In order to fully understand the rise of apartheid (Afrikaans: apartness) and its ensuing polices, it is necessary that the history of South Africa prior to 1948 first be comprehended. For many years this area, once known as the Boer Republic, had long been ruled by whites who had come from Europe. Up until 1899, this area was ruled by Afrikaans-speaking Dutch settlers. When the British Empire invaded in 1899, the Boer republic consisted of two independent states: the South African Republic, and the Orange Free State.

This Second Boer War, which lasted nearly three years, would end in a British victory. Both Boer republics were annexed by the British Empire and were subsequently incorporated into the Union of South Africa in 1910. In spite of the fact that they had once been enemies, Great Britain and the Union of South Africa became allies and joined forces against the German Empire in World War I. Former generals in the Boer War against Great Britain, Prime Minister Louis Botha and Defense Minister Jan Smuts, were now both members of the Imperial War Cabinet

Defense Minister Smuts was a member of the United Party. In 1948 his party was defeated by the Reunited National Party (RNP) headed by Protestant cleric Daniel Malan, who ran on a policy of apartheid. The RNP joined forces with the Afrikaner Party and later merged to form the National Party (NP). Malan became the prime minister, and thus was started the era of apartheid.

Apartheid legislation in reality was not anything new, as it was in fact based on former British laws that Great Britain had put into place after the Anglo-Boer war in an effort to keep the different races segregated. Using the British laws as a model, the NP leaders reasoned that South Africa was not a united nation, but rather four nations separated along racial lines. While some of their reasoning might seem strange to us today, they were in fact in line with most beliefs of the day that tended to not only look down on interactions between different races, but in many cases deemed them immoral, or even in certain situations illegal.

Although there were several sub-groups designated, the country was divided into four main racial groups: whites, blacks, Indians, and colored. The whites were either immigrants from or descendants of English and Afrikans speaking immigrants from Europe.

There were two types of apartheid laws instituted: grand apartheid and petty apartheid. Grand apartheid was the separation of peoples along racial lines. The grand apartheid laws separated the cities into small townships where people were moved to based on skin color. All interaction between the races was illegal. Petty apartheid laws were those dealing with everyday places such as beaches, clubs, restaurants, and the like.

An article on the website Stanford.edu states "that with the enactment of apartheid laws in 1948, racial discrimination was institutionalized. Race laws touched every aspect of social life, including a prohibition of marriage between non-whites and whites, and the sanctioning of “ white-only '' jobs. '' (History) The first law was the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act which made it a crime for people to marry outside their race.

The second such law was the Population Registration Act of 1950 which required people to carry an identification card indicating which racial group they belonged to.

In 1950 the Group Areas Act was passed. This apartheid law officially sanctioned the separation of the races into areas based solely on race. Forced removal was often implemented.

According to an article on the website africanhistory.about.com, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act 0f 1953 was "forced segregation in all public amenities, public buildings, and public transport with the aim of eliminating contact between whites and other races." Only "and" Non-Europeans Only "signs were put up. The act stated that facilities provided for different races need not be equal." (Boddy-Evans)

The Suppression of Communism Act of 1950 banned the South African Communist Party and any other party that subscribed to any form of Communism. The law was written in such a broad sense though, that any form of government that opposed apartheid could be banned regardless of whether it had anything to do with communism or not.

The Bantu Education Act of 1953 created a system of schools and universities that were tailored for individual races. With this type of educational system, it made it impossible for blacks to become anything other than common laborers.

While interracial contact in sport was frowned upon, there were no official laws separating the races in sports.

Other nations, by way of the United Nations (UN) began to show concern about the apartheid laws in 1946, but it was deemed that this was an internal affair better left to the care of South Africa. Finally, in 1960, after the Sharpeville Massacre, in which 69 protestors were killed by police, the UN agreed on a concerted action against apartheid. It was demanded that apartheid and racial segregation be eliminated in South Africa.

In 1962 the UN passed Resolution 1761 which formally condemned the South African policies. Resolution 181 was passed in 1963 calling for a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa. Apartheid became officially illegal and was classified as a crime against humanity, open to prosecution to any perpetrators. In 1977 Resolution 181 was changed from a voluntary to a mandatory arms embargo.

During the 1980s, many leaders tried to reform apartheid in an effort to quell several uprisings, but to no avail. It was determined that the only way to solve the problems in South Africa was to repeal the apartheid laws and in 1990 then President Frederik Willem de Klerk began negotiations to repeal them. Although all the apartheid laws were repealed in 1990, the recognized end of apartheid was not until 1994 when South Africa held its first non-

racial general elections which were won by the African National Congress under the leadership of Nelson Mandela, who only 4 years prior had been released from prison after serving 27 years of a life sentence for leading protests against apartheid.

In 1918, as the guns fell silent on the Western Front, Germany was in turmoil.

In November 1918, as the German Government was concluding the armistice with the allies, many in the German Army did not believe they were defeated. In contrast, whilst steadily retreating from advancing allied armies, many German units were still on Belgian and French soil.

In the face of growing unrest in Germany, the German High Command continued to run the war. Gradually returning home in the winter of 1918 and early 1919, the German army on its return to Germany, were shocked at seeing how much their families and communities were still suffering.

In the wake of the armistice, defeat and revolution broke up the German army. In particular, in garrisons where units had remained at their posts, 'Soldiers Councils' had usurped officers' authority. The military weakness showed coincided with revolutionary threats and new menaces on Germany's borders. The emerging countries of Poland and Czechoslovakia both wanted pieces of Greater Germany.

Threats, both internal and external, dangers of Communism emerging in Germany, provoked veterans to defend their nationalistic and patriotic sentiments.

The Freikorps movement was the brainchild of Kurt Von Schleicher. Known as the 'Black Reichswehr' or 'Black Army' this quasi-military force was outside the law of the Versailles Treaty. The failure of an army unit to suppress a demonstration made up of women and children, led Schleicher to conceive of a notion whereby Army units would crush 'red' uprisings. Schleicher suggested that the units be made up of former German Army units and commanded by former German Army officers. The reason for such an act would be that the 'Reichswehr' would avoid the stigma of firing on civilians and the government would be financially bankrolling these 'Free Corps'

The German government, which was in turmoil at the time, held the belief that arming these 'Free-Booters', would enable the government to control the units and render them harmless …

The first of the many 'Free-booter' or 'Free Corps' movements was raised in Kiel on Gustav Noske's orders, who at that point was Defense Minister. General Maercker who commanded the 214 Infantry Division raised the first classic model of a Para-military force on which all subsequent 'Free Corps' units would be based.

The historian KP Fischer noted:

"The backbone of the Free Corps Units consisted of declassed imperial officers who were frightened by the prospects of giving up their privileged positions in German society. to be hostile to the old military establishment "

Forming the 'Volunteer Provincial Rifle Corps' by December 1918, Maercker was ready to face the revolutionary threat from the left. Recruiting several thousand men in the space of a few weeks, including the difficulty of equipping them all, Maercker offered his services to the German government. The main contrast between the old army and this new zealous band of men was comradeship. Maercker not only emphasised 'community' within his men and bonded with his men, but the efficiency of his soldiers having mixed arms. Due to the kind of combat the Freikorps would see between 1918 and 1923, there was little point in maintain the armed bands of infantry, artillery and cavalry.

In the wake of news of Communism in Germany, Maercker's example was followed to the letter. In December 1918, Freikorps units such as Freikorps Potsdam, Freikorps Reinhard and the Deutsche Schutz Division were formed in and around Berlin to face the 'terror' of the left. These military units along with Maercker's Corps and the infamous Eiserne Brigade would be the forces Gustav Noske would use in the battle for Berlin.

The Northern Expedition which raged across central and Northern China from 1926 to 1928, was a monumental military campaign to unify China under the Kuomintang and bring an end to the ‘Warlord Era’ which had dominated China since 1912.

The Expedition ultimately led to the demise of the Beiyang Government and the Chinese Reunification of 1928.

The origins of the Northern Expedition began in 1925. In 1925, the May 30th Movement announced plans to strike and protest against Western Imperialism and its Warlord agents in China. During these tumultuous early years, the alliance between the Kuomintang (Nationalists) and the communists was questioned after the Zhongshan Warship Incident. The incident left Chiang Kai -Shek as supreme leader of the Nationalists. Further to this, Chiang doubted the nationalists’ alliance with the Soviet Union and the Communists; he still needed aid from Soviet Russia. To this end, the Nationalists did not break the alliance at this time.

The sheer political and military power of central and Northern China since 1912 had been the Warlords. The initial targets of the Nationalists were Zhang Zuolin who governed Manchuria, Wu Peifu ‘The Jade Marshal’ in central China and Sun Chuanfang in Eastern China.

Advised by the Japanese, White Russians and Westerners, the Head Quarters of the Expedition decided on the strategy of defeating the Warlords one-by-one.

In July 1926, Chiang proclaimed the National Revolutionary Army’s strategy to the 100,000 men which made up the Nationalist Army. The NRA were far better trained, equipped and motivated than warlord Armies. Furthermore, the NRA was seen as a liberating and progressive force by ordinary people who had been persecuted by varying Warlord factions. This factor, combined with the training and motivation leaves little wonder as to how and why the NRA marched from the Zhu River to the Yangtze River in less than six months, swelling its ranks from 100,000 to 250,000.

