<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>History Wars  Weapons &#187; History</title>
	<atom:link href="http://historywarsweapons.com/category/history/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://historywarsweapons.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:41:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Political Situation in Europe on the Eve of the French Revolution</title>
		<link>http://historywarsweapons.com/political-situation-in-europe-on-the-eve-of-the-french-revolution/</link>
		<comments>http://historywarsweapons.com/political-situation-in-europe-on-the-eve-of-the-french-revolution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:02:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historywarsweapons.com/?p=6670</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the eve of the French Revolution the political situation in Europe was remarkably simple. The Continent was dominated by five great powers: Britain, France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. Their neighbors &#8211; Spain, Sweden, