Archive for March, 2010
March 31st, 2010 | 
Author:
Recently, a certain uncomprehending Victor Ozorka whom I can best describe as a faceless individual has been surfing the internet, digging out histories of peoples he wishfully thinks have descended from or should trace their ancestries to the Igbo race. He does this with so much uncomplimentary commentaries that he does not see beyond realities, or at least recognize that a people are regarded as what they say they are and what they want be, and that the history of any people(s) are derived from their oral traditions, legends, folklores mythologies etc. I do not know his educational background of this faceless Victor Ozorka nor his educational discipline but he has not sounded like a historian, or as a courteous human.
To drive this justification home, I have hereunder reproduced his comment posted on an article written by me:
“I thought you had learnt your lesson but no, you refuse to change!
Let me ask you Eze chime or Ezechima that you called your progenitor where is his name from? Igbo opr Edo? Do Edo or Bini people answer Eze or Chima/ Chime?
And if he is a Bini prince who was his father? The least you guys know about him was that he used to work in the Kings palace and thus he was a prince…how contradictory. Bini/ERdo people are laughing at you guys from Onotsha(sic) and co that claim you are from an Edo prince…and yet you do not speak Edo or anything like it. At least the Itshekiri left Yorubaland and till today everybody could still see that they have something in common. But you, you lost all Edoidness and instead imbibed a 99.9% Igboness in culture and language and all. In’t it a bit surprising to you an acclaimed mr-know-it-all? Pathetic..someone left Isu Aniocha and Nri and crossed a river and suddenly he no longer belongs to his grandfather but to a mysterious and fictitious Edoid prince just because the great kingdom/empire of Benin’s reach covered for a few centuries his newfound homeland! PATHETIC INDEE!
You are a confused soul and I pity you! Ndoooooooooooooo!”
The simplest way to define history is to refer to it as “all the events that happened in the past: a turning point in human history” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 2000.) For the proper understanding of the objective of this article, it is just germane that we break down this definition into two different parts i.e. “all the events that happened in the past AND a turning point in human history. The same dictionary defines “event” as a thing that happens, something that is important. The understanding of this is that any thing that happens to a society which that very society considers important becomes part of the history of that society. Turning point may best refer to “the time when an important change takes place, usually with the result that a situation improves.”
Having understood History from a less academic perspective of a dictionary, I am hoping that Ozorka agrees with himself that it is events that make history irrespective of how anyone may regard the events. “No event no history” is a well known saying. In effect, I am getting Ozorka to drop his set of ideas twisted in a way that he does not see beyond what is visible, because he has only succeeded in grotesquely distorting the truth. Whenever Victor Ozorka grosses me out with this, and I get less comfortable with his comments which bear no fruits and offer nothing by way of information. When it is impossible to derive any understanding from a group of words, such words should take its place in the basket of oblivion.
As noted already, all that happened in the past becomes history, it is therefore historical that groups of people in 1951 decided to form what they hoped would benefit them immensely, rather than pursue succession from that polity. Ozorka should also understand that the year that these various groups decided to come together and form Anioma became a turning point which also is historical. This is the second meaning attributed here to history.
Not many people know that ANIOMA is merely an acronym derived from the four Local Governments that once existed. The then Aniocha Local Government contributed “A”, Ndokwa contributed “N”, Ika contributed “I” while Oshimili Local Government contributed “O.” The suffix “OMA” which to the people signifies “Good” or “Fertile” was added to arrive at ANIOMA.
Anioma People though having related amongst themselves before the coming of the British shares so much in common socially, politically and economically. The ignorant fail to understand or at least factually recognize that these people have different histories of origin and ancestries, but share similar cultures, a role Benin Kingdom played in their dominance over these people. One needs to study series of wars these kingdoms heroically fought against the extensive and expansive Benin Empire in defense of themselves in other to fully understand how they were able to survive, and perhaps how they were reshaped by the aggressive powers of the Benin kingdom.
At some points of the history of these people, the reigning Oba of Benin determined and enthroned the Obi (Paramount rulers) of any one of these groups of people. Ibusa offers a perfect example of a town where Oba of Benin compensated a particular man with the Obi of the town, this Obi’s reign was scuttled because the wife of the Obi was seen as constantly interfering in the matters of the town and tried to impose her advice on the council in chiefs of the town.
While oral accounts some of today’s Anioma towns and communities trace their origins to Igboland of the present south-East, there are good number of other Anioma towns and communities with oral accounts also tracing their ancestral homes to Benin kingdom. Ozorka if he were to be a Historian should not have found this an outlandish idea, because wherever he assumes himself to hail from, there are oral traditions to support their origins. Today, the Igbo makes us believe that they are one of the lost tribes of Israel, a Yoruba mythology tells us that Ife is the centre of the world’s creation and cradle of civilization, Obatala descended from the Heavens with certain items and became instrumental to creation. Many more of what we refer to myths exists. The Holy Bible supports the divine creation of the world perfectly finished within six days.
The history of the Anioma people who trace their ancestry homes to the Igbo, their neighbors and Benin Empire is quite unlike many of the mythologies described above. Credit should be given to the people, whose oral traditions do not lay claims to far away countries or regions like Mecca, Egypt, Israel, and Sudan believed to be quintessence of civilizations, rather we have found our origins in nearby regions of Nigeria. This oral accounts posses the quality of verisimilitudes which should have been appreciated by Ozorka and his likes.
What Ozorka has ignorantly failed to understand is that the Anioma people cannot be told where they are coming from; neither will they be told where they are going. Nobody, not even Ozorka can tell us who we are. We know ourselves better than he does.
He asks if it is not surprising that Ezechima bears an Igbo name yet founded communities like Onitsha Mili (in present Anambra State,) Onicha-Olona, Onicha-Ugbo, Onicha-Ukwu, Issele-Uku, Issele-Mkpitime, Issele-Asagba. I think it should be drummed into his ears that the similarity in the names of Anioma communities distinctly brings to the fore same history of ancestry. We have not lost this in any way, Ezechime historically known and originally written as Prince Cheime was a prince from Benin Kingdom historically believed to be the progenitor of major communities of Anioma. He was said to have committed a certain offence against the Benin state which forced him on exile, but quite typical of other progenitors of his time certain other persons left with him, founding communities. Ozorka, if you are one of those genuinely interested in History, please readto the Igbo across the Niger.lier known of Ezecimamunities many of which has been mentioned here.sa because he was f
I assume this very surprising that Ozorka is unaware of the fact that a lot of the histories of Nigerian communities share similar accounts as responsible for the foundation of their communities. Does the origin of Ibusa not claim that a certain man named Umejei left Isu in Igboland to found the town, Ibusa because he was fleeing from persecution? Does an oral account not also claim that Odaigbo fled from Nri to found present day Ogwashi-Uku? Is Nnebisi the progenitor of Asaba not from Nteje as one fleeing from persecution? Ozorka would be pleased to hear these origins but not those of other parts of Anioma because he is views them as distanced from the Igbo where he wishfully expects them to migrate from.
Let the Ozorkas know that the progenitor of the vast communities was and still Prince cheime as originally known until owing to certain influences from their Igbo neighbours, the name some became distorted to Ezechime especially as he settled in Onitsha-Mili, his final destination, but some of those they left with him had founded certain communities many of which has been mentioned here. The change in the name of Prince Cheime (later known as Ezechime or Chima) owes a lot to Onitsha-Mili’s proximity to the Igbo across the Niger.
Page 5 of a document on an Intelligence Report of Talbot, a British traveler, explorer and administrator centered on Agbor Clan in Agbor District captures it thus as accounted by Prince Adams Gbenoba in his article titled “Rejoinder: The Origins of Anioma People”:
“Of the two families that left Benin at this time (shortly after Nyendael’s visit in 1702), one settled at Agbor while the other went to Obior, another clan in the Agbor District”.
The said Intelligence Report…” went on as follows: “… of the same Obior family came also the ancestors of Onitsha-Mili 8the present Onitsha Waterside of today). It is a tradition of the Obior people and indeed of most of the clans between them and the Niger, and also of Onitsha itself, that their tribe was founded by Cheime, a refugee from Benin City…”
Does Victor Ozorka want us to believe that the Ika are too Igbo as part of Anioma, it is particularly painful to read from armchair scholars who sit at home and rewrite the history of ethnic groups simply because they wishfully want the history of these ethnic groups linked to theirs. No matter the smallness of a people in population or land mass, their histories are still retained, this refers tp the Agbor and Igbanke people of Ika.