In the wake of the annihilation of the Zhili Clique, the Nationalists decided to purge the Kuomintang of all communists. In Shanghai, thousands of Communists were executed whilst others were arrested and imprisoned.

The purge in Shanghai inevitably caused further disarray in the politically violent period. The Kuomintang split between left and right, and those on the left, led by Wang Jingwei, condemned Chiang’s purges. Chiang established his own capital at Nanjing, and throughout the summer of 1927, the Nationalist Party and its military forces were in disarray.

The disarray of the Nationalists in turn gave the Warlords the opportunity to rebuild their forces and engage the weakened Nationalists. The initial plan between the loose Warlord alliances was to position their combined army of 100,000 men around the lower Yangtze, drive the Nationalists south and pursue them further south into the province of Guangzhou.

Opposing the Warlord armies were three Kuomintang armies, often referred to as ‘Route Armies’. The first was north of Nanking, the second to the west of the first army and the third positioned in the south.

The Nationalists could afford to muster the equivalent number of men, but it was very divided by political and leadership tensions. Importantly, it was the element of surprise that gave the Warlords the advantage of attack, as an offensive by the warlords was not expected Chiang or any of his commanders.

On the 24th of July, the Warlord Offensive began

Sun Chuanfang’s force which included Xu Kun’s forces tore through the surprised Nationalist forces. This resulted in the loss of Xuzhou in the Jiansu Province, north of Nanking. In turn, the second army stationed in the area, was forced to withdraw using the Long-Hai railway as an escape route. The other Nationalist forces began to retreat south towards the Yangtze as the Warlord juggernaut swept aside any opposition.

Chiang, learning of the offensive, was astonished to hear that Xuzhou had fallen to the Warlords. Sacking the army’s commander, Chiang ordered Xuzhou to be retaken. Attacking with his forces in that August, Chiang was defeated at a terrible cost. Following the defeat, Chiang resigned on the 6th August as head of the Nanking Government.

Following Chiang’s resignation, this left Li Zongren as de facto leader of the Nationalist Government. Initially setting out to negotiate with the Warlord Faction, the talks broke down when one Warlord, supported by Wuhan dissenters attacked the warship on which the negotiations were taking place.

Despite this, the talks had succeeded in getting Wuhan to cooperate with the Nationalists. Wang Jingwei at the end of the talks ordered the purging of all communists with Wuhan. This resulted in a military coup by the communists in Nanchang, leaving over 8,000 Nationalists dead.

In late August, the Warlord Army, now close to the Yangtze, launched an all-out attack on the Nationalist Forces. The First Route Army was badly mauled whilst defending the city of Longtan which was vital to the supply of Nanking via Shanghai. The mountain of Wulongshan became another Verdun as Nationalist forces held out far longer than expected. Knowing the strategic importance of Longtan, Nationalist reinforcements entered the fray and pushed back Warlord contingents. On the 30th August, the whole Second Route Army attacked Longtan, and by the late afternoon had recaptured the city. The Warlord armies suffering heavy losses, fled back across the Yangtze River.

The period following the retaking of Longtan saw the Nationalists regroup and reorganise, once more under the command of Chiang Kai- Shek. The Wuhan Government, bowing to pressure, reconciled their position with the Nationalists and merged with the Nationalist Government.

On December 12th, the Nationalist forces, after re-capturing most of the territory lost that summer, captured Xuzhou.

The re-organisation of the Nationalists was the death blow to the Warlord Armies. Sweeping across the remains of Sun Chuanfang’s and Xu Kun’s Zhili Clique forces, the Nationalists reached the yellow river by mid-April 1928.

In this period, Yan Xishan declared his intentions of capturing Beijing. Knowing it was best to evacuate, Zhang retreated north and was subsequently assassinated by Japanese conspirators.

In looking at the outcome of the Northern Expedition, today, it is viewed positively as it ended a period wracked by civil war and started a period of effective government. Despite this, the expedition did not fully resolve the issue of the warlords, as many still had large armies that served their needs, not those of China.

The Communists at the time, criticized Stalin for relying on the ‘bourgeois’ figures of the Nationalists who had betrayed the peasant workers.

It is important to note that out of all the varying factions, the only one which was destroyed was the Zhili Clique. A large number of Warlords and varying factions remained and in some cases grew due to their alliance with the Nationalists. The Warlord factions that worked for the Nationalists merely wore Nationalist uniforms and verbally shouted the party doctrine.

