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 15th century Florence as a scaled down version of the
20th century globalized world. Medici family’s Rise and contribution in 15th
century Florence city and the same of USA in 20th 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
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 15th century
Florence City for Medici and in the 20th 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 13th 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 20th 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 19th 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 27th,
28th and 29th 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 20th 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 17th 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 5th 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 31st 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 14th 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 4th 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 24th 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 5th 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 6th 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 25th 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 11th 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 13th 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 10th 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 11th
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 12th April 1945;
President Roosevelt died and was succeeded by Harry S. Truman. Benito Mussolini
was killed by Italian partisans on 28th 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 8th
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 16th 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 6th 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 9th
August, Japan announced its intention to surrender on 15th 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 15th century Florence’s War with
Milan and 20th 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 3rd 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 5th 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.
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 5th 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 9th 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 20th
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 38th
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 15th
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 25th 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 26th, 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 15th 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 4th 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
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 14th 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 25th 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 38th 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 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 16th 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 12th 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 13th 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 7th 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 16th 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 19th 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 19th 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 15th 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.
Thank you for sharing your scholarly work.
ReplyDelete