Igbo scholars who use the existence of smattering Igbo vocabularies such as Eze, Obi, Emeka, Orie/Okorie/Mgborie/Okafor to support their seeming argument that Ika are Igbo easily forget that these are due to the educational, socio-economic, political and business interactions the Ika people have had with the Igbo of the west.
Ozorka loudly imagined that the Ika people speak Igbo which he said was different from what was different from the example presented by the Itsekiri, what he failed to ask those who are conversant with typical Agbor vocabularies the meaning of and origin of their vocabularies quite certainly peculiar to Agor and Bini such as:
Okhue (parrot) Ughere (village hall), Ikhu/ijogbe (lineage) Ekete (stool) Oruese (thank you)
Agbor people also bear common personal names such as Agbonkpolor, Agbonifo, Aguevedo, Aigbedion, Edobor, Idemudia, Ikubor, Edeje, Igue, Iyare, Iroro, Izegbuwa, Iduwe, Iredia, Iyetor, Ogbeide, Ogiebor, Omoruyi, Uhure, Oyegwe, ugiagbe, Owabor, Uwagboi, Osaghede, Onainor, Omozi, Orumgbe, Omoregie, Okanigben, Okunbor, Omogiafor, Oganbor, Ogbwei, Odiase, Odion etc. Agbor people also celebrate Igue, ugbose, Osieze festivals etc.
By the way, I want to once again inquire from Ozorka why the Isoko and Urhobo have a single dialectical-language, yet we are told that these are two ethnic separate groups, while they are kits and kin; does this not pictorially evoke the similarities between the Anioma and Igbo of the South-East? The question on the use of Obi in Agbor is like asking how the Yoruba and Edo share the use of “Oba” as the title of a paramount ruler.
Is it not surprising to the ignorant Ozorka that history tells us that major countries inhabiting the Northern part of Africa such as Egypt, Libya, Morocco, etc are today Arabs because they were arabized? Would he not be surprised to hear that originally Iranians were never Arabs? Today, we know these countries by what they how they want to be known. It tells you that it is events that change the destinies of people, and may have occurred to the Anioma people, on that day they decided to come together and become known as Anioma.
The oral history of the Hausa gives us the understanding that there are 7 original Hausa sons who became the progenitor of 7 original states of Hausa, while there are another 7 bastard sons who went ahead to found another 7 Hausa states, today, would anyone rightly classify all of these said Hausa states as Hausa communities, Ozorka? Would say today that that all of these 14 communities are Hausa states simply because Hausa oral accounts claims it to be so? The answer to this question is no because many of these communities are not regarded as Hausa States, linguistics does not even support this. In essence, a mere oral account that a man journeyed out of a particular region many centuries ago alone cannot be adequately used to ascertain a tribe.
That a man migrated from one part of community and settled in another community is not even a yardstick to determine the ethnicity of an entire people, it is only in Africa that trivial matters of histories are used because we live in the region where marginalization reigns supreme, and population figure are necessary to acquire so much allocation from the government. Majority of Americans began to migrate from English colonies as recorded by history, but today, the nation is not identified with any particular region as she has been able to distinctly carve out unique identity for herself, yet we continue to identify ourselves along the borderline of ancestral history of where our forefathers took off and ended.
To Africans, Obama may be of African descent but to the Americans, he is an American citizen and has won the presidency of the country which is impossible to actualize in any part of Africa. In Nigeria, an Igbo man has not emerged a an executive president of the country because it is not yet his turn. Is this not wonderful?
Victor Ozorka referred to a confused soul, the Anioma are definitely not confused, we know that when States are announced we shall definitely belong with majestically sit in our own Anioma State, with the capital at Asaba, and our problem of identity caused by our abandonment by the Igbo after the Civil War will be a thing of the past. More so, our youths are seriously working with the vast human materials we have in the region to pilot us into graceful identity, this is where Oganihu-Anioma, Onu-Anioma and Organization for the Advancement of Anioma Culture (OFAAC), Anioma Association USA Inc count. We can do it.
Finally, I need to let our Igbo brothers and sisters know that we are not disinheriting them as the like of Ozorka usually suggest whenever surfing the internet to dig out articles relating to the Igbo. We just may agree to go with the Igbo, however this will only be possible if the Igbo regard us of their own, which fortunately they have started by electing one of us as the President-General of Ohaneze Ndiigbo but it should not stop here, they should as go as far as helping us to get a State of our own because such will be recognized as an Igbo state rather than proclaim less viable Orashi State, Adada State, Aba State “Enyimba State.”