The main struggles between the Nationalists and the Warlord factions would claim more lives during the following decade. This in turn would prove to be a problem for the Kuomintang during World War 2 and the Civil War.

Overall, Chiang gained the most from the campaign. Making the military superior to the party leadership, which enabled Chiang to become dictator.

Jawaharlal Nehru is a prominent face in India’s freedom struggle. He was born on November 14, 1889 in a wealthy Brahmin family in Allahabad. Nehru imbibed patriotism and love for nation from his father Motilal Nehru who himself was a known and influential politician who also served once as a president of the Indian National Congress.

Jawaharlal Nehru was well educated and a scholar. His charm, spiritual discovery, and vision significantly contributed to the Indian independence movement. He was appointed the first Prime Minister of Free India who took the complete responsibility of building the nation. Being the member of the Congress party he has done many monumental work and is also known to be steer the newly freed-nation.

In the year 1916 Nehru actively participated in the Lucknow Session of the Congress where both the extremists and the moderate parties of the Congress agreed to the need and demand of ‘self-rule’ or ‘swaraj’. Later on, after many movements and sessions, Motilal Nehru launched the ‘Swaraj Party’ in the year 1922. Though Motilala moved from the Congress to the Swaraj party, Jawaharlal Nehru refused to leave the Congress party.

In due course there Jawaharlal Nehru was also imprisoned for his active participation in the civil disobedience campaign. During the time he was in jail Nehru was deeply touched by the beliefs of Gandhi that showed a completely new approach to deal with the system of caste differentiation and the social issue of untouchability.

In the year 1926, Nehru left for a European tour with his family. There he came across many different types of people including the socialists, communists, and even radical leaders. There he was impressed by the economic system that he wished to get it to his own country. After returning Nehru was appointed as the president of the Congress in 1930 with the only aim to subside the high intensity of communism in the Congress.

After many socialist activities, violations, and civil movements, India was announced to be a free country. The British Empire was overthrown by the congress on August 15, 1947 after about 15 years of Guwahati session. After this independence, Jawaharlal Nehru was appointed as the first Prime Minister of India.

As the Prime Minister, Nehru has made many contributions to build a happy and better nation. One by one he tried to sort out all the social and political issues in the country. In the year 1949 he visited the United States in search of a perfect solution to the existing food shortage in the country. In the year 1951, he also launched the ‘First Five-Year Plan’ mainly to emphasize the agriculture output in the country.

Working and contributing significantly to build the nation, Jawaharlal Nehru fought till his last breath. On 27 May 1964, he died but left his footprints on the niche of our motherland.

Colonialism would better explain the foundation of the present Chinese language policy. The system was established to attain specific goals that comprised improved national unity, economy development, and lowered levels of illiteracy.

Notably, before the twentieth century, the Chinese governments did not realize the language challenges which were a source of economy deterioration to China Later in 1949 the communist government promoted the linguistic policies which supported only báihuà as the common language. Also, the Putonghua language was curtailed the same time. In the mid-1950s, minor actions were done to reform the language. In October 1955, the National Script reform Congress discussed on the modifications simplification of the ancient logographic script and the ways to boost national language studies. The common language was described as Putonghua.

In 1956, the Chinese state ordered the teaching of the Mandarin Chinese in learning institutions. In fact, it gave clear illustrations of how to this would be effectively implemented. Such effort did not succeed as it stopped during the inception of the Cultural Revolution. The variation of the writing system was the primary concern of the Committee on Script Reform where the initial step occurred in 1956 that ensured publication of 515 characters. It needed either simplification alphabetization, or latinization.

According to DeFrancis, language policy in China has been identified by status, corpus and acquisition planning dimensions. Notably, the status plan describes the strategies that allocate the functions of the language for a community speech. On the other hand, corpus planning deals with the availability of the literacies forms while acquisition planning illustrates the creation of opportunities and incentives for learners to obtain new languages. The situation offers an appropriate interaction between the Chinese and foreign countries effectively.

Significantly, Liu illustrates that the interest to use of different language arose from bullies in the 19th century by the Western people. Therefore, the government started advocating the importance of learning and understanding distinct languages despite the fact that there was resistance to the change. In fact, the conservationists thought that it would result in the dilution of their culture. The Chinese government enhanced adequate resources to boost foreign language knowledge where the Chinese accessed modern innovations necessary to sustain their territories. The reformists followed the western cultures and conservationists wanted to maintain their values and language.

