revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara retributed the visit, he was decorated with Brazil's highest honor. As a result of the political instability within the country, something provoked by his breakup with the UDN and tensions with the military, Quadros resigned. At that time, his vice-president, João Goulart, was on a diplomatic mission in Communist China.

 

In that year, Goulart took office (1961–1964). Political instability, however, continued high for not only Goulart kept Quadros's unusual foreign policy (which the Brazilian press slammed as "Communist infiltrated"), but he also showed a clear leftist streak in domestic affairs. He had a pro-trade union stance and increased the minimum wage (which the fiscally austere Quadros had previously squeezed). By the end of 1963, the U.S. downgraded its relations with Brazil and reduced aid to the country. Washington's worries were that Brazil would turn into a nonaligned emerging power such as Egypt. But those worries dissipated on March 31, 1964.  The 1964 Brazilian coup d'état was a series of events in Brazil from March 31 to April 1 that led to the overthrow of President João Goulart by members of the Brazilian Armed Forces, supported by the United States government. On that day a military coup overthrew the civil government. A U.S.-friendly military regime replaced it.

So that makes,

Neroni Family (Nerone Neroni & his son Dietisalvi Neroni): Brazil

 

Not less important Cosimo's another junior was Agnolo Acciaiuoli (or Angelo Acciaiuoli of Cassano), who had suffered exile with Cosimo and with him returned in triumph. Since that time he had acted loyally under him, had been employed as Accopiatore and on many foreign embassies. He seems at first to have been unwilling to embrace the new foreign policy, but after Sforza's conquest of Milan was quite converted to the advantage of his alliance. It was through Acciaiuoli's skillful negotiations that the league with France was concluded, and Rene brought to Italy. He was therefore" one of the principal citizens, and could do what he wished in the city." He was son of a politician Jacopo Acciaiuoli and had inherited the title of Baron of Cassano from his grandfather Donato ‘the elder’ Acciaiuoli. Angelo political career began in Naples appointed as a knight and ambassador there and made regular embassies for Florentine Republic. He participated three times in the judiciary of the ten of Balia (1438, 1440 and 1441), confirming his brilliant political career which culminated with the election as Gonfaloniere of the Republic in 1448 and 1454, following which he had the privilege of to be able to place a cross on the plaque at the head of the coat of arms. However, his career suffered an abrupt halt due to the conspiracy perpetrated with Luca Pitti, Diotisalvi Neroni and Niccolo Soderini against Cosimo’s son Piero de Medici, which was discovered and cost him exile in Barletta in 1466, changed into a life ban on 13^th June 1467 when he broke the confinement. There is no other news of him so it is thought that he died not long after.

Relation between Bolivia and United States were established in 1837 with first ambassadorial visit from the US to Peru-Bolivian Confederation. The confederation dissolved in 1839, United States recognized Bolivia as a sovereign state. Bolivia was one of many Latin American countries to declare war on Germany later on in the war, joining the Allies on 7^th April 1943. It was one of the three countries to declare war in 1943, the others being Chile and Colombia. In 1960, Latin Americans tried to develop new, nontraditional primary commodity exports. Colombian cut flowers were a highly successful example, promoted from the late 1960s through special incentives such as tax rebates; Colombia became the world’s second leading flower exporter. It also assumed a leading role in the illicit narcotics trade. It enjoyed a brief boom of marijuana exports in the 1970s and in the following decade became the world’s leading supplier of cocaine, which was processed in clandestine Colombian laboratories from leaf paste that at first came mostly from Bolivia and Peru, though eventually Colombia displaced them as producers of the raw material.

 

After World War II, the US had a new job to curb the rise of communism around the world. CIA hired Nazi criminal, Klaus Barbie was sent to Bolivia to help the insurgents to fight against an increase in communist feelings in the region. His experience of quelling the French Resistance came to use in Bolivia. He changed his name from Klaus Barbie to Klaus Altmann. There are reports that Klaus Barbie might have helped US intelligence to track down the famous communist Che Guevara’s final hideout. Barbie helped to set up a US favorable government in Bolivia and started his new business i.e. Drugs. Barbie developed connections with drug cartels in South America and helped them expand their businesses. Barbie sympathized with the Nazi ideology even after World War II and never regretted his actions. Barbie’s links go as far as the famous and region's most feared drug lords, including Pablo Escobar, whom he most likely supplied with weapons, although Barbie's closest ally was Bolivian warlord Roberto Suarez Gomez, whom he met regularly in the early 1980s. Barbie was paranoid there would be a Communist revolution in Bolivia from where he would be deported to France to stand trial for war crimes and Suarez Gomez wanted the freedom to expand his cocaine empire without fear of prosecution. So they arranged a military coup to install General Luis Garcia Meza Tejada as commander of the army, then as president in 1980, all funded by cocaine cash overthrowing a Bolivian government in that famous cocaine coup. Mr. Peter McFarren (Author: The Devil’s Agent) says: 'Overthrowing a democratic government with money from the drug trade was unheard of. It set a dangerous precedent of how democracy could be interrupted by the dollars and terrorism of cocaine trafficking bandits. In Colombia and Peru there were individual government officials and military police who were also part of the cocaine trade. But I can't think of another regime that was completely in the pocket of the trade, and Barbie played a key part in that.'

Bolivia and Cuba are members of the United Nations, but relations of Bolivia with Cuba, like those of most countries in the Western Hemisphere with the notable exceptions of Canada and Mexico, have waxed and waned over the decades depending on geopolitical and regional political circumstances. Relations were good under Evo Morales, who shared the position of his like-minded far-left allies in Nicaragua and Venezuela that Fidel Castro was a humanist and beloved icon of resistance to US hegemony in the Americas.

So that makes,

Agnolo Acciaiuoli (or Angelo Acciaioli di Cassano): Bolivia

 

Most Latin Americans have seen their neighbor to the north (the United States) growing richer; they have seen the elite elements in their own societies growing richer, but the man in the street or on the land in Latin America today still lives the hand-to-mouth existence of his great, great grandfather... They are less and less happy with situations in which, to cite one example, 40 percent of the land is owned by 1 percent of the people, and in which, typically, a very thin upper crust lives in grandeur while most others live in squalor.

— U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, in a speech to Congress on United States policy in Latin America.

 

The Latin American countries that did not opt for the Cuban model followed widely varying political paths. Mexico’s unique system of limited democracy built around the Institutional Revolutionary Party was shaken by a wave of riots in the summer of 1968 on the eve of the Olympic Games held in Mexico City, but political stability was never seriously in doubt. A somewhat analogous regime was devised in Colombia as a means of restoring civilian constitutional rule after a brief relapse in the mid-1950s into military dictatorship: the dominant Liberal and Conservative parties chose to bury the hatchet, creating a bipartisan coalition (called the National Front) whereby they shared power equally between themselves while formally shutting out any minor parties. Once this arrangement expired in 1974, Colombia became again a more conventional political democracy, such as Costa Rica had been since before 1950 and Venezuela became in 1958 after the overthrow of its last military dictator.

So inner circle,

Francesco Sassetti: Mexico

Agnolo Acciaiuoli (or Angelo Acciaioli di Cassano): Bolivia

Neroni Family (Nerone Neroni & his son Dietisalvi Neroni): Brazil

Puccio Pucci: Gran Colombia (Venezuela, Colombia, Panama and Ecuador)

 

 Cavalcanti: Spain

In 1304, the war between the Ghibellines and the Guelphs led to a great fire which destroyed much of the city. The Cavalcanti, one of the most opulent families in Florence, beheld their whole property consumed, and lost all courage; they made no attempt to save it, and, after almost gaining possession of the city, were finally overcome by the opposite faction. Among several members of the extended Florentine patrician family the Cavalcanti holding the name Giovanni, the chronicler Giovanni Cavalcanti (1381-c.1451), of a minor branch of the family but who was captain of the Guelph party in 1422, is most widely remembered for his malevolent and melancholic account of Florence, covering the period 1420-47. Cavalcanti's Storie obsessively focused on the city's political intrigues and scandals and was colored by his personal political misfortunes as an aristocratic agitator, first against the corrupt oligarchy of 1420-34 and subsequently of the Medici; his long imprisonment for debt excluded him from the participation in public life that he considered his noble right.

Spanish empire was one of the largest empires in the world history. In 16^th century Spain and Portugal were in the vanguard of European global exploration and colonial expansion this new world. In just 100 years after Columbus voyages Spain expanded hugely in the Americas from today's Mexico to Chile. At that time British and French weren't so involved in creating colonies Spain had a great start but they were overextended in such a short time. In the 17th century and Spain was eclipsed in the European theater by France and its allies. the last Hapsburg ruler of Spain was Charles II which died without any heir, after his death the war of Spanish succession happened and in the final a new monarch from the French house of bourbon was named king. The 18th century will be marked by new wars and alliances in Europe in which Spain was present over and over again, these conflicts weakened the Spanish in time and not so much will be gained after all these wars. There was far too much empire to govern and the lack of central administrative rule led to corruption instability and small economic centers in the colonial power structure. The 19^th century was marked by tensions revolutions wars independence and other big events that would shape the history of the entire world Spain was a great actor in this time. The Spanish still had it possession much of the American continent as well as in Asia. During the early 19^th century, however, there was a conspicuous exception to the trend of colonial growth, and that was the decline of the Portuguese and Spanish empires in the Western Hemisphere. The occasion for the decolonization was provided by the Napoleonic Wars. The French occupation of the Iberian Peninsula (which is todays Spain and Portuguese) in1807, combined with the ensuing years of intense warfare until 1814 on that peninsula between the British and French and their respective allies, effectively isolated the colonies from their mother countries. During this isolation the long-smouldering discontents in the colonies erupted in influential nationalist movements, revolutions of independence, and civil wars. The stricken mother countries could hardly interfere with events on the South American continent, nor did they have the resources, even after the Peninsular War was over, to bring enough soldiers and armaments across the Atlantic to suppress the independence forces. The Napoleonic wars marked the beginning of the century a French invasion followed and a new king was put on throne which caused a great instability and the thirst for independence reached the colonies in the Americas and this led to movement. After movement in the colonies revolutions happened and new countries were born Spain lost all of its American colonies except Cuba and Puerto Rico. In 1898, the U.S. intervened in support of Cuba during its war for independence from Spain. The U.S. won what is known in the U.S. as the Spanish–American War and in Cuba as the ‘Cuban War for Independence’. Under the terms of the peace treaty from which Cuba was excluded, Spain ceded Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam to the U.S. in exchange for $20 million. Cuba came under U.S. control and remained so until it was granted formal independence in 1902. This officially marked the end of the Spanish empire.

Historians had discounted the decayed grande, Cavalcanti, who was rehabilitated by Claudio Varese, 1961. In private he was also the author of a Trattato politico-morale, written in the 1440s and dedicated to the anti-Medicean Neri Capponi; it was intended as a Ciceronian moral guide to family morality and a nostalgic account of lost, pre-Medicean civic virtues, offered with Roman parallels, intended for Neri's young son.

Contact between China and Spain first occurred between the Ming dynasty of China and the Spanish-ruled Philippines. Spain fantasized taking over China. As the United States emerged as a new imperial power in the Pacific and Asia, one of the two oldest Western imperialist powers in the regions, Spain, was finding it increasingly difficult to maintain control of territories it had held in the regions since the 16th century. In 1896, a widespread revolt against Spanish rule broke out in the Philippines. Meanwhile, the recent string of U.S. territorial gains in the Pacific posed an even greater threat to Spain's remaining colonial holdings. As the U.S. continued to expand its economic and military power in the Pacific, it declared war against Spain in 1898. During the Spanish–American War, U.S. Admiral Dewey destroyed the Spanish fleet at Manila and U.S. troops landed in the Philippines. Spain later agreed by treaty to cede the Philippines in Asia and Guam in the Pacific. In the Caribbean, Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the U.S. The war also marked the end of Spanish rule in Cuba, which was to be granted nominal independence but remained heavily influenced by the U.S. government and U.S. business interests. One year following its treaty with Spain, the U.S. occupied the small Pacific outpost of Wake Island. In 1927, a treaty recognizing extraterritoriality was signed between the Kingdom of Spain and Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government. The Spanish consul general in Shanghai was also the minister plenipotentiary to China.

The state of things was not in the least worse during the Medici rule than before or even after. Corruption was the rule, not the exception; the law was naturally converted into a political weapon, more especially since it carried with it authority for the use of torture. The accusation of seizing ecclesiastical property had been made against Niccolo Barbadori just as it was made against the Mediceans. Indeed, their· settled government tended rather to improve matters, since, though tyrannical themselves, they distinctly preferred law and order to anarchy; even the tyrannous Otto di Balia was a "real terror to evil-doers." Nor could any judgment under the Medici have been more unfair than that which in 1433 his enemies passed upon Cosimo himself. Yet it may readily be supposed that Cosimo's government was very far from giving satisfaction to a large section of the Florentines. Too many of the poor, who had thought that with his rule the Millennium was to begin, there was natural disappointment. "If I had thought," exclaimed the chronicler Cavalcanti, who had been at first Cosimo's ardent admirer, "that the virtues of men could be perpetual, I should have dared to say that Cosimo was a man rather divine than human; but because I knew that prosperity is always followed by ingratitude and pride, I was therefore silent." "The Mediceans," it was complained," make us worse off than we were before. Once they gave us sweet things, now they give us bitter."

One large class of, people, if not enthusiastic followers of the Albizzi, had yet been offended by the violence of the revolution, or had friends and relations who suffered in the following proscriptions. Amongst these was Agnolo Pandolfini, who, on the banishment of Palla Strozzi, retired altogether from public life. Still more, they were offended by the political methods of the new Government. They suffered in the law courts from the favor shown there to the Mediceans; they found themselves excluded from the offices and political influence which they considered themselves entitled by hereditary right to enjoy, while their places were taken by men from the Minor Arts, or who had but lately come to settle in the city; "and," says Cavalcanti of the members of the older families thus excluded, "they would all have consented to lose one eye themselves, if he who had brought about this state of things might lose both." The new officials were of course accused of peculation; Puccio Pucci, it was said, had piled up a huge fortune at the expense of the Commune. For, "since no stream becomes great with pure water only, so no one could become so rich without dishonest gains."

The United States had provided the funds and staff necessary for running the Tribunal of Tokyo Trial and also held the function of Chief Prosecutor. The argument was made that it was difficult, if not impossible, to uphold the requirement of impartiality with which such an organ should be invested. This apparent conflict gave the impression that the tribunal was no more than a means for the dispensation of victors' justice. Solis Horowitz argues that Tokyo Trial had an American bias: unlike the Nuremberg trials, there was only a single prosecution team, led by an American, although the members of the tribunal represented eleven different Allied countries. The Tokyo Trial had less official support than the Nuremberg trials. Keenan, a former U.S. assistant attorney general, had a much lower position than Nuremberg's Robert H. Jackson, a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Jaranilla had been captured by the Japanese and walked the Bataan Death March. The defense sought to remove him from the bench claiming he would be unable to maintain objectivity. Justice Radhabinod Pal argued that the exclusion of Western colonialism and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the list of crimes and the lack of judges from the vanquished nations on the bench signified the "failure of the Tribunal to provide anything other than the opportunity for the victors to retaliate". In this he was not alone among Indian jurists, with one prominent Calcutta barrister writing that the Tribunal was little more than "a sword in a [judge's] wig." Justice Röling stated, "[o]f course, in Japan we were all aware of the bombings and the burnings of Tokyo and Yokohama and other big cities. It was horrible that we went there for the purpose of vindicating the laws of war, and yet saw every day how the Allies had violated them dreadfully."

The troubled history of Spanish–American relations has been seen as one of "love and hate". Spain provided indirect support to the new United States by fighting against Great Britain during the American Revolutionary War. Madrid tacitly recognized the independence of the United States in 1783. The purchase of the underdeveloped Spanish Florida by the US was made effective in 1821. The U.S. gave diplomatic support to the breakaway Spanish colonies as they secured their independence around 1820. American diplomatic offers to buy Cuba in the 1850s failed. When Cuba revolted in the late 19th century American opinion became strongly hostile to Spanish brutality. The Spanish–American War erupted in 1898. The Spanish defeat in the conflict entailed the loss of the last Spanish colonies outside north Africa, notably Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines.

Latin America in general became far more of an American sphere of influence during the World War than ever before owing to the growth of American commerce at Britain’s expense. Central American governments now relied on New York banks to manage their public finance rather than those of London and Paris, while the U.S. share of Latin-American trade totaled 32 percent, double Britain’s share, though British capital still predominated in the economics of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Whatever policies Latin American countries adopted in the postwar era, they had to take into account the probable reaction of the United States, now more than ever the dominant power in the hemisphere. It was the principal trading partner and source of loans, grants, and private investment for almost all countries, and Latin American leaders considered its favor worth having. Policy makers in Washington, on their part, were unenthusiastic about ISI and state-owned enterprises, but, as long as North American investors were not hindered in their own activities, the inward-directed policy orientation did not pose major problems.

Starting in 1960 with agreements fostering economic union, such as the Latin American Free Trade Association and Central American Common Market, and continuing with the Andean Pact of 1969, some progress was made toward regional economic integration, but the commitment to eliminate trade barriers was not as strong as in postwar Europe. Intra-Latin American trade increased, but probably not much more than would have happened without special agreements. In any case, quantitative economic growth was visible almost everywhere. Brazil, with a diversified economic base and much the largest internal market, and Panama, with its canal-based service economy, posted the best records, their GDP per capita doubling between 1950 and 1970; Mexico and Venezuela did almost as well, as did Costa Rica. But the Argentine economy seemed to stagnate, and few countries scored significant gains. Moreover, the conviction eventually grew in countries where ISI had been vigorously pushed that the easy gains in replacement of imports were coming to an end and that, to maintain adequate growth, it would be necessary to renew emphasis on exports as well. World market conditions were favorable for a revival of export promotion; indeed, international trade had begun a rapid expansion at the very time that inward-directed growth was gaining converts in Latin America.

 

The promotion of industrial exports was slow to appear. Brazil was the most successful, selling automobiles and automotive parts mainly to other less-developed countries but at times even to the industrial world. A slightly less satisfactory alternative was the setting up of plants to assemble imported parts or semi-finished materials into consumer goods that were immediately exported, thus taking advantage of Latin America’s low labor costs, particularly for women workers. Such plants proliferated along Mexico’s northern border (where they were known as maquiladoras) but sprang up also in Central America and around the Caribbean. In other instances Latin Americans tried to develop new, nontraditional primary commodity exports. Colombian cut flowers were a highly successful example, promoted from the late 1960s through special incentives such as tax rebates; Colombia became the world’s second leading flower exporter. It also assumed a leading role in the illicit narcotics trade. It enjoyed a brief boom of marijuana exports in the 1970s and in the following decade became the world’s leading supplier of cocaine, which was processed in clandestine Colombian laboratories from leaf paste that at first came mostly from Bolivia and Peru, though eventually Colombia displaced them as producers of the raw material. At the turn of the millennium, the most troubled country, politically, was Colombia, where a democratic regime had lost control over much of the national territory to illegal drug traffickers, leftist guerrillas, and counter guerrilla paramilitaries. The most important of the guerrilla organizations was the FARC, or Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, which enjoyed scant popular support but profited greatly from the sale of protection to drug producers and dealers.

So that makes,

Cavalcanti: Spain

And as we already know,

Neri Capponi: Republic of China

Niccolo Barbadori: Imperial Japan

Puccio Pucci: Gran Colombia (Venezuela, Colombia, Panama and Ecuador)

Giannozzo Manetti: Romania

Giannozzo Manetti (1396-1459) was a Florentine humanist and diplomat. Manetti was the son of a wealthy merchant. His public career began in 1429. He participated in municipal government as a member of the advisory council, as an ambassador, and in various gubernatorial positions in the city. Manetti was a student of the humanist scholar Ambrogio Traversari (1386-circa1439) and a close friend of Leonardo Bruni (whose funeral oration he delivered). He served as a Florentine Ambassador to Venice, Naples, Rome, Siena and Rimini. In 1453, he was expelled from Florence because of his opposition to Cosimo de 'Medici. Manetti first lived in Rome for two years before settling in Naples. There he became friends with King Alfonso, on whose suggestion he wrote his famous discussion of the dignity of man.

Manetti was one of the most erudite men of his time. He was a Latinist and a translator of Greek; he also studied Hebrew so that he could read the Hebrew Bible and the rabbinic commentaries. These readings convinced him that the Bible needed translation anew from the early manuscripts. He had a thorough knowledge of Latin and Greek and sufficient Hebrew to translate the Psalms into the original text rather than relying on the Vulgate. His translations of Aristotle’s writings on ethics were widely read. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Manetti valued their vernacular writings almost as highly as those in Latin. As an author, Manetti's style was an imitation of Cicero. His views on Florentine relations with Venice proved unpopular among the ruling class, and he put himself into voluntary exile, spending the last years of his life in Naples.

The death of Visconti left the Florentines with a new political problem to solve,-what part they were to take in settling who should be the future ruler of Milan. Two solutions remained; one was advocated by the old, oligarchical, conservative party in Florence, led by Neri Capponi and Giannozzo Manetti, the other by the new, enterprising, almost radical party, led by the Medici. The former desired that Milan, as she herself wished, should be made into a Republic; that the league with Venice should be maintained, and that Venice should be bribed off from wanting: Milan for herself by a large share in the "Lombard cake." The latter, who foresaw that Venice must have all or none, were for breaking definitely with her, and giving Milan and its Duchy wholly to Francesco Sforza. The conservative party, remembering the Visconti, dreaded a despotism, which they thought must of its nature be always opposed to a Republic, and dreaded, above all, a military despotism in the hands of a soldier like Sforza. The Radical party, themselves opposed to oligarchies, and therefore with little sympathy for Venice as a fellow-Republic, hoped in Sforza to set up a barrier between Florence and Venice, and one far more powerful than an infant Milanese Republic, just struggling into life, could interpose. Unfortunately for Cosimo, the lower classes, usually on his side, were in this crisis on the side of the opposition. To them the alliance with Sforza appeared to mean constant taxation, and, so far as they could see, very little came of all their sacrifices.