We have suffered for the Igbo, we have stood by them for too long, in the time of need, fighting and shedding blood, and it is only natural and political that we are rewarded by them; otherwise the labour of our heroes past shall be in vain. Many of us now disappointed have hoped that our reward would have been support to acquire our own identity through the creation of our State, but this was not to be. And recently actions from Iwuanyanwu and Nzeribe from the panel set up to adopt a state for the Igbo people show that the Igbo are looking else where and we are not in their agenda. Ozorka, try and correct this impression rather than lay claims to us on the internet and politically too. The Igbo need us and we need them too.
Ozorka rather than try to rewrite our history, learn from it. “Clearly all human cultures are similar in one way or the other. It depends on what you are looking for – similarities or dissimilarities” Prof Onwukwe Alaezi, 2000.
Emeka Esogbue
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/victor-ozorka-can-you-rewrite-the-history-of-my-people-anioma-people-679828.html
Amazing footage of World War II in color.
New World Order: Part 1
This is part one of a three part series on World War II using actual color film. If I can get the other two parts I’ll post them up. Enjoy.
Duration : 0:6:0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bwJWnTsxEA
Click this to watch Creative Assembly: All Your History Ep. 1 (Makers of the Total War Franchise) S02E08
Creative Assembly: All Your History Ep. 2 (Makers of the Total War Franchise) S02E09
The Total War series has evolved from an unlikely newcomer to one of the most successful and innovative strategy series in history. In this second episode, see how the Creative Assembly built on the success of Shogun to create Medieval, and then fully enter the 3D realm with their triumph, Rome.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Follow Machinima on Twitter!
Machinima
http://twitter.com/machinima_com
Inside Gaming
http://twitter.com/insidegaming
Machinima Respawn
http://twitter.com/mcom_respawn
Machinima Entertainment, Technology, Culture
http://twitter.com/machinima_etc
FOR MORE MACHINIMA, GO TO:
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=machinima
FOR MORE GAMEPLAY, GO TO:
http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=machinimarespawn
TAGS: yt:quality=high Napoleon Total War The Creative Assembly UPC 010086852424 Sega Typhoon Games Steam Warscape Engine Microsoft Windows PC Computer Vista Seven Turn-Based Strategy Real-Time Tactics Single-Player Multiplayer PEGI 16 All Your History Are Belong to Us AYH AllYourHistory Game Developement Backstory
Duration : 0:7:41
Posted in war history | 
Tags: 010086852424, 16, All, AllYourHistory, Are, Assembly, AYH, Backstory, Belong, Computer, Creative, Developement, Engine, Game, Games, History, Microsoft, Multiplayer, Napoleon, PC, PEGI, Real-Time, Sega, Seven, Single-Player, Steam, Strategy, tactics, The, to, Total, Turn-Based, Typhoon, UPC, Us, Vista, War, Warscape, Windows, Your, yt:quality=high | 
25 Comments »
The Bombing of Dresden in World War II was an unnecessary and illegal action. In the U.S. we are indoctrinated to believe that the firebombing of civilians in Germany and Japan was necessary, but the policy of Unconditional Surrender and the resultant atrocities began after the war was already essentially won.
There were legitimate military targets located outside the city of Dresden, but these areas were not damaged by the bombing.
I posted this video because although we are generally familiar with the horrific crimes of the Nazis, we are less familiar with the crimes of the so called victors.
If you want to know who really won this war, follow the money.
I would encourage you to view the videos I have favorited on my channel under the titles First Responders of September 11th, 2001, Unanswered Questions about September 11th, 2001, and Money.