Indeed, the social, political and distinct ideologies contexts have an impact on the existing multi-language cultures in China. The language ideologies have contributed significantly to the language policy with prioritization being made on the languages to select. The circumstance benefits China’s economy enormously. The Chinese national policy promotes both the regional and cultural sovereignty, and everyone has the right to use the preferred language

The Foreign Language Education Planning (FLEP) has been a victim of political hustle involving economic reforms in China for more than six decades. The process started in 1949 when Western imperial powers bullied Qing’s government. The government decided to embrace modern diplomacy in order to enhance interactions with more foreign nations. The idea to open up to the world was important but threatened the culture of the Chinese people. A proposal by Zhang Zhidong, a reformist, insisted on Chinese education for values and Western learning for practical uses

According to Liu, (2015) FLEP has gone through politicized era (1949-1976) characterized by political turmoil that influenced the choices made. FLEP wanted to enhance communism in the nation to prevent loss of the Chinese language. FLEP was criticized for changes in the curriculum and qualified teaching forces. That led to the expansion of Russian languages that had strong systems of teaching.

Wushu is the official martial art taught in the People’s Republic of China. Wu Shu (“War Arts”) is practiced by millions in China, and is included as part of the training for all police and military personnel. Though it is a form of Kung Fu which has been taught in China for centuries it is a rigid system, and has no attachment to any of the mystical beliefs of the past. The government is more concern with physical aspects of the martial art and spiritual beliefs been replaced with propaganda, and political training which take up much of the student’s training time. When a student is not taking part in political training they will take part in group and partner exercises as well as weapons practice.

Contemporary Wushu was created in 1949 as part of the communist government’s attempt to create a national sport, and though the people were more than happy with the styles of martial arts they had already. All previous forms of Kung Fu were outlawed and even the Shaolin monks were greatly restricted. In recent years the government has tried to take the politics out of sports, but with limited success because of how repressive the government is in general. Still tournaments have been running since the early 1990’s, and the sport is practiced outside of China. The two Wushu forms that are practiced are Taulo and Sanda, but neither is suited for self defense.

The hand movements are called Ba Ji, tumbling moves are Di Tang, and Tung Bi is full arm movements. The animal katas are called Xing Yi. The weapon katas for Wushu includes a large number of different types of swords, the nine-section whip, three section staffs, spears, and other ancient Chinese weapons. The central Committee of National Physical Culture must accredited all students and teachers who must embody the ideals of communism. At first glance Wushu looks impressive with a large number of moves and a large selection of weapons in its arsenal to choose from in battle. The art would seem to be a good choice to study until closer examination. For all its flash this form of Kung Fu lacks substance and won’t stand up in real world conditions.

Taulo is considered to be a form of Kung Fu, but isn’t at all like any of the effective martial arts forms of the past and is like gymnastics. It is a point based systems where points are given out based on performances that can last from two to twenty minutes, and there is no contact. While traditional weapons like swords, butterfly knives, and staffs are used they’re light weight versions and they and the routines are useless in combat. The programs are broken up into barehanded, short weapons, and long weapons portions, but include jumps, flips and other impressive routines. This style of Kung Fu is completely useless when it comes to self defense, but is a good form of entertainment.

Sanshou or Sanda the Chinese combat sport based off of Chinese boxing, wrestling, and kickboxing. Originally, the military used it as a way to test martial arts, but it developed into a competition sport in the early part of the twentieth century. Sanda draws from Lei tai martial arts matches where competitors fought barehanded or with weapons on a high platform. Fights would continue until death, injury, or one of the competitors was thrown off the platform.

In Sanda today a competitor can still win a match by throwing their opponent out of the ring. Striking and grappling are allowed, and it is much more aggressive than Wushu which it is often paired with in tournaments in China. The military has their own version of Sanda, but the sport version restricts a number of moves including elbow strikes, chokes, and joint locks. When competing internationally Sanda practitioners have fought in many style-versus-style competitions against Muay Thai, Karate, and Tae Kwon Do fighters.

Unlike the Japanese art of Jujutsu which is pragmatic Wushu is more about looking good while you perform the art. A typical student will do many impressive leaps, back flips, and strikes, but while doing so leaving themselves open to attacks, because the art lacks any real defense. In dealing with an armed attacker a Wushu student will be unprepared unless they’re carrying a weapon themselves (it isn’t very practical to carry a Chinese broadsword or spear with you on your morning commute).

If a student of combatives and hand to hand self defense was to encounter a Wushu student the combatives student may take a few initial hits, but would quickly close with the Wushu student, and would throw or grapple them and take control of the fight. If the Wushu student was armed with any of their traditional weapons they would find themselves disarmed with their weapon in the hands of the fighter who used practical self defense techniques. In the end Wushu is a performance art, and at best a combat martial art that would only get you in trouble in a street fight. The art even has its critics among modern practitioners of Kung Fu who say the government has stripped all tradition and practically from the art.