During 1440s, it was those who were not favorites of the Government that suffered by taxation and still more by the forced loans which were constantly demanded from 1442 onwards. Some of these were fixed on the Catasto basis, but in many there was no pretense of adhering to the Catasto. These were arbitrarily assessed by a committee of members of the Government, who could fix an individual quota at any sum they pleased. True, these loans were intended to bear interest, and were sometimes even refunded; but the interest was not regularly paid, and was often forfeited on the pretense that the recipient was behind hand with his taxes. It was said that Cosimo used the taxes as a weapon “in place of the dagger." Like most Florentines he had scruples against the employment of the latter, but he found the former almost as effective. Men of high character and talents were deliberately ruined in this manner because they showed signs of too much independence. The most famous example was the unfortunate Giannozzo Manetti. For many years he had filled important official positions in the Republic, and had invariably acquitted himself with success. But he was not thought sufficiently devoted to the Medicean interests, and on more than one occasion as ambassador he had failed to adhere to the line of foreign policy which Cosimo had laid down.

It was decided to bring him to submission by heavy taxation. After having paid altogether 135,000 florins, he took refuge with Pope Nicolas V., whose friend he was, but was then summarily ordered home, on pain of exile if he did not obey. So well did he justify himself before the Signoria and Colleges, that, in an access of unusual independence, they elected him a member of the next Dieci; but his success in that office caused a fresh attack to be made upon him by means of taxation, and he was at last driven to obtain leave to reside in Rome, where the Pope, who appreciated his great talents, made him one of his secretaries.

Just as taxation was used as a system for the reward of supporters and the punishment of opponents of the Medici, so also were the distribution of offices and the administration of justice. Once at least in his persecution of Giannozzo Manetti, Cosimo allowed political to outweigh literary considerations. Manetti, while not producing original literary work of any value, was a perfect storehouse of all the learning attainable at the time. His studies even embraced Hebrew, and his deepest interest was in theological controversy with the Jews. Perhaps Cosimo thought Manetti too clever, certainly he had gained a reputation for brilliant oratory which made him over conspicuous in a city where Cosimo wished everyone but himself to be equal.

 

The United States established diplomatic relations with Romania in 1880, following Romania's independence. The two countries severed diplomatic ties after Romania declared war on the United States in 1941 during World War II, but re-established them in 1947. Relations remained strained during the Cold War era while Romania was under communist influence. US bilateral relations with Romania began to improve in the early 1960s with the signing of an agreement providing for partial settlement of American property claims. Cultural, scientific, and educational exchanges were initiated, and in 1964 the legations of both nations were promoted to full embassies. After Communist Party General Secretary Nicolae Ceaușescu began to distance Romania from Soviet foreign policy, as in Romania's continued diplomatic relations with Israel and denunciation of the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, President Richard Nixon paid an official visit to Romania in August 1969. Despite political differences, diplomacy continued between US and Romanian leaders throughout the 1970s, culminating in the 1978 state visit to Washington by President Ceauşescu and his wife.

Among Ceaușescu’s grandiose and impractical schemes was a plan to bulldoze thousands of Romania’s villages and move their residents into so-called agro technical centers. As economic and political conditions deteriorated, the position of Romania’s minorities became increasingly precarious. The regime sought to weaken community solidarity among the Hungarians of Transylvania by curtailing education and publication in their own language and by promoting the immigration of Romanians into cities with large Hungarian populations. The Hungarians feared especially an extension to their rural communities of Ceaușescu’s “village systematization” campaign, which had as its primary objective the destruction of the peasantry as a distinct social class and had already caused the leveling of numerous Romanian villages. The Saxon and the Jewish communities, on the other hand, ceased to be significant political problems for the regime. Both had suffered heavy losses as a result of World War II, and afterward their numbers steadily declined through emigration—the Saxons to West Germany and the Jews to Israel. Romania’s Jewish population significantly decreased during and after World War II. The events of the Holocaust and opportunities to emigrate to other parts of the world reduced the Jewish population from about 750,000 in 1930 to 43,000 in 1966. A mass exodus to Israel ensued after the revolution, leaving an even smaller Jewish community behind.

The decade of the 1960s brought a period of relaxation at home and defiance of the Soviet Union in international relations. Although no genuine political liberalization took place and there was no retreat from the fundamentals of the Stalinist economic model, the intrusiveness of the regime in individual lives was curtailed. The availability of consumer goods and housing improved, and such social services as health care, education, and pensions—all positive accomplishments of the communist regime—became more generous. Change was especially evident in cultural and intellectual life, as scholars were permitted to broaden the scope of their research, and writers dealt with subjects that previously had been forbidden. A notable innovation was the flourishing of cultural exchanges with the United States and Europe, which signaled the resumption of old ties with the West and an end to Russification.

A trade agreement signed in April 1975 accorded most favored nation (MFN) status to Romania under section 402 of the Trade Reform Act of 1974 (the Jackson-Vanik amendment that links MFN to a country's performance on emigration). This status was renewed yearly after a congressional review confirmed a presidential determination that stated Romania was making progress toward freedom of emigration. In the mid-1980s, criticism of Romania's deteriorating human rights record, particularly regarding the mistreatment of religious and ethnic minorities, spurred attempts by Congress to withdraw MFN status. In 1988, to preempt congressional action, Ceausescu renounced MFN treatment, calling Jackson-Vanik and other human rights requirements unacceptable interference in Romanian sovereignty.

Following the Communists taking power in 1947, the Romanian People's Republic began recognizing the People's Republic of China on October 5, 1949, as the legal authority in China and exchanged ambassadors for the first time in March 1950. Although Romania’s desire to become part of the United Nations was formally stated back in 1946, Romania’s accession was blocked until 1955. On 14 December 1955, the United Nations General Assembly decided, in the Resolution A/RES/995(X) to admit Romania for membership in the UN, alongside with 15 other states.

Greco–Romanian relations can be traced back hundreds of years when the two peoples formed a bastion of the Greco-Roman world in the Balkans. They were to continue into the 14th century when the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia became a refuge for Greeks fleeing from the rapidly declining Byzantine Empire. During the period of Ottoman domination, Greek Phanariotes (a Greek official in Constantinople under Ottoman Empire)  played an important role in the political and cultural life of modern-day Romania. Their influence was one of the reasons that revolutionaries launched the Greek War of Independence in the Danubian Principalities instead of Greece itself. Negotiations between the United Principalities and the now independent Greek state during the period of 1866–1869 proved fruitless, thanks both to Romanian hopes of achieving independence through dialog and the birth of Romanian national historiography that sharply criticized the Phanariotes (a Greek official in Constantinople under Ottoman Empire). Events surrounding the Great Eastern Crisis such as the foundation of the Bulgarian Exarchate and the threat of Pan-Slavism reversed the situation. The Treaty of Berlin (1878) marked not only the creation of an independent Romania but also the restoration of amiable diplomatic relations between the two states. On 24 April 1904, a group of pro–Romanian Aromanians submitted a petition to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople demanding greater autonomy including the administration of church service in the Aromanian language instead of Greek. The Patriarchate viewed the incident as a Romanian provocation, citing the fact that the translations of religious texts were not officially approved it declined the petition.

 

The Romanian people derive much of their ethnic and cultural character from Roman influence, but this ancient identity has been reshaped continuously by Romania’s position astride major continental migration routes. The concept of "Greater Romania" materialized as a geopolitical reality after the First World War. Romania gained control over Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania, now numbered millions of Ukrainians, Hungarians, Jews, and other minorities. The Romanian ideology changed due to the demographic, cultural and social alterations; however the nationalist desire for a homogeneous Romanian state conflicted with the multiethnic, multicultural truth of Greater Romania. The ideological rewriting of the role of "spiritual victimization", turning it into "spiritual police", was a radical and challenging task for the Romanian intellectuals because they had to entirely revise the national identity and the destiny of the Romanian nation. Under communist rule, religion was officially viewed as a personal matter, and relatively few restrictions were placed upon it (compared with those imposed by other communist regimes), although the government made efforts to undermine religious teachings and faith in favor of science and empiricism. When the communists came to power in 1948, they continued the monarchy’s practice of requiring all churches to be registered with the state (under its Department of Cults), which retained administrative and financial control, thus becoming the ultimate authority on matters of religion. Despite these incursions, Romanians remained devout. After the 1989 revolution, Romanians were free to practice their religions.

Romania’s modern economic development dates to the opening of maritime trade routes to Western Europe in the early 19th century. After independence in 1878, exploitation of the cereal lands, forests, and oil fields was complemented by a policy of encouraging industry, but, in spite of considerable success, Romania still had a predominantly agrarian economy at the end of World War II. The communist regime concentrated on the expansion of industry, with priority given to the heavy industries of metallurgy, chemical manufacture, and engineering. Industrialization was assisted by a flood of cheap labor from rural areas, where collectivization and discriminatory price-fixing meant that farmers not only lost their own holdings but secured only modest returns as farmworkers. The post-communist government faced a difficult transition toward a market economy. It approached privatization cautiously, since few Romanians had significant capital to invest and many state-owned enterprises were not attractive to foreign investors.

So that makes,

Giannozzo Manetti: Romania

Moon Landing and Overview effect: Duomo di Firenze and Brunelleschi’s Perspective

The Florentine system did encourage an oligarchy of rival families to attain positions of power, proving critical to the development of an enterprising, peace-loving city, and fueling the competition which lay behind much of the Renaissance. With their sudden leaping status the Medici joined an elite group of powerful Florentines, but like all the leading families of the day they would become transfixed by their city's humiliating failure. For over a hundred years a great unfinished Cathedral had loomed on the Florence. The original planners had been overly ambitious they had meant to build the largest dome in the world and they had failed. The cathedral more than any other building of any nature in a medieval and renaissance city represents the symbol of the identity of the community and having the project not completed was a sort of mutilation. All contemporary building knowledge had been exhausted now the city looked for fresh ideas from a new generation. Cosimo de Medici had grown up in the shadow of the Cathedral, now he and his father stood on the threshold of city power perhaps they could apply the enterprising spirit to the greatest problem of the age and in the process win glory and power for the Medici family.

The race to space is born out of fear after the end of World War two with atomic bombing of Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 in the face of new catastrophic threat, an atomic one. Out of the nuclear ashes of World War two, rise two superpowers with two opposing systems: capitalist America and communist Soviet Union. Each is sure that the other is out to conquer the world and rising tensions soon draw the two nations into a ‘Cold War’. Paranoia mounts as Soviet Union shuts its door on its former allies. The superpowers need a way to deliver their nukes quickly and without warning. It’s a long distance rivalry as Moscow and Washington are thousands of miles apart. And as of the late 1940’s, rockets can only reach targets up to a few hundred miles away. The best way to cover the shortfall is by launching rockets through space. In 1955 both the United States and the Soviet Union announced programs to launch artificial Earth satellites during the upcoming International Geophysical Year (IGY). The Eisenhower administration, concerned that the satellite program not interferes with military missile programs or prejudice the legality of spy satellites to come, entrusted its IGY proposal to the small, nonmilitary Vanguard rocket. While Vanguard development crept ahead, the Soviet program won the first space race with Sputnik 1 on Oct. 4, 1957. The Soviet achievement shocked the Western world, challenged the strategic assumptions of every power, and thus inaugurated a new phase in the continuing Cold War.

These technological and political revolutions would seem to have raised the United States and the Soviet Union to unequaled heights of power. The Soviets and Americans advanced rapidly in the high technology required for spaceflight and ballistic missiles, while techniques for the mobilization and management of intellectual and material resources reached a new level of sophistication, especially in the United States, through the application of systems analysis, computers, bureaucratic partnership with corporations and universities, and Keynesian “fine-tuning” of the economy. The Soviet successes in outer space just 40 years after the Bolshevik Revolution were powerful evidence for Khrushchev’s claims that the U.S.S.R. had achieved strategic equality and that Communism was the best system for overcoming backwardness. Sputnik restored Soviet prestige after the 1956 embarrassment in Hungary, shook European confidence in the U.S. nuclear deterrent, magnified the militancy of Maoist China, and provoked an orgy of self-doubt in the United States itself.

The search for a solution to the dome problem of the dome led men to study the achievements of the classical past. Scholars like Cosimo knew he would take an unconventional mind to decipher the tantalizing clues. Brunelleschi style was unorthodox and was in many arguments with the so-called “city fathers”. On one occasion he was actually carried out of the main government palace forcibly, because he'd lost his temper and apparently did insulted people and they were not going to be insulted and they threw him out. But the family who had sponsored a pirate for a pope was not daunted by the temper of a maverick architect. Brunelleschi was the house architect and they were very close. There was a clear fit between what Cosimo wanted and what Brunelleschi could give him and it very much was about recreating a great classical city on the lines of Rome. The Medici family did the sorts of things that every ruling family did, you try to get power by various public and private dealings and then you try to promote your image to the rest of the world through art and literature. And having people write about you being a patron of things that can serve your ends. The commission for the dome was his, but what Brunelleschi would now attempt was unprecedented and fraught with danger. He would have to rewrite the rules of Western architecture and there was no certainty of success. For inspiration Brunelleschi turned to the greatest civilization of the ancient world and in Brunelleschi's wake came Cosimo, the papal banker anxious to see          things for himself. In ancient Rome men had constructed architectural marvels buildings such as the Pantheon, the house of the gods the largest free standing dome in the world one of the most fascinating buildings in ancient Rome. What particularly struck the contemporaries was the size of the dome and the fact that it was one of the very few complete domes that had survived from ancient times.   With the backing of the Medici Brunelleschi now set his eye on the problem of the dome the greatest challenge in Florence.

The inauguration of John F. Kennedy as president of the United States infused American foreign policy with new style and vigor. He had promised to “get America moving again,” and he appointed a Cabinet and staff who shared his belief that the United States could be doing far more to prove its technological and moral superiority over the U.S.S.R., win the “hearts and minds” of Third World peoples, and accelerate social progress at home. On May 25, 1961, Kennedy told a joint session of Congress that “the great battlefield for the defense and expansion of freedom today is the whole southern half of the globe—Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East.” The enemies of freedom were seeking to capture these rising peoples “in a battle of minds and souls as well as lives and territories.” Expanded aid programs, the Peace Corps, active promotion of democracy through the U.S. Information Agency, and military support against guerrilla warfare would, he declared, all help in cases “where the local population is too caught up in its own misery to be concerned about the advance of Communism.” Kennedy also underscored the impact of the Soviet space program on world opinion (Yuri Gagarin had become the first man to orbit the Earth on April 12) and asked that Congress commit the United States to a program to land a man on the Moon by 1970. It will become the largest commitment of resources ever made by any nation in peacetime. Kennedy’s call for the creation of an International Telecommunications Satellite Consortium bespoke his desire to associate the United States with the peaceful uses of outer space.  President Kennedy was assassinated on Nov. 22, 1963. The American civil rights movement came to a head under the Johnson administration. In 1964, US dispatched 184000 troops to Vietnam in the name of halting the Communism. Meanwhile to make the matters worse the Soviets are racking up a string of space firsts, as the first man in space, first object to hit the moon, first woman in space and first spacewalk. Apollo Program encountered a major setback in 1967 when an Apollo 1 cabin fire killed the entire crew during the prelaunch test. But America has invested too much to quit now. With 400,000 people on the payroll, NASA is more determined than ever to leave their footprints on the moon. And to get there they turn to a former Nazi, Hitler’s favorite rocket engineer, Wernher von Braun, invented the world’s first ballistic missile, the V-2 which devastated the London during World War two. The Saturn V was designed under the direction of him which was muscle behind the NASA moon shot.

It towers over 350 feet and weighs 6.2 million pounds, that’s 1240 pickup trucks weight. It generates 34 million newton of thrust, the equivalent of 43 jumbo jets which is enough power to carry over 95,000 pounds or four school buses to the moon. Meanwhile, 1968 was turbulent year for both superpowers. As for USA with assassinations and riots threaten to tear America apart. Just two months after King’s assassination in April 1968, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, a leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, was assassinated. Also thousands of Americans soldiers were returning from Vietnam in body bags. In the Soviet Union, space hero Yuri Gagarin was killed in a plane crash. Czechoslovakia’s revolt against Soviet control was brutally suppressed. Both sides needed a victory in space to boost morale at home and distract from more earthly problems. In August of 1968, NASA announced they will take their first shot at the moon by the end of the year. Apollo 8’s mission was not to land and so at the end of the year by going around the moon on Christmas Eve, it all just fell into place.

Apollo 8 went to the moon they didn’t land but that they did circle the moon. Many watching on television and at a certain point one of the astronauts casually said we’re going to turn the camera around and show you the earth and when he did and that was the first time people on Earth had ever seen the planet hanging in space like that and it was profound. Quite unexpected but that gave us such a different perspective. Firstly focus had been we’re going to the stars we’re going to plant it and suddenly we look back in ourselves and it seems to imply a new kind of self-awareness. In fact, one of the astronauts said when we originally went to the moon our total focus was on the moon, we weren’t thinking about looking back at the earth but now that we’ve done it that may well have been the most important reason we win. The engineers in mission control admitted that though they are not poets and certainly not good at that, but it was profound effect on everybody that was in the Control Center.

After this photo was taken, something unexpected happened as we went to the moon to explore the moon and we discovered earth for the first time, no one had seen this before spaceship earth. Earth as nature intends you to view it, not with color-coded countries as in your school room but with just oceans and land and clouds. This was the beginning of the modern environmental movement what happens between 1968 and 1973. In 1970 Earth Day was established why didn’t we establish that in 1960 or 1950 and when Earth Day was established DDT was banned in 1973 leaded gasoline was banned in the United States many other countries followed suit thereafter. Comprehensive Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the organization ‘Doctors Without Borders’ was founded that was founded in Switzerland. They probably would have formed anyway but would they have called themselves Without Borders, may be not and so where they even get that State of Mind   unless they saw Earth from space. Apollo 8 was an unprecedented success. Finally America has major victory in space: the humans to orbit the moon and the first photo of Earth from the moon, which then became known as ‘Earthrise’. The astronauts of Apollo 8 mission expressed it as follows:

Jim Lovell: It makes you realize just what you have back there on Earth. The Earth from here is a grand oasis in the big vastness of space.

Frank Borman: The whole focus of mission turned to the Earth after we saw the Earth coming up over the lunar surface. And it seemed the Earth is the only thing in the universe that had any color. It was very lonely, and the universe is pitch-black. It gave us sense of “We better do our best to take care of this little blue marble that we have”.

 

Cosimo developed a strategy in spending money in such a way that wealth would be transformed into prestige and power. Cosimo de Medici became the most sought-after patron in Florence. Cosimo spent six hundred thousand golden floorings in patronage which is six times the total state entry for one year. Patronage is great for the production of art but totally rational from an economic point of view patronage is a political strategy this in my opinion is one of the keys to understand the Renaissance this high political competition expressed through patronage in a city with those art potentialities gave birth to an art market that has no equivalent elsewhere in Italy at the time. why the artist needs the patron is very simple there are no public art markets in the Renaissance as we have today you didn't make art and then put it in the shop window and wait for someone to buy it you only made art what somebody commissioned it from you and paid you for it, more or less in advance. but sometimes as Cosimo discovered payment alone didn't guarantee results. You have to be difficult as an artist in renaissance times because you are under a lot of pressure, 70% of the Renaissance artists were active in Florence at the time, though there were a lot of patrons and there was a lot of money available, not all of the projects would grant the same kind of dignity and visibility to the     artist. And so he has to self-promote himself and who has to achieve certain standards of credibility and fame in order to be able to be put in charge of the best projects.

The man working on the best project in Florence was Filippo Brunelleschi and he continued to break boundaries of conventional understanding. He simply saw the world as no other man ever had; in 1434 Brunelleschi unveiled a new technique that radically changed Western art. He invented perspective Brunelleschi developed linear perspective which allowed pictures to create the convincing illusion of a three-dimensional space where gothic art is primarily flat to represent objects as three-dimensional rounded solid forms imitating the appearance of the natural world. Perspective revolutionizes everything. It revolutionizes art but then of course it revolutionizes how we see completely. Something small may seem enormous, depending from where you view it and vice versa. Something Cosimo might learned from Brunelleschi’s Perspective theory which might helped him to recognized a true artists even among maverick person such as Filippo Lippi. Cosimo discovered payment alone didn't guarantee results. he had particular problems with the wayward monk and artist Filippo Lippi. Lippi was put into the monastery because he was an orphan not because he asked to go into the monastery and he really wasn't suited for that kind of life. His life included many tales of lawsuits, complaints, broken promises, and scandal. Cosimo tolerated his temperamental artists because of their talent; he understood that you get better work out of people when people are happy. So rather than yelling at them and being imperious and demanding and holding them to the letter of every little contract, you might get better work and more reliable work if you treated them like human beings who have other needs and have another life. That perspective created a modern way of looking. It began in the 15th century and it very much begins under Cosimo with Brunelleschi.

Jim Lovell one of real heroes on Apollo 8 while he was circling around the moon, he did something amazing that he put his thumb out and he realized with his thumb at arm's length. He could cover the whole earth everything he'd ever known, he could cover with his thumb and he said something amazing the old saying I hope I go to heaven when I die, he said I realized at that moment you go to heaven when you're born. For a brief moment, a fractured world was brought together in awe. At the time, expanding on Apollo wasn’t so far-fetched. The country’s Cold War competition and desire to be first rapidly expanded the potential of space exploration. Two years after NASA began operations, the U.S. government allocated 500 million dollars of the federal budget to the agency. In just five years, the budget grew to 5.2 billion dollars which represented 5.3 percent of all government spending. NASA expanded facilities across the country: the Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston, the Launch Operations Center at Cape Canaveral in Florida and the Mississippi Test Facility. With the massive expansion came hundreds of thousands of jobs. NASA’s labor force peaked in the mid 60’s with a reported 400,000 staffers and contractors. The majority of NASA’s resources went to the Apollo Program. Between 1959 and 1973, the agency spent just over 23 billion dollars on human spaceflight of which nearly 20 billion dollars was for Apollo. That amount of money today would equate to over 130 billion dollars spent on one program alone. That's roughly equivalent to spending NASA's current annual budget on a single project and sustaining that effort for more than a decade.