Duration : 0:3:6
null
Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes New Yorker writer Jane Mayer to discuss her book, The Dark Side. She explains how, under the direction of Vice President Cheney and his Assistant David Addington, the Bush administration, contrary to American history and tradition, implemented a policy of torture and rendition in violation of U.S. and international law. She describes the resistance within the government and the military to these actions. Mayer also offers a compelling account of what happened to detainees under the Cheney/Addington regime. She analyzes long term consequences for the fight against terror and for U.S. moral leadership in the world. [10/2008] [Public Affairs] [Show ID: 15229]
Duration : 0:56:42
Posted in war history |
Tags: Administration, Berkeley, bush, Jane, Mayer, terrorism, UC |
9 Comments »
US Guns World War II B.A.R .38 .30-06 .50 cal Browning machine gun M1903 rifle colt .45 M1 Garand M1 carbine Thompson submachine gun M3 submachine gun .45 M1917 machine gun M1919 machine gun .30 Carbine Jeeps Tanks
Duration : 0:10:0
The growing rapacity of German gluttony forced Hitler to take over Austria in 1938 and threaten Czechoslovakia. In Britain this produced a national crisis which resulted in Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s meeting Hitler in September 1938 at Berchtesgaden. Chamberlain returned from the meeting announcing ‘peace in our time’ which was abruptly smashed when Hitler invaded Prague in March 1939. Soon after given Western weakness and hesitation to work with the Soviet Union Stalin formed a pact with the Nazi’s guaranteeing Russian security and the partitioning of Eastern Europe between the Bear and the Hun. There was nothing to stop Hitler from destroying Poland and then turning his malevolence towards the West.
Public anger which had exploded after the subjugation of Prague had forced Chamberlain to give the improvident pledge to guarantee Poland’s security. Militarily and rationally this was an impossibility. The British did not possess a large enough standing army to lend help to Poland to stem a German advance and the logistics of transferring military relief to Poland was never calculated. Only the Navy was possessed war making power and there was little the Navy could do to defend Poland. She was invaded on the first of September and the Second World War began. Churchill was immediately recalled into power as First Lord of the Admiralty – the very same post he had assumed control of 25 years previous on the eve of the First World War.
From day one of the war Churchill was the true Leader of Britain. Chamberlain was defeatist and broken hearted remarking bitterly how his life’s work was now tragically sundered. He did not have the capability to rouse a nation and persevere to the bitter end. Winston as Naval War Lord was not only attacking the enemy on the seas but combating defeatist elements at home and trying to prod the blind neutral nations into action. Only Churchill could utter with true conviction and spirit, “Now we have begun; now we are going on; now with the help of God, and with the conviction that we are the defenders of Civilisation and Freedom, we are going on, and we are going on to the end.”
The Royal Navy was the only strong force that Britain possessed and from the opening bell the naval squads were on the offensive. Churchill worked at least an 18 hour day. Plans were drawn for a blockade of the German coast, convoy arrangements were made; mine-sweeping was instituted, enemy raiders harassed and submarines sunk. By the end of 1939 the Royal Navy had sunk half of all German submarines. However the war was only in its infancy. Great battles loomed.
On May 10 1940 the Germans began their vicious assault on the West. The Hun streamed into Holland and Belgium. That night the King of England sent for Churchill and asked him to form a government. Thus began the creation of the Churchill legend and his enshrinement into history. The story of the British war effort under Churchill falls into two distinct categories – the struggle to survive and the establishment of the alliance with the USA and Russia and the ultimate destruction of Germany and Japan.
The battle to survive covers the twelve or so months that Britain fought Germany completely alone in 1940-1. This period covered the dazzlingly quick disappearance of France under the heel of the Gestapo in June of 1940 to the German attack on Russia in June of 1941. This grim year brought horrible highlights; the partition of France, the formation of the pro-Nazi French Vichy government, the battle of Britain, the blitz on London, the beginning of the North African desert war, the defeat of Greece, and the British Commando raids along the Norwegian and French coasts.
It was during this sombre episodic current of ruin that Churchill became the most inspirational Leader of the Western world in the 20th century. He portrayed the towering, implacable fierceness of a proud nation, and of liberty, and expressed every free man’s tenacity to fight in words that no other could have summoned forth. Winston’s knowledge of military matters and his close operational vigilance over all affair animated and excited the British war effort with a boldness that astonished. British prestige in this desperate hour reached its highest ever pitch. The world over prayed for its salvation and success.
The immense energy and illimitable skill that throbbed and turned in his heart and mind was at last released from its bondage and given full scope of use. Churchill no longer knew the frustration of ideas that could not be brought alive, vitality that could not be expended, or ingenious approaches that could not be tested. The supreme challenge was met by a man of supreme stature. The Government was turned upside down. Routine was destroyed. Twenty four activity the rule with Churchill as the master organiser. All knew their place and role. Churchill immediately established a small War Cabinet to make effective and quick decisions. At first the membership was four which grew during the war to seven. This tiny all powerful directing force was supported by sixty or seventy other ministers of all parties who formed the core membership of the Coalition government but responsible only for their own departments. As Churchill pointed out, it was only the members of the War Cabinet, “who had the right to have their heads cut off on Tower Hill if we did not win.”