This form of Kung Fu is a sport and shouldn’t be relied on for self defense. It should also be noted that Colonel Fairbairn who fought in 600 non-training fights during his time as a police officer in Shanghai China made an extensive study of many Chinese martial arts including Kung Fu didn’t incorporate them in his many books on fighting and self defense. Fairbairn would base his many books on his experiences, and what he learned at the Kodokan while earning his black belt in Judo. The lesson is winning the fight is more important then looking good and losing the fight.

To most people twentieth century Yugoslavia was essentially a multi-ethnic dream that ended tragically in the 1990s in a virulent civil war, largely concentrated on but not confined to Bosnia.

Therefore you may ask why I took up this book by Fred Singleton written in the mid 1970s when Tito was still alive. Well the answer is simply I wanted to investigate the circumstances which led to the first major armed conflict in Europe since the end of the Second World War and more specifically the lessons in it for other multi-ethnic states like mine. For of one thing we can be sure and that is that the Yugoslav civil war was not one of a kind and would not be the last in the break-up of multi-ethnic states. What is significant about Yugoslavia is that the southern Slavs were united for as long as they were, through much of the twentieth century into a single entity, first as a kingdom and subsequently as a republic.

Background to Conflict

Why then did things develop as they did? Was Tito the central figure who held everything together? These are the obvious questions that strike us on any consideration of the Yugoslav issue. To answer the second question first it would be worthwhile reading the latest book on the issue by Robert West, 'Tito and the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia.' I haven't as yet but do intend to. However certain obvious things occur to us even before reading that book and that is that Yugoslavia existed though in a different form even prior to Tito's arrival on the scene. Secondly Tito didn't preside over a typical communist state under the stewardship of the LYC For example private enterprise and tourism were allowed to flourish at a time when they were heresy to the Communist world. However the failure to evolve into a multi-party system provided the coup de grace to Yugoslavia. Tito might be considered a mild dictator in that regard. He however did enable a country with modest resources to punch above its weight in global affairs. However he also showed Yugoslavia was able to diversify its options when Cominform turned its back on the country. The remarkable aspect of this independence was that it did not result in a Soviet invasion as occurred in Czechoslovakia or Hungary. This must be attributed entirely to Tito's leadership.

Yugoslavia and the Soviet Collapse

Many are tempted to view the Yugoslav civil war from the prism of the Soviet collapse but in my view there are limitations to such a perspective. For example Yugoslavia wasn't a typical communist state as mentioned earlier. However the de-legitimization of the LYC ideology, of what was a one-party state proved fatal. Also it was by this time over a decade since the death of Tito in 1980.Undoubtedly the hand of Tito would have been a steadying factor in steering the country through a tricky period but this was not to be. A favorite Western assumption is that the rise of ethnic nationalists such as Milosevich contributed to the civil war. However this ignores the fact that ethnic loyalties were always paramount in Yugoslavia and had even caused Tito to warn of a potential collapse of the federation according to Fred Singleton. Similarly the cleavage between Roman Catholicism of Croatia and Eastern Orthodoxy of Serbia proved too combustible because it reflected fundamentally different cultural traditions.

Conclusions for the future

Yugoslavia undoubtedly started out well but the failure to develop institutions and foster democratization ultimately proved fatal. Economic liberalization alone wasn't enough. Similarly geography also proved hostile as the mountainous terrain of the country impeded the development of national infrastructure that might have welded the country into a cohesive entity. As far as Fred Singleton's comprehensive work on the subject is concerned the book's biggest lacunae is of course that it came out too soon, before the twentieth century was truly over. One wishes he had waited for the 1990s to finish and introduced a chapter on the civil war.

From a contemporary perspective the chapters on nationalism and geography are of topical interest. While the ex-Yugoslavs might not contemplate a revival of their dead country they would do well to facilitate cooperation among themselves through multilateral frameworks for the sum is always greater than the parts and this is nowhere more evident than in the Balkans today

This year (circa 2011) marks the 100th birthday of IBM and over these 100 years, when IBM was successful, the company said very little.

When things are going well, a company does not need the hype. When you need the hype, it usually means you are in trouble.

Young and inexperienced reporters and editors tend to be more impressed by what they read in other publications than by what they gather themselves. Once the hype starts, it often continues on and on.

No newspaper has received more hype than USA Today. At its launch a number of years ago were the president of the United States, the speaker of the House of Representatives, and the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. The residue of this initial hype is still so great that most people can not believe USA Today is a loser.