In the Medici, Brunelleschi had found patrons willing to gamble on his judgment. Brunelleschi's vision with resurrect forgotten concepts of the past. Brunelleschi was using the classical orders of architecture, something that hadn't been used in over a thousand years and the people of Florence were so amazed by this that. It said that they gathered on the building site much to the inconvenience of the workmen and actually watched this happening because it simply hadn't seen anyone build in that style before. Out of Brunelleschi's turbulent mind had come a vision of classical simplicity. He would spark an architectural revolution across Europe. Innovation and ambition went hand in hand and for the Medici this was only the beginning.

His magnificent dome was rising even higher but with each new brick the angle of the dome increased, this was the critical phase of Brunelleschi's design. One of the major problems for Brunelleschi faced when he was building the dome and particularly when he got to the upper reaches of it and so was how he could prevent the bricks from falling inward. So resolve this Brunelleschi did was to insert bands of vertical brickwork to tie the horizontal courses to these vertical ones which were keyed to courses five six rows beneath that where the mortar. Brunelleschi's herringbone design was untried and untested; the slightest miscalculation could result in catastrophic failure. It would have been a disaster but contemporaries might say not as much a disaster in terms of not completing an architectural project, but a disaster in failing in producing the most grandiose symbol of Florentine pride ever. From his patrons to his workers all looked on in disbelief, Brunelleschi had to prove that he was right. Brunelleschi was a very hands-on person not only did he inspect many of the bricks that were used and sent consignments back if they weren't quite up to snuff. He also actually laid some of the bricks himself. The workers weren't certain at all that this was a viable proposition to lay these on an inward curving vault and so he himself went up and practiced what he preached. The genius of Brunelleschi had defied all doubt and danger and in 1436 Brunelleschi who has been keeping the faith all this time that he could build that dome without aid of scaffolding or any other visible support has brought in reality, in a little poem he wrote this miracle to pass, this great achievement had mirrored the rise of the city's most powerful family and now it hovered majestically over the city of Florence.

The 1960s every next mission from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo went from one astronaut to two to three. Every next mission was more ambitious than the previous one. It went a little farther, it stayed a little longer, they brought more cargo, they did more things this kept an interest level of the press and of the public, they could talk about new things each time. It was a daring challenge that would ignite American momentum. With new urgency, NASA's fledgling Mercury and Gemini projects scored quick success. John Glenn's solo orbit and for the first time, space walks. NASA astronauts, engineers, and American industries spent the decade working round the clock. And by 1967, it was time for Apollo's first manned flight. After Apollo 8 seven months later, Neil Armstrong takes that unforgettable giant leap for mankind. From the time of its launch on July 16, 1969, until the return splashdown on July 24 (which is my birthday date as well 24 July 1988), the spectacular feat was watched by more than 500 million people, one-fifth of the global population. And it inspired generations of astronauts and engineers. Apollo 11, U.S. spaceflight during which commander Neil Armstrong and lunar module pilot Buzz Aldrin, Jr., on July 20, 1969, became the first people to land on the Moon and walk the lunar surface. Apollo 11 was the culmination of the Apollo program and a massive national commitment by the United States to beat the Soviet Union in putting people on the Moon. It was only the first stage of NASA’s moon domination. In the three year that followed, ten more Americans land on the moon. As for the Soviets, they abandon any ambitions of getting there, instead started focusing a different space dream, launching an orbital space station called Mir meaning “Peace”.

 

Brunelleschi's intricate design would stand up, the city of Florence was nervous and no one more anxious than Cosimo himself. His patronage of Brunelleschi was well known nothing could please Cosimo's enemies more than to see Brunelleschi fail. As Cosimo's wealth and power increased so did the resentment of the ruling Albizzi family they were losing their grip on the government of Florence. Cosimo’s rivals the old Albizzi family had governed Florence for generations they were wary of any challenge to the power. If the Medici and their followers have more authority then the Albizzi and their followers have less Authority, both parties can't win one party has to go. A battle between rival families would endanger not just the future of the Medici dynasty it would threaten to drag Florence back into the world of the Middle Ages.

The end of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia also brought to a close 15 years of astounding change in world politics that featured the arrival of the space and missile age, the climax of decolonization, the assertions of Maoist China and Gaullist France, the shattering of the myth (fostered by Washington and Moscow alike) of a monolithic Communist world, and the relative decline of American power. In 1969, the very moment when astronauts were setting foot on the Moon to fulfill Kennedy’s pledge to prove American superiority, Nixon and Kissinger were struggling to adjust to the new realities and manage a limited American retreat. They succeeded brilliantly in establishing a triangular relationship with Moscow and Peking and appeared to have replaced Cold War with détente. After the success of Apollo 11 mission the astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were sent around the world on a victory tour.

 

President John F. Kennedy wasn’t kidding when he said going to the Moon was hard. Much of the technology needed to get to the lunar surface and return didn’t exist at the time of Kennedy’s famous 1962 speech. And much was unknown. As NASA’s Apollo missions were being planned, there was concern that the lunar module might sink right into the surface or become stuck in it. Thanks in part to the massive, 400,000-person effort that put astronauts on the Moon seven years later; our knowledge of the solar system has increased dramatically in the decades since. The many challenges NASA overcame forced the agency and its partners to devise new inventions and techniques that spread into public life, many of which are taken for granted today. NASA’s Spinoff highlights NASA technologies that benefit life on Earth in the form of commercial products. We’ve profiled more than 2,000 spinoffs since 1976 — As Apollo technologies have made their way into everyday life, there’s more space in your life than you think!

 

With Apollo mission journey of 240,000 miles was not to just discover magnificent desolation on the moon, but to get a whole bunch of new questions to ask that we could ask ourselves. This enormous event regardless of race, sex, or religious belief uniquely united the entire world in this singular human achievement. After this journey we on the Earth is never the same as this new perspective seeing the Earth from space, in all our unity and cohesion brought us an unprecedented shift in our thinking. That was a powerful reminder of our capacity for greatness as a species. Not simply represented the engineering triumph, but the triumph of human ambition, the desire to reach quite literally for the stars.

 

The amount of memory in a Saturn rocket in Apollo capsule is less than what we got in our cell phone. Back then, computers were programmed using punch cards. They ran one program at a time. We take for granted how our computers today can easily switch from one program to another. Multitasking had to be invented for Apollo. This level of computer programming was the beginning of an industry. There was no field in what we did in software engineering, but that's what we were doing without realizing that it was a field. Before the Apollo Program, vehicles were not regularly controlled by computers. Airplanes at the time were pulleys and hydraulics, you had a pilot that actually pulled on a lever and it pulled on a lever and those actually actuated things. And so it's the first time that you have a digital flight control system that a human life depended on and that could successfully control a platform as complex as the Apollo spacecraft were. And there was little margin for error. It had to be reliable, it had to not only work, but it had to work the first time. And in the end, through the people and the technology, it all worked. It's great to look back on, perhaps, what is one of the greatest human achievements in engineering ever done. How they were able to do that with such little computing capability is amazing. The Apollo and the Saturn Program hired and inspired so many young people.

 

Cosimo was quick to capitalize on the triumph. He planned a dazzling international spectacle, the Council of Florence. It would be a global showcase for the magnificent new dome in the celebration of Florentine art and culture which had blossomed under Cosimo de Medici. The council brought together the greatest mix of thinkers, artists, merchants and churchmen that the world had ever seen. News quickly spread of the birth of a new Rome on the banks of the river Arno. In the streets and in the piazzas the cultures of east and west were brought together and bankrolling it all was Cosimo de Medici. The most interesting thing he did that paid all the travel expenses of all people from exotic places like India and Ethiopia. Messengers were sent out to call people from these far distant lands which are literally mythic to the Florentines. Cosimo's guests gazed in wonder at an explosion of art and culture in the shadow of Brunelleschi's dome. Cosimo was thrilled he set up public lectures on Plato it was just the best thing possible and of course it also gave him this great political cachet. It was the culmination of everything he'd ever wanted. Cosimo and now the great intercessor for the Florentine people he truly was their patron, their godfather in every sense.

 

When Kennedy announced to go to the moon, they didn't have a clue how the hell they were going to do it but they just said we got to get to the moon before the Russians. and look what happened not only are they the only country to land people on the moon and get them back and they did it in less than a decade. Many immigrants on green card contributed too, many with work Visa got sponsored for their talent. But all of the unexpected results from that every year NASA publishes a magazine called spin-off and it's loaded with dozens of innovations that have resulted just from the commitment to get to the moon. Dozens of products that have come out of it just because Americans said we're going to get to the moon first and even now 50 years later. When Nobel prizes in science are announced, more than half of them there are scientists working in America. So this is what a very profound lesson that the important thing to try to achieve anything is make the commitment that this is what we've got to do. Similarly Brunelleschi too wasn’t sure about his solution of flying buttress imbedded in the dome itself by building two domes, the inner dome to serve as support for the outer dome because no one had ever attempted to build a structure of that scale before him neither he was having any simulation tools to test his proposed solutions. So if Medici funds him that would be an act of faith and he did fund him as he made commitment to complete the dome for cathedral. Cosimo had broadened his circle of radical friends amongst his favorites was a notorious sculptor, Donatello. Donatello’s David was one of the most revolutionary works hard in the 15^th century because it was the first time since the ancient Romans that anyone had tried to make a free-standing bronze sculpture of a nude man. Cosimo gives a space to artists and writers to develop new ideas that are outside the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church, art is really where it's happening. Art, sculpture and architecture are pushing forward the boundaries of what it's possible to actually do; No one in Florence was taking more risks than Brunelleschi.

 

The Renaissance began during Cosimo's de facto rule of Florence, the seeds of which had arguably been laid before the Black Death tore through Europe. Niccolo Niccoli was the leading Florence humanist scholar of the time. He appointed the first Professor of Greek, Manuel Chrysoloras (the founder of Hellenic studies in Italy), at the University of Florence in 1397. Niccoli was a keen collector of ancient manuscripts, which he bequeathed to Cosimo upon his death in 1437. Poggio Bracciolini succeeded Niccoli as the principal humanist of Florence. Bracciolini was born Arezzo in 1380. He toured Europe, searching for more ancient Greco-Roman manuscripts for Niccoli. Unlike his employer, Bracciolini also authored his own works. He was made the Chancellor of Florence shortly before his death, by Cosimo, who was his best friend. Cosimo had grown up with only three books, but by the time he was thirty, his collection had grown to 70 volumes. After being introduced to humanism by a group of literati who had asked for his help in preserving books, he grew to love the movement and gladly sponsored the effort to renew Greek and Roman civilization through literature, for which book collecting was a central activity. "Heartened by the romantic wanderlust of a true bibliophile, the austere banker even embarked on several journeys in the hunt for books, while guaranteeing just about any undertaking that involved books. He financed trips to nearly every European town as well as to Syria, Egypt, and Greece organized by Poggio Bracciolini, his chief book scout." He engaged 45 copyists under the bookseller Vespasiano da Bisticci to transcribe manuscripts and paid off the debts of Niccolo de' Niccoli after his death in exchange for control over his collection of some 800 manuscripts valued at around 6,000 florins. Cosimo's fervent patronage transformed Florence into the epitome of a Renaissance city. He employed Donatello, Brunelleschi, and Michelozzo. All these artistic commissions cost Cosimo over 600,000 florins. If Cosimo could have looked into the future, he would have seen the story of the Renaissance unfold on the ceiling of the dome itself, weighing 37,000 tons and using more than four million bricks. Brunelleschi's dome was proof that man could conquer the seemingly impossible. A friend of Cosimo's wrote of its impact, it touches the skies and casts its shadow of the whole of Tuscany.

 

Just a reflection on the value of even saying that you want to go into Space, the projects are not expensive or you're not colonizing yet because by doing that can have an effect on culture. As space is a gateway subject into the sciences, all of these physics, planetary geology, biology, chemistry, medicine and all of this matters when you go into space. So it is the ideal driver of STEM fields. Science technology engineering and math, STEM fields are the engines of tomorrow's economy so if you have to ask what's your budget for space exploration? and as Moneys are established by a tax base funded by an electorate, research with unknown returns on investments in fields not yet fully understood by the public. This is really hard to get money for, but innovations in today's technology drive tomorrow's economies. If the world economy and population is to keep expanding space is the only way to go.

So we can get busy as if we're out in the solar system, we can have a trillion humans in the solar system which means we'd have a thousand mozart's and a thousand Einsteins. This would be an incredible civilization and what could this future look like where would a trillion humans live. Well it's very interesting somebody named Jerry O'Neill, a physics professor looked at this question very carefully. He and his students set to work on answering that question and they came to a very surprising for them, what O'Neill and his students came up with was the idea of manufactured worlds rotated to create artificial gravity with centrifugal force, these are very large structures. O'Neal colonies might choose to replicate earth cities they might pick historical cities and mimic them in some way there'd be whole new kinds of architecture, Let says mimicking Florence itself which might look like as below.

Cosimo, King in all but name: USA, Imperial Anti-colonialism

When Cosimo returned from exile in 1434, he influenced the government of Florence mostly through the Pitti and Soderini families for many years. Once in power, the Medicean party was not going to fall into Rinaldo's most obvious mistake, that of not making the proscription of their rivals sufficiently sweeping. "The vengeance," said a contemporary chronicler, "is always greater than the first offence; and for the sake of one family twenty were driven from Florence." In the Pratiche Cosimo himself and Neri Capponi urged clemency, and advised that only the heads should be punished, and the rank and file allowed to go free; but Cosimo's partisans were too full of their triumph to be satisfied by half measures, and Cosimo either could not, or did not try to, control them. Punishment in one form or another fell upon some hundreds of persons, the crime of many of whom was merely that they belonged to families whom it was desirable to suppress. According to the fullest reckoning, about eighty persons were banished for longer or shorter terms, a great number were made Grandi, that is, permanently disenfranchised, others were declared incapable of holding office for a term of years. Eleven whole families, including the Albizzi and Peruzzi, were completely cut off from the government, their descendants yet unborn being included in the proscription. Amongst others upon whom punishment fell very hardly was Palla Strozzi, who, in attempting to moderate both parties, succeeded in pleasing neither.

 

For there was not much apparent difference in principle between the Governments before and after 1434, there was rather a difference of persons, or, more precisely, of families. The supreme power still seemed to be in the hands of a clique of powerful houses; yet there were two distinctions, which after all were not far from fundamental The dictatorship of the: Medici themselves over their own party was much more complete than that of the Albizzi had been; it extended further into every department, not only of political, but of social, life in Florence. Secondly, and the second distinction was a result of the first, the ranks of the governing party were much less narrow; to enter them it was only necessary to please the: Medici, and the strength of the Medici enabled them to admit new men with far greater freedom and safety than the oligarchy had been able to do. It was this very narrowness, inherent to its character as an oligarchy that led to one of the chief causes of the fall of the last Government. In self-preservation unable to admit new men and new families to its ranks, it had been equally unable to admit new wealth. The balance of wealth had in fact shifted; and that political power follows 'wealth is an elementary maxim in all politics, a maxim which is particularly true of commercial states like Florence, where the possession of wealth and social power went literally hand in hand. It was no longer the Albizzi and the Strozzi who were the "millionaires" of' Florence; it was the Medici and after them such new families as the Pitti and the Pucci, the latter still only members of the Minor Arts.

 

Above all, the heavy taxation was a grievance. Besides the members of the opposition, who really had something to complain of, there was always a large class of professional discontents who would have grumbled quite as noisily at any other government. The violent manner in which the payment of taxes was extorted really was a grievance, though not peculiar to the Medici times; but the irritation caused by taxation was increased tenfold by the unpopularity of the objects to which the taxes were applied. It was hard to have to contribute large sums of money; but harder when they were spent on a foreign policy which was reprobated by all classes,

and was only carried through by the force of Cosimo's iron will, against almost universal opposition. Even the Mediceans disapproved; the Anti-Mediceans, dimly aware that Cosimo was grounding a dynastic power upon his foreign policy, opposed it still more vigorously.

 

The United Fruit Company (UFCO) was an American corporation that traded in tropical fruit (primarily bananas) grown on Latin American plantations and sold in the United States and Europe. One of the company's primary tactics for maintaining market dominance was to control the distribution of arable land. UFCO claimed that hurricanes, blight and other natural threats required them to hold extra land or reserve land. In practice, what this meant was that UFCO was able to prevent the government from distributing land to peasants who wanted a share of the banana trade. The fact that the UFCO relied, so heavily on manipulating land use rights to maintain their market dominance had a number of long-term consequences for the region. For the company to maintain its unequal land holdings it often required government concessions. And this in turn meant that the company had to be politically involved in the region even though

it was an American company. In fact, the heavy-handed involvement of the company in often-corrupt governments created the term "banana republic", which represents a servile dictatorship. The term "Banana Republic" was coined by American writer O. Henry. The UFCO owned huge tracts of land in the Caribbean lowlands. It also dominated regional transportation networks through its International Railways of Central America and its Great White Fleet of steamships. In addition, UFCO branched out in 1913 by creating the Tropical Radio and Telegraph Company. UFCO's policies of acquiring tax breaks and other benefits from host governments led to it building enclave economies in the regions, in which a company's investment is largely self-contained for its employees and overseas investors and the benefits of the export earnings are not shared with the host country. In 1928, U.S. business interests were threatened in Colombia. The Boston-based United Fruit Company, hit by a violent strike in December 1928 in the Colombian banana zone as the workers demanded "written contracts, eight-hour days, six-day weeks and the elimination of food coupons". An army regiment from Bogotá was brought in by United Fruit to crush the strike. The Colombian soldiers erected their machine guns on the roofs of buildings at the corners of the main square, closing off the access streets. After a five-minute warning, they ordered "Fuego!", opening fire into a dense crowd of plantation workers and their families who had gathered after Sunday Mass. They waited for an anticipated address from the governor of that region; between forty-seven to 2,000 workers were killed in the Santa Marta Massacre or “Banana Massacre”.

A threat developed in Central America when the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz (1951–54), which frankly accepted the support of local communists, attacked the holdings of the United Fruit Company as part of an ambitious though ultimately abortive land reform. The USA saw the rise of left-wing governments in Central America as a threat and, in some cases, overthrew democratically elected governments perceived at the time as becoming left-wing or unfriendly to U.S. interests. Examples include the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état, the 1964 Brazilian coup d'état, the 1973 Chilean coup d'état and the support of the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. This combined political and economic challenge caused the United States to assist Guatemalan counter revolutionaries and neighboring Central American rulers in overthrowing Arbenz. The reversion to interventionist tactics featured use of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) rather than landing of military forces. But it foreshadowed later CIA assistance to the Chilean military in ousting their country’s Marxist president, Salvador Allende, in 1973, not to mention the U.S. vendetta against the Sandinista revolutionary government that took power in Nicaragua in 1979, only to be worn down by covert action and economic harassment to the point that it peacefully accepted defeat in a free election in 1990. The debate over this new interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine burgeoned in reaction to the Iran-Contra affair in 1984; CIA director Robert Gates vigorously defended the Contra operation, arguing that eschewing U.S. intervention in Nicaragua would be "totally to abandon the Monroe Doctrine".

 

Though complacent in many ways, the Balia (governing authority) of 1452 did not show itself altogether submissive. In order to enable the Mediceans to command a majority, it was found necessary to alter the usual Florentine law, by which only measures that obtained two-thirds of the votes could be passed, and, instead, to allow  one-half to constitute a legal majority. In 1453 the Balia actually refused to permit Cosimo to dictate to it the names of the persons to be appointed on a new Dieci, until the good news of the promised invasion of Italy by Rene brought it to Ii better temper, and it allowed Cosimo to have his way as always, Cosimo’s foreign policies had always helped him to maintain his influence. The fact was that, just as the oligarchy, under the influence of prosperity, had split up into factions, so the Mediceans, secure of their power, were beginning to divide amongst themselves. Had Cosimo been another Rinaldo Albizzi, it would merely have been a case of the substitution of one oligarchy for another, and the second must have shared the fate of the first. But though Cosimo's individual influence was strong enough to hold his followers together, and to keep all in subordination to himself, it did not preclude a good deal of strife amongst the more ambitious members of the party, and finally an attempt at rebellion against his own authority.

Cosimo had to manage personally ten or twenty Accopiatori or ten members of the Dieci before he could get Signories appointed, or military and diplomatic business conducted according to his wishes. All this may seem to be rather a diminution than an increase of Cosimo's power; yet, since it was precisely all this which made the Florentines acquiesce in his rule, and on the whole acquiesce cheerfully, it was rather a secret of his strength than a mark of his weakness. Guicciardini knew this also. If the Medici had tried to seize absolute power by force, he maintained, they could have done so, but it would have greatly increased the discontent and disaffection within the city. It would have taken all the life out of the Republic, and weakened it so much that the position of ruler would no longer have been worth having; “for if the Medici had seized absolute lordship, they would have diminished, not increased, their reputation”. But they knew, he continued, that “all their affairs depended on the power and reputation of the Republic; in its exaltation and prosperity lay their exaltation and prosperity, because when it was greatest then were they most powerful.” Again, it was this very intangibility of his power; it’s want of official position, its absence of direct responsibility, which made attack upon it so difficult. Cosimo's one office on the Monte was vigorously attacked; but beyond that there was nothing definite in his authority which could be seized upon by his enemies and used as a handle against him. For example, Luca Pitti's attempt to diminish Cosimo's power by the abolition of the Balia and the introduction of appointment by lot did not succeed in reaching its real source; neither his personal influence nor his wealth was touched; and Luca's weapons merely rebounded upon their maker. And, when Cosimo chose, he could easily control all elements of independence.