Never before in modern history did one man have so much power. Churchill was everywhere. He not only controlled the government but the operational side of the conflict as well. He was not only the King’s First Minister but Leader of the House of Commons and, even more important Minister of Defence also. The military Chiefs of Staff instead of reporting to their own ministries reported instead directly to Churchill. The Joint Planning Committee – a body of professional staff officers of all three services – worked under Churchill as part of the Ministry of Defence rather than under the Chiefs of Staff. Thus by permission of the War Cabinet and Parliament Churchill became the penultimate democratic Leader.
No one can study Churchill’s part in the war without being staggered by the colossal output of interests, dictation’s, orders, speeches, broadcasts, plans, promotions and prunings. In military matters he covered an almost incomprehensible range of activity. When Britain stood alone and the nation was bracing itself for the storm of invasion Churchill was racing about the government demanding attack plans, offensive action and targets of British incursions. He demanded the end of the passive war. Thus the commando raids were born. He participated during the war in every operational plan and strategy demanding full technical elaboration’s and missives to be sent to his attention. “During the war,” the American General Eisenhower later testified, “Churchill maintained such close contact with all operations as to make him a virtual member of the British Chiefs of Staff; I cannot remember any major discussion with them in which he did not participate.”
Churchill’s power was dependent upon the War Cabinet. It is a tribute to his skill of persuasion that unlike Roosevelt or Stalin, who were by their constitutions absolute military leaders of their nation, Churchill exercised his authority only by the permission of the War Cabinet who were willing to grant this authority only so long as Winston commanded the confidence of Parliament. Much of Parliament’s confidence was bolstered by Churchill’s impassioned, humanised and soaring orations. No man or women in the British Commonwealth who heard on June 4 1940 that France was being devoured by the German beast, will forget the tingling of emotion and courage when Churchill uttered in a strange, hoarse voice: “We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and the oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever he cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle until in God’s good time, the new world, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”
Another Leader may have uttered, “We will do what is necessary to win this war and persevere in its struggle until it is won. This government believes in the ultimate ability of our nation to come through to victory.” Or something to that effect. Very few would have evinced the crescendo of emotional “We shall’s” in a peroration. Churchill gave the roar to the British lion and heart to the British public. Romance, history, philosophy and leadership all running in the cloud-burst of Churchill’s speeches and leadership of the war effort. But though he carried his role with pride, prompt execution and relish in no way implies a cold heart or an acceptance of war’s carnage. The suffering that he saw, and he saw a lot with his own eyes as he inspected damage through Britain, on more than one occasion pushed him into tears. When Churchill saw a small shop in ruins and wondered out loud to his private secretary the anguish that the owner must feel to have his whole life exploded and ruptured so completely, he became so visibly upset that he resolved at that moment to compensate all damaged property with state payments. Thus the policy of war damage for private assets came into effect. If Churchill enjoyed the waging of war he certainly suffered from the anguish it induced and endeavoured to share its destruction with the common man and woman.
The second phase of the war lasted from the infamous Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour on December 7 1941 until the end of the war. Until 1944 the British and Russian armies bore the brunt of the struggle against the demented German race. From early 1944 onwards the Americans assumed a greater share and responsibility of the war effort and began to relegate the British to a supporting role in the drive to victory. Roosevelt and Churchill met nine times during the war establishing a strong if short lived friendship. The Americans including Roosevelt were incorrectly convinced that Churchill and the British wanted to expand their Empire.
This calamitous suspicion allowed the Russians more freedom in Eastern Europe than the British would ever have tolerated. As early as 1943 with victory a matter of time and logistics Churchill implored the American leadership not to let Soviet ambition run unimpeded in Eastern Europe. The American reply was incredibly purblind and vague. It appears in scouring the documents and American communiqués that they trusted the Soviets to behave themselves more than their close allies the British ! Eisenhower and many of his chiefs remarked in letters and in meetings that they could not understand why the British constantly mixed politics and military affairs.