History is filled with marketing failures that were successful in the press. The Tucker 48, the U.S. Football League, the personal helicopter, and polyester suits. The essence of the hype was not just that the new product was going to be successful. The essence of the hype was that existing products would now be obsolete.

Polyester was going to make wool obsolete. The personal helicopter was going to make the roads and highways obsolete. The Tucker 48 with its cyclop’s eye headlight would revolutionize the way Detroit makes automobiles however only 51 were ever built.

These predictions violate the law of unpredictability. No one can predict the future, not even a sophisticated reporter for the Wall Street Journal. The only revolutions you can predict are the ones that have already started.

Did anyone predict the overthrow of communism and the Soviet Union? Not really. It was only after the process had started that the press jumped on the “crumbling communist empire” story.

Forget the front page. If you are looking for clues to the future, look in the back of the paper for those innocuous little stories.

Over the years, the greatest hype has been for those developments that promise to single-handedly change an entire industry, preferably one that is vital to the American economy.

Remember the helicopter hype after World War II? They hype was that every garage would house a helicopter, making roads, bridges, and the entire automobile industry obsolete overnight. Did Donald Trump get a helicopter? Did you get yours? The Donald actually did get his.

From time to time, no-frills food makes the headlines. It is reported that this development will revolutionize the packaged-goods industry. Brands are out. People will read the labels and buy products on their merits rather than on the size of the brand’s advertising budget. It is all hype.

But for the most part, hype is hype. Real revolutions do not arrive at high noon with marching bands and coverage on the 6 pm news. Real revolutions arrive unannounced in the middle of the night and kind of sneak up on you.

It takes a while but many Internet Marketing entrepreneurs learn the Law of Hype. They learn to identify their target market with keyword research and keyword research tools as they know they can not guess what the market desires and it is difficult to benefit from all the hype.

It looks easy but marketing is not a game for amateurs. Marketing is not a battle of products. It is all about the strategy you use to benefit from the Law of Hype as it is often the opposite of the way it appears in the press.

Finally, a great book to read is “The 22 Immutable Laws of Marketing” by Ries & Trout.

As we see the changing of the guard of the Worlds greatest civilizations from the United States to China or India we see history repeating itself as it has so many times in the human endeavors written history. It was not much more than 200 years ago when Great Britain was the greatest nation in the World. They kept the Great in their name but the United States clearly carried the choice after that. Next it appears due to our own follies and lake of forward progression we will be passing the torch again and in doing so taking our place as a footnote on the page in the annals of mankind’s history.

As we pass are on the apex of the hand off, which is clearly a choice having drown our nation in bureaucracy, over regulation and disdain for change, innovation or progress; we see a difference in cultures which is vast indeed. It is obvious that Western Culture has its advantages, whether we take advantage of them or not. It is equally as obvious for anyone who studies culture that Eastern Culture has its own advantages. Some of these advantages are in conflict, while much is similar. Which is better?

Should we assume that since Eastern Culture is next up to bat with the bases loaded that Eastern lifestyle is more fulfilling than the Western Lifestyle? We know from our own short 200-year history in the United States that western worlds; capitalism and western culture lifts people up, who put in. We have seen in recent history how Socialism and Communism have tended to push people down and over run civilizations in debt and inefficiency. Yet all in all most of human history and the government structures they have chosen share many things. All these scenarios and all the hybrids of each or all, seem to involve people who are of the ruling class who are motivated by those things humans are motivated by, similarly to those they rule, who are equally motivated by such things.

So when we ask which is better; one government structure or one culture over another, it appears that one could indeed argue both sides of the point or be right no matter which side they argue. And indeed in such abstract thought it seems we are all of the same genes and all one in that regard. The only difference between you neighbor in the United States and one of Asian Ancestry is probably not more than 3000-4000 years and certainly not more than 10,000 to 15,000. We all have similar needs to fulfill self and although have been pre-conditioned to believe one culture is better than the other is more nurture than nature isn’t it? Have you thought here yet? You might next time someone says it is us against them, as that is more similar to punching yourself in the eye really? We all belong to a fairly successful species which has come quite a ways and whose future is very bright if we will dump these egocentric attitude and that goes for both sides.

In the movie about World War II a Japanese Political Prisoner in the United States was asked; “Who do you want to win the war?” In the movie his answer showed much wisdom as he said; ” If your mother and father are fighting, do you want one to kill the other or do you just want them to stop fighting?” Well with that said and if you are a God fearing individual what do you think your God might say about this? Do you really believe that a God believes that these questions of which culture is better; Eastern or Western Culture are relevant? When Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western Culture, he said; “I think it would be a good idea.” You know so do I, I wish we would live as we promise ourselves rather than in hypocrisy, how about you?