When he wished a certain Donato Acciaiuoli to be made capable of becoming Gonfalonier, he had but to mention his desire to one of the Accopiatori, who at the next meeting of the committee said, “Cosimo wishes Donato Acciaiuoli to be put into the Borse of the Gonfalonier,” and it was immediately done. He could keep the Dieci in order, and instill a proper respect into them by refusing one day to give them an interview, on the pretext that “he had taken medicine," He could tame Luca Pitti by refusing to allow him to hold a Parliament, and yet have the Parliament held, and without any disturbances, when he judged it necessary for securing the authority of the party. It is clear therefore that it was Cosimo's own great ability which enabled him, more than anything else, to take and keep the position be held. The opportunity was offered: he knew how to seize and how to use it, when to advance and when to retreat, when to conceal his power and when to make an exhibition of it. Absolutely unscrupulous, “States are not to be preserved by paternosters” is one of the cynical sayings attributed to him, utterly callous to suffering when he judged it necessary to secure his own position; he yet exhibited both scruples and clemency when anything could be gained by them. He never made an unnecessary enemy, nor wished to have an unnecessary punishment inflicted. "He never spoke ill of anyone himself, and it displeased him to hear others spoken ill of in his presence." Whenever it was possible he avoided violence, above all he disliked bloodshed; his means of dealing with Baldaccio d'Anghiari was an exception to, not an example of, his methods. In this he was in sympathy with the Florentines, who were fastidious about bloodshed to an extent very unusual in fifteenth-century Italy. Commines, who knew Cosimo only by reputation, had heard that “his authority was soft and amiable, and such as is necessary for a free town.” Cosimo never fell into Pitti's mistake, never behaved like a prince, nor built a princely dwelling-house. “Envy is a plant which should not be watered,” he said. His manners, on the contrary, were always those of the citizen; his house only that of the wealthy merchant. For the latter he rejected Brunelleschi's magnificent design, and chose the more modest plans of Michelozzo.

The avoidance of the appearance of power helped Cosimo also to escape some of its responsibility. When anything disagreeable was to be done, he always found someone to do it for him, taking care never to soil his own fingers. It was his followers who got the blame for the proscriptions of 1434-35, Luca Pitti for the Parliament of 1458, the reigning Gonfalonier for the murder of Baldaccio d'Anghiari. It was only in matters of foreign policy that Cosimo was fully credited with his own acts, and in foreign policy he really wished to seem, as well as to be, responsible, in order that the ultimate success which he anticipated might redound only to his own credit, and in order that the foreign Powers might clearly understand that it was he alone with whom they had to deal So cleverly was Cosimo's absolutism disguised that simple folk still fancied him only "the first citizen," and never guessed how nearly he was a despot.

 

U.S. policy for limiting Soviet expansion had developed with remarkable speed. Soon after the collapse of hopes for world peace in 1945 and 1946, the Truman administration had accepted the danger posed by Soviet aggression and resolved to shore up noncommunist defenses at their most critical points. This policy, known as containment, a term suggested by its principal framer, George Kennan, resulted in the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Critics insisted that the Marshall Plan was not a valid analogy for Third World aid because the former had been a case of helping industrial populations rebuild their societies, while the latter was a case of sparking industrial or even merely agricultural development in primitive economies. Foreign aid did not necessarily served U.S. interests as many Third World rulers chose neutralism or Socialism, nor did it promote economic growth, since most new nations lacked the necessary social and physical infrastructure for a modern economy. Proponents of aid replied that U.S. capital and technology were needed precisely to build infrastructure, to assist “nation building” and to fortify recipients against Communists and others who might subvert the development process in its early stages. Kennan himself soon criticized the Truman Doctrine as indiscriminate and excessively military. Drawing on classical geopolitics, he narrowed U.S. interests to the protection of those industrial regions not yet in the hands of the Soviet Union (North America, Britain, Germany, and Japan). In practice, however, defense of those regions seemed to require defense of contiguous areas as well. Japanese security, for instance, depended on the fate of Korea, and European security on not being outflanked in the Middle East. American responsibilities, therefore, could easily appear to be global.

 

George Kennan was head of the State Department the policy planning staff, he wrote one of his many important papers. In 1948 PPS 23 he noted that the United States has half the world's wealth but only 6% of its population and our primary goal in foreign policy must be as he put it to maintain this disparity and in order to do so we must put aside all vague and idealistic slogans about democracy and human rights, those are for public propaganda and colleges and so on but we must put those aside and keep to pure power concepts we had no other way to maintain the disparity and then in the same paper and elsewhere he and his staff went through the world assigned to each part of the world, what they called its function within this global system that in which the US would have unchallenged power unquestioned power. So Latin America and the Middle East obviously would provide the energy resources that we would control gradually pushing out Britain throwing out France immediately and turning it into essentially a junior partner as the British Foreign Office ruefully described their role at that time. The Latin America we simply control that's our little region over here which has never bothered anyone that is a Secretary of War Stimson said while the US was violating the principles. It was establishing by setting up a regional organization in violation of the UN Charter and so on, so Latin America we keep at least we control Southeast Asia would be its function was to provide resources and raw materials to the former colonial powers meanwhile we would purchase them that would send dollars there which the colonial powers would take not the population and they could use those to Britain, France, Netherlands and could use the dollars to purchase US manufacturers it's called a triangular trading arrangement which would allow the US which had the only really functioning industrial system in the world and had a huge excess of manufacturing products . It was called a dollar gap of the countries we wanted to sell it to who didn't have dollars that's Europe. Basically so US had to provide them with dollars and the role of function of Southeast Asia was to play a role in that hence the support for French colonialism and recapturing it's in the Chinese colony and so on it's a there was various variations but that's the basic story.

 

Historians have observed that while the Doctrine contained a commitment to resist colonialism from Europe, it had some aggressive implications for American policy, since there were no limitations on the US's own actions mentioned within it. Scholar Jay Sexton notes that the tactics used to implement the doctrine were "modeled after those employed by British imperialists" and their competition with the Spanish and French. Eminent historian William Appleman Williams described it as a form of "imperial anti-colonialism." Noam Chomsky argues that in practice the Monroe Doctrine has been used as a declaration of hegemony and a right of unilateral intervention over the Americas.

 

The political crisis of 1458 was the first serious challenge to the Medici rule. The cost of wars had been borne by the great families of Florence, and disproportionately so by Medici's opponents. A number of them (Serragli, Baroncelli, Mancini, Vespucci, Gianni) were practically ruined and had to sell their properties, and those were acquired by Medici's partisans at bargain prices. The opposition used partial relaxation of Medici control of the republic institutions to demand political reforms, freedom of speech in the councils and a greater share in the decision-making. Medici's party response was to use threats of force from private armies and Milanese troops and arranging a popular assembly dominated by Cosimo's supporters. It exiled the opponents of the regime and introduced the open vote in councils, “in order to unmask the anti-Medicean rebels”. Cosimo's power over Florence stemmed from his wealth, which he used to control the votes of office holders in the municipal councils, most importantly the Signoria of Florence. As Florence was proud of its "democracy", he pretended to have little political ambition and did not often hold public office. In the spring of 1459, he entertained the new Pope Pius II, who stopped in Florence on his way to the Council of Mantua. In his memoirs, Pius said that Cosimo "was considered the arbiter of war and peace, the regulator of law; less a citizen than master of his city. Political councils were held in his home; the magistrates he chose were elected; he it is who decides peace and war… he was king in all but name and legal status.

Pater Patriae and Criticism

Cicero's work lived on and spread widely over the next 2,000 years allowing the ideas of the Roman Republic to live on these ideas influenced religious and political leaders throughout Europe and beyond many centuries later the Roman Republic became part of the basis of the world's most successful Republic, the United States of America. America's founders especially Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were impressed and inspired by Cicero the Roman orator 'he's words echo throughout the Declaration of Independence which lays out the case for the right of the people to life and liberty to govern themselves free from rule by the absolute tyranny of the king of Great Britain. The roman republic inspired America's founding framers to organize a three-part government legislative judicial and executive all operating under the rule of law and a system of checks and balances, so no one branch was too powerful even the title given to George Washington the father of country was a translation of Pater Patriae, the title given to Cicero.

Cosimo's death in 1464 the city of Florence declared him “Pater Patriae” meaning father of the fatherland. The difference between his steady self-control and the passionate instability of Rinaldo degli Albizzi it was easy to appreciate, and the Florentines marked their sense of the distinction by the great trust which, in spite of sundry grumblings, they reposed in Cosimo. Without this confidence, he could never have ruled as he did; and it is in itself the most certain sign that, although he made himself a tyrant, the tyranny was not established over unwilling subjects, nor used, when established, at variance with what the subjects themselves considered to be their own best interests. A shower of wordy panegyrics was poured out in memory of the great citizen. In one elegiac poem, according to the taste of the time, he was described as being greeted in Heaven by Cicero, who also had been called Pater Patriae, and being escorted by him into the company of blameless spirits.

Cosimo was supported by a little phalanx of men of much ability, yet all a little less scrupulous than himself: men whom he could employ in all sorts of dirty work without soiling his own fingers: his cousin Averardo, bold, cunning, cruel; Puccio Pucci, a member of the Minor Arts, who had greatly distinguished himself on the Dieci. sagacious, prudent, crafty; Martino Martini, and a host of lesser men. Many of the younger, ambitious politicians crowded to his party, in which there seemed more room for individual expansion than with Rinaldo, who must be everything himself, and could brook no rival. There were Alamanno Salviati, Agnolo Acciaiuoli, Dietisalvi Neroni, Luca Pitti, all of whose names were to become historical within the next few years. It was the interest of these lesser men to foster jealousy between their leaders in order to gain importance for themselves in the general struggle for power; the absence of Rinaldo and Cosimo from Florence for a great part of 1432, the former at Rome, the latter at Ferrara, gave opportunity for calumnious tongues.

Even in 1431 an inferior member of the party was hinting to Averardo that there were plots afoot against Cosimo: "you ought to tell Cosimo to speak the truth to those who try to take away his honor." Filelfo, the Greek scholar and teacher, and a bitter enemy of the Medici, was in correspondence with Milan, and was ready to propagate reports of a supposed intrigue between the Medici and Visconti. The question of how long and how far Cosimo had been deliberately scheming to make himself master of the Republic, or whether he ever schemed for the position at all before it was thrust upon him, is a difficult one to answer. It was certainly not he and his friends who began the Lucchese war, but did they not deliberately try to prolong it in order to increase their own importance, and to seize upon the dissensions it caused as their opportunity? It was said that "because they had so much money they felt themselves to be rulers of everything in time of war " and " they made themselves great by keeping the war going, and by lending money to the Commune; which was safe and of great advantage to them, for to the people they appeared to be the supporters of the Commune; so that to them there accrued honor and power and position."

But there is no proof of the virulent assertions of their enemies that the Medici schemed to hinder the success of the siege of Lucca. Nor can it be proved that Lorenzo de' Medici, when Ambassador to Milan in 1430 to prevent the Duke from interfering in the war, was really engaged in secretly arranging Francesco Sforza's expedition to embarrass Florence and lengthen out hostilities. The charge that Averardo had a secret understanding first with Michele Sforza, and then with another general, Tolentino, was more verisimilitude. Certainly Averardo had urged that Michele Sforza should be taken into the Florentine service. He himself negotiated the affair with Michele, and was so long about it that suspicions of his honesty were aroused in Florence. Michele was an unsatisfactory soldier, and Averardo was Commissioner in his camp. The General's laziness and carelessness may have been paid for by the Commissioner in order that the war should be lengthened out; on the other hand, Averardo's failure to make Michele work may just as well have been due to incapacity, and, besides, what General did the Florentines ever find satisfactory? That Tolentino was in the pay of the Medici is certain, because of his action later on when Cosimo's life was in danger. It is possible in this case also that the paymasters deprecated excessive zeal on the part of the soldier in putting an end to the war; but there is no proof even here that Tolentino was paid for anything but to be useful to the Medici in case of need.