To the British this represented reality and the best hope to avoid another world war with the Soviets after the defeat of Germany. Churchill and his advisors even preached that upon the war’s closing everything necessary should be attempted to revive Germany as a bulwark against the pending Soviet menace. The Americans felt that such targets as Prague, Berlin and Vienna were unnecessary military ventures that would endanger the lives of their men. If the Soviets wanted to shed more life in attacking these seemingly remote locations than the Americans were content to let them. The British just shook their heads in dismay unable to impress the Americans with their superior logic. Victory was attained but it set the stage for the Cold War.
The fact that the British survived the early years of the war when Germany swept all before it and that the British evaded a complete national disaster at Dunkirk and defeated the Nazi’s in the air during the Battle of Britain, issued during the remainder of the war and for a short period after it, an inflated sense of self destiny and strength and even an isolationist mentality. The collective suffering and emotional agony endured by the entire British nation also gave express an imbued spirit of egalitarianism. The depth of this communal desire was the most profound in British history and exercised a new faith in social planning and cohesion. During Churchill’s premiership in the war the most celebrated social reconstruction document of the period was the report by William Beveridge which outlined a radical scheme of comprehensive social security, financed from central taxation. This new state aided social plan included maternity benefits, child allowances, universal health and unemployment insurance, old age pension and death benefits – an entire cradle to grave policy. From 1940-45 Britain moved more rapidly to the left than at any time in history a move marked by the important positions Labour ministers occupied in the war government.
At the end of World War II in 1945, Britain was still one of the Big 3 powers, indeed it was ranked as a great power, an illusion that held until about 1963. The British still had their empire in 1945 and in the ensuing years they could still produce great artists and Nobel prize winners, but much to the chagrin of Churchill and the leadership class British glory was long past. The rapid decolonisation of most of its empire — India, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka — and parts of Africa shedded from British finance much unneeded expense and worry, and solidified Britain’s secondary role in world affairs subordinate to the USA and Russia.
Success in conflict notwithstanding the British electorate in the 1945 general election shockingly kicked Churchill and the Conservatives from office by an overwhelming share. For the third time the Labour party was called forth to govern. Churchill after leading the democracies to attain the supreme glories and garlands of success instantly found himself shorn of privilege and casted into opposition. It was a role he obviously did not appreciate. For Churchill defeat was only explained by the plain fact that people believed his government to be a war council, unprepared for the extended restructuring of society that peace demanded. Labour presented a sharper and more intelligent platform and catalogue of change. The Conservatives were quite content to rest upon Churchill’s name and ignore the organisation and deliverance of a viable alternative to the Labour programme.
Whilst Churchill harried the Labour government and began the rebuilding of the Conservative party to respond to public and peace-time pressure he began the personal memoirs of the great struggle and in the absence of anything else offered by the other leaders – Stalin, Roosevelt, Truman, or Hitler – Churchill was able to dictate on the best terms and in the most convincing language possible, his and Britannia’s exalted position in the struggle against evil. It was an incomparable success, ensuring that in times forward, historians would favourably compare the works of Thucydides and those of Churchill. Both men represented and recorded their times and events on an unparalleled scale.
What Churchill was able to offer the reader was a glimpse into the details of history’s most horrible man-made disaster. The wicked folly of the conflict was evident at the war’s end. Whole nations lay in ruins. Towns, cities, industrial plants and transportation facilities were erased. Food and life essentials were unavailable to great migratory populations. Cynicism and disillusionment in Europe and elsewhere bred the shift to the political left. Marxism replaced Fascism as an acceptable form of social order. Communism erupting from poverty, spread like an open wound across Asia and Europe. With the complete eradication of Nagasaki and Hiroshima the nuclear age dawned. Moral questionings loudly divided those in the West over the usage of weapons of such finality – especially against a prostrate Japan. Dropping two bombs three days apart on a nation that was in the process of trying to negotiate an exit from the war seemed to many morally reprehensible. It was an inauspicious beginning to the scientific era.
The United States and Russia emerged from the rubble of the war as opponents. Russia was mauled and mutilated by the war with over 20 million dead and whole sections of her country raped. The USA stood at war’s end possessing a massive ego and the greatest economic supremacy in history. The big two were joined by the little third – Great Britain – and the three during the war and after drove the discussions regarding the build up of the United Nations. Most vexing to the Allies in the construction of the United Nations Assembly was whether members were obliged to surrender part or all of their own independence to the new body in order to maintain peace. How would it be possible to invest such a supranational body with enough force to enforce decisions ? How would the large powers relate to the smaller in the decision making of such a forum ? At Moscow in 1943 the Big Three resolved many of these issues and in Washington in 1944, joined by China, hammered out the shape of the new international body. At the Yalta conference in 1945, the Big Three came to terms on the matter of securing for each of the major powers the right to veto decisions of the new international body. This allowed the creation of the UNO charter at San Francisco in April 1945 which clearly identified the principles and responsibilities of the new organisation. Fifty one founding nations signed the document and in September 1945 the UNO opened its headquarters in New York.
Comprising the UNO were principally the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. Most power resided in the Security Council which was given the task of maintaining the peace. Five permanent members sit in the council; the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, China and France and six other nations are elected for two year terms as non-permanent members. The permanent members retained veto power with all resolutions needing the consent of the five permanent nations before passing.
In contrast to the Security Council the UNO General Assembly was shaped by all the member states each wielding one nation one vote rights. International problems are to be solved in an open forum and mandates need to be passed by majority vote. This effectively gives the smaller nations more voice in international affairs. The Secretariat acting as the permanent secretary of the UNO concerned itself with internal operations with its Secretary General the highest profiled member of the UNO, exerting wide diplomatic powers emanating from the prestige of the office.
Thus the founding of the UNO was an expression of hope by the survivors of the Second World War. Quickly this vision was marred and jaded by political ineptitude and quivering resolve by the UNO in major affairs. There was little effective work during the Cold War that could be resoundingly accomplished. This war which was contested by two sides that viewed the other as monolithic or controlling inimical forces, could never have been settled via diplomatic channels. The mental straitjackets of both sides; with the Soviet Union believing that the capitalist West controlled by a few monied financiers who desired the destruction of communism and especially the Soviet Union and which would never grant the Russians fair credit in defeating Hitler; and the West believing that Russia controlled the communistic movement world-wide and that communism and especially Russia wanted to overthrow the better functioning liberal states, could only end with the breakdown of one of the combatants. The demise of Marxism gave spring to the hope of a liberal-democratic world.
The major events since 1945 can be summarised in a short list;
- The Collapse of Communism
- The Triumph of Capitalism
- The beginning of the High Tech Era
- The Decline of the USA and the re-emergence of Europe, Japan and China
- The Fragmentation of parts of the world into tribes
- Ecological dislocation
- Growing disparity between the have and have-not nations
- Emerging militant Islamism
- Questioning over the role of the UNO
The most momentous and important event however has been the spread of globalism. Economically, morally, and spiritually people are viewing themselves regardless of race, kin, geography or circumstance as belonging to the entire human race and not a limited defined tribe. Though tribalism in some areas of the world is taking hold even within these identified units a greater consciousness is emanating out to the rest of the globe that though distinct there resides a desire and need to be integrated into a global framework. Economics, peace and ecological salvation commonsensically dictate this. So do the various images from space capturing a small blue ball in the surroundings of space. Somehow this humbles even the largest of egos. So even as, in some parts of the world, balkanisation is shattering mature states, the pieces will still be forced to bond not only together but somehow they will need to align themselves to the greater puzzle that resides outside their narrow borders. It is only by collective effort that the solutioning of poverty, ecological rapine, and the stoppage of war can be peacefully effected.
Churchill died just after the Cuban missile crisis during a bitter period of Cold War strife, which almost pushed the world into a nuclear confrontation. Though he felt certain of liberal-democracy’s triumph he did not see the maturity of his concept. And though he sustained an undying faith in the ability of man to overcome his worst problems we can be sure that without using the leadership skills presented through his example we will have a very difficult time indeed.
C. Read
http://www.articlesbase.com/business-articles/churchills-during-world-war-ii-and-its-aftermath-700338.html
Amazing footage of World War II in color.
New World Order: Part 1
This is part one of a three part series on World War II using actual color film. If I can get the other two parts I’ll post them up. Enjoy.
Duration : 0:9:24
why do we fight? this short film outlines how wars are created and shows what may be instore for the future
Duration : 0:21:44
Posted in war history |
Tags: 911, blair, bush, conflict, fema, History, Hitler, War |
25 Comments »