Additionally had it not been for our long and strong history of capitalists, we in the Western World would have never achieved this level of civilization, yet we condemn those who got us here and those that follow in their footsteps. How many times have you heard that Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ? That is ridiculous and he and Melinda have given more to the World than anyone else in the history of humankind and what do we do as a society? Call him the anti-Christ and tell the government to attack his company, which is providing the communication to the world and opening up the world for cross-culture knowledge and commerce? So if Western Culture is better, why do we attack it?

We should not necessarily equate Red China to communism or place a label like Imperialism as we did to the Japanese in the Second World War, but we should understand that as we live in hypocrisy in our civilization often those running other civilizations do the same. History shows many different styles of societies, but in critic of Western Civilization for Eastern Culture, we might wish to define which one. The Chinese Dynasties of days gone by, the more recent hard line Red China of three decades ago or the newest hybrid culture which is slowly emerging, which when finished will much resemble a larger and even more stable version of South Korea?

Currently I guess if I were a Chinese Peasant and the government was testing out N5H1 Bird Flu vaccine for a possible use for bio-warfare in my South Western Province, I do not think I would be a great supporter of Eastern Culture over Western? I think if this was the case that I would rather have my family to be making Nike Shoes today and driving a Chevrolet and wearing Levis tomorrow. This is an interesting point on debate of which is better; Eastern or Western Culture, but the question in itself is wrong as we are comparing apples and oranges aren’t we. Some say that the Ugly Western Culture Capitalists in their pursuit of Globalism are causing other nations to remain impoverished. Is Globalism really bad, or is it getting a bad rap? And does it really matter which is better Eastern or Western Culture as we do not even respect all we have in the United States and in our haste to point out worse problems in the world, we have taken our eye off the ball and China and/or India is ready to hit a grand slam home run, clean out of the park. So it really doesn’t matter which you think is better; click here:

Learn Chinese while you drive, sure beats road rage, yelling at fellow citizens, may as well start today:

It would be wise to re-evaluate our nation, what we really stand for and move to fix those things which are not perfect now, before we allow it to all slip away embroiled in controversy, politics and chaos as we divide ourselves. Think about it.

Considered as one of the darkest period in human history, the Holocaust appears in every history book. It was a period where millions of people was persecuted. Until this day, the horrors of the Nazi communism are still widely remembered all over the world.

The Nazi government passed much law during their reign of terror, and these laws are the “Law for Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases.” This law was instituted on July 14, 1933 and is considered one the Nazi regime’s ploy to create a “master race.” In order to bring this dream to reality, the Nazi government called for the sterilization of all of people who suffered any form of hereditary disease. Some of the diseases that they consider hereditary are deafness, blindness, epilepsy, learning and physical disabilities as well as physical deformities. Severe alcoholism was also considered hereditary.

As soon as the said law passed, the Third Reich further improved their propaganda against disabled people. They called them cruel names and labeled them “useless eaters.” The Nazi government also promoted that people with disabilities were burdens to the society and had nothing to contribute to mankind going forward.

Children of all ages and adults with disabilities killed. During this same period, doctors and midwives were required by the Interior Ministry to report all cases of newborns having hereditary diseases.

The Nazi Government and Operation T4

The persecution of innocent people still escalated several years later. In the year 1939, Operation T4 was administered by the ruthless Adolf Hitler. The program’s name was in reference to the program’s headquarters located in Berlin known as Tiergartenstrasse 4. It was a medically managed program of so-called “mercy killing.” Adults and Children of all ages with disabilities were mercilessly killed. Also in the same year, doctors and midwives were required by the Interior Ministry to report all cases of newborns having hereditary diseases.

Children under the age of three suffering from any form of disability such as cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus and Down syndrome were all persecuted under Operation T4. The Nazi government came up with a panel of medical experts to carry out and approve euthanization of each child. The Panels role was to prove each euthanized person suffered from a hereditary disease. The standard of proof was not high and not questioned.

A lot of parents was unaware of what happened to their children who gone missing. Parents were told by the government they were giving their children special treatment. Many people were experimented on and subjected to unimaginable acts in the name of science. As time went by, the Nazis would tell the parents that their children had passed away of pneumonia and as to stop the spread of the disease were cremated.

Death Toll

Under Operation T4, 70,000 German and Austrian people with disabilities were euthanized between 1940 and 1941. Most of them were killed using poison gas by the Nazis. It is said that nearly a quarter of a million people were mercilessly killed during this dark era. That is something that the world is trying to forget to date.