As Cosimo's wealth and power increased so did the resentment of the ruling Albizzi family they were losing their grip on the government of Florence. Sensing the danger Cosimo transferred vast sums of money out of the city and made sure his family was safe. Cosimo's time in exile instilled in him the need to quash the factionalism that resulted in his exile in the first place. In order to do this, he instigated a series of constitutional changes with the help of favorable priors in the Signoria to secure his power through influence.

Averardo was a shifty person, who probably intrigued with both parties at once. He and Martino Martini, the Medici agent was from the beginning of the Lucchese war, openly allied with Rinaldo, who was on the look-out for supporters against the Peace party. Since Averardo's unpopularity was as great as Cosimo’s own popularity, and Averardo's powers of doing mischief would have been practically unlimited. Lorenzo de' Medici died in 1440; he was his brother's faithful follower, but had little of his ability. "Cosimo the fox, Averardo the wolf, Lorenzo the cow," spitefully said Filelfo the Humanist.

 

When internationally renowned MIT Professor Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian in 2003, to answer one of the question that: A FEW years before Kennan’s document, the U.S. developed something called the “Grand Area Strategy.” What was that about?

Prof. Noam Chomsky: THIS IS quite interesting. There’s only one good book about this, by Laurence Shoup and William Minter, called Imperial Brain Trust. It’s not an official government policy. These were programs run by the Council on Foreign Relations with the participation of the State Department, from 1939 to 1945, planning the postwar world. It began when the Second World War began and went on. They’re quite interesting. One reason they’re interesting is because the policies that were actually carried out are very similar to those they discussed. Not surprisingly, it was many of the same people in charge and the same interests represented. It’s a book well worth reading. It’s been bitterly attacked, naturally, which is a pretty good sign that it’s worth reading. And no reviews and that sort of thing…it’s kept secret. There’s very little scholarship on this, but it’s really important material. It’s obvious from just taking a look at who was doing it. It actually reads rather like the National Security Strategy.

In some recent publications I’ve compared the statements, and this is kind of Roosevelt-style liberals, remember, at the opposite end of the planning spectrum. It says the United States will have to emerge from the war as the world dominant power, and will have to make sure there is no challenge to its dominance anywhere, ever. And it will have to do this by a program of complete rearmament, which will leave the United States in a position of overwhelming strength in the world. It goes on like that. In the early stages of the war the “Grand Area” was supposed to be the non-German world. They assumed in the early stages that Nazi Germany would partially win the war, at least it would control most of Europe. So there would be a German world, and then the question was, What about the non-German world? And they said: That has to be turned into what they called a “Grand Area” run by the United States. Then they went through a geopolitical and geostrategic analysis of whatever resources we’d need, and so on and so forth.

The Grand Area would include, at a minimum, the entire Western Hemisphere, the Far East and the former British Empire. That’s the early stage of the war. As it became clear by 1943 roughly, that Germany was going to be defeated, mainly by the Russians, they began extending the policies beyond, to try to hold on to as much of Eurasia as possible, assuming there wouldn’t be a German world. And those policies later extend into the policy planning carried out in the early postwar period, and in many respects right until today. These are pretty natural and sensible plans of analysts who are thinking in terms of world domination for the interests that they represent. Of course, they will say, and probably believe, that they’re just laboring for the benefit of the ordinary person, but the Romans that Schumpeter was talking about would have said the same thing and also believed it that “There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented.”

 

“At the heart of capitalism is creative destruction” – Joseph Schumpeter

“There were enemies who only waited to fall on the Roman People” – Joseph Schumpeter

 

Also to answer another question from the same interview that, LET’S TALK about America and how we benefit from empire. William Appleman Williams was an historian who wrote a book called Empire as a Way of Life. In it he writes, “Very simply, Americans of the 20th century liked empire for the very same reasons their ancestors had favored it in the 18th and 19th century. It provided them with renewable opportunities, wealth and other benefits and satisfactions, including a psychological sense of well-being and power.” What do you think of Williams’ analysis?

Prof. Noam Chomsky replied, “I THINK he’s correct about the United States, but remember that the United States was not a normal empire in the European style, so it wasn’t like the British Empire. The English colonists who came to the United States didn’t do what they did in India. They didn’t create a façade of the native population behind which they would rule. They largely wiped out the native population. That’s rather different. So the indigenous population of what’s now the United States was “exterminated,” to use the word that the founding fathers used. Not totally, but that was what was considered the right thing to do. They replaced them and it became a kind of settler state, not an imperial state. And the expansion over the national territory was that way all along, including the taking over of large parts of Mexico.”…

 

In another lecture Prof. Chomsky mentioned: The modern age United States was the country that existed as it was founded, an empire explicitly according to the founding fathers when the country was found that it was a nascent Empire. George Washington’s modern age American imperialism was just a later phase of a process that has continued from the first moment without a break going in a very steady line. So we're looking at one phase in a process that was initiated when the country was founded and has never changed the model from the founding fathers who had borrowed from Britain of that at that time was the Roman Empire as they wanted to emulate it. Before the Revolution these notions were very much alive, Benjamin Franklin 25 years before the Revolution complained to the British that they were imposing limits on the expansion of the colonies which he objected, he borrowing from Machiavelli admonished the British and quoting him that a prince that acquires new territories and removes the natives to give his people room will be remembered as the “Father of the nation” and George Washington agreed that he wanted to be the father of the nation (Pater Patriae). His view was that the gradual extension of their settlement that a certainly caused the savage as the wolf being beasts of prey.

Master of Florence:

The difference between Cosimo’s steady self-control and the passionate instability of Rinaldo degli Albizzi it was easy to appreciate and the Florentines marked their sense of the distinction by the great trust which, in spite of sundry grumblings, they reposed in Cosimo. Without this confidence, he could never have ruled as he did; and it is in itself the most certain sign that, although he made himself a tyrant, the tyranny was not established over unwilling subjects, nor used, when established, at variance with what the subjects themselves considered to be their own best interests.

 

Adolf Hitler recounted in Mein Kampf, the autobiographical harangue written in prison after his abortive putsch of 1923, that he saw himself as that rare individual, the “programmatic thinker and the politician become one.” Hitler distilled his Weltanschauung from the social Darwinism, anti-Semitism, and racialist anthropology current in prewar Vienna. Where Marx had reduced all of history to struggles among social classes, in which revolution was the engine of progress and the dictatorship of the proletariat the culmination, Hitler reduced history to struggle among biologic races, in which war was the engine of progress and Aryan hegemony the culmination. The enemies of the Germans, indeed of history itself, were internationalists who warred against the purity and race-consciousness of peoples—they were the capitalists, the Socialists, the pacifists, the liberals, all of whom Hitler identified with the Jews. This condemnation of Jews as a racial group made Nazism more dangerous than earlier forms of religious or economic anti-Semitism that had long been prevalent throughout Europe. For if the Jews, as Hitler thought, were like bacteria poisoning the bloodstream of the Aryan race, the only solution was their extermination. Nazism, in short, was the twisted product of a secular, scientific age of history.

 

In fifteenth century Florence were to be found almost all the elements of national, as well as of municipal life. She was far more independent, far more truly national, than the medieval German free towns. Florence was a commercial state; the possession of land was merely an accident in the possession of power,-a part, but the least important part, of wealth; we find all the commercial problems of a later date already alive,- the uneasy relations between capital and labor, the employment of foreign politics as a means to commercial extension, the manipulation of a state debt, with shares whose value fluctuated as the prosperity of the Government. Here, too, are found in almost every individual that very modern craving to obtain a share, however small, in the direction of the national policy; here, as in modern politics, the difficulty of establishing an executive powerful enough and sufficiently many-sided to embrace and cope with the complicated and manifold conditions of modern administration; here efforts like those of a modern foreign minister to make his policy consistent and effective, and yet agreeable to the public whim. Government must be maintained either by brute force or by clearly-expressed public opinion, never by the inert acquiescence of the governed in any rule that had an appearance of hereditary right.

 

The political conditions in which Cosimo had to work were largely those of modern, not of medieval politics. As in the fifteenth-century republic of Florence, political power resided in the hands of middle-class merchants, a few wealthy families, and powerful craftsmen's guilds. The intensity of Florentine factionalism and the frequent alterations in its political institutions gave Renaissance thinker’s ample opportunities to inquire into the nature of political legitimacy and the relationship between authority and its social context. War was now “waged chiefly by reputation”, the Church -as a Church had no political influence,-for the position of the Pope was hardly distinguished from that of the head of a secular state; feudalism had ceased to be a force in politics. Political theory was discussed even in the market place; Cosimo himself contributed to what had already been acquired the theory of the Balance of Power among states, and, with some help from Francesco Sforza, invented and elaborated those methods of diplomatic intrigue by which the balance of power was maintained, and which were to last as long as it lasted.

 

During Niccolo Machiavelli’s youth, his father seems to have gained him entrée to the scholarly circles around the widely beloved Lorenzo de’ Medici (Grandson of Cosimo de’ Medici), who had managed to rule Florence for decades without the Florentines’ feeling the brunt or shame of being ruled. Long before Darwin, Machiavelli showed us a credible world without Heaven or Hell, a world of “is” rather than “should be,” in which men were coolly viewed as related to beasts and earthly government was the only hope of bettering our natural plight. There is today an entire school of political philosophers who see Machiavelli as an intellectual freedom fighter, a transmitter of models of liberty from the ancient to the modern world. Today, I really cannot imagine a more realistic scenario for the future shape of the world not inevitable but plausible that is more frightening than having an unreconstructed and increasingly neo-totalitarian, Orwellian Single Party state being the dominant and hegemonic superpower in the world. The alternative to that has got to be a comprehensive strategy lead by the world's democracies to project our own values of freedom, democracy, personal autonomy and innovation, freedom of ideas and information.

 

The parallel can only be rough and superficial, yet we may remember that each founded their power upon the “people,” as opposed to the “aristocracy”; that each first rose to supremacy upon the abortive attempts of their enemies to ostracize them, resulting in the defeat of the enemies themselves; that each counted on preserving their power by leading the states to embrace a new line of foreign policy; that each was ruler of their states at the time of the two greatest outbursts which the world has ever seen of the spirit of man into fresh regions of human achievements and perspectives.

WE, who live in the Twentieth century, are accustomed to the life of a vast state with a population of many millions, to foreign relations which concern the destinies of the whole world, and to domestic affairs, in which the few politicians who appear on the stage of action are merely representative of the interests of large classes and parties. For us, therefore, it is difficult to recognize Cosimo de' Medici as a statesman who required little less tenacity of purpose than a Bismarck, little less diplomatic skill than a Richelieu; For it may seem to us no great achievement for a man to make himself master of a little city-state, with a few thousand inhabitants, and a territory about as large as Yorkshire, and to carry on a career of successful diplomacy amongst other states of the same size, and extending but seldom beyond Italy. Yet, since to the student of political science and of statecraft the Florence of the fifteenth century and the Medicean power in Florence present political phenomena distinct from, though always related to, those appearing in any other state or period, the life of Cosimo de' Medici is worth studying, not only from the romantic point of view, as that of a man with a remarkable character and extraordinary career, but as a chapter in the History of Politics, with a significance and an interpretation of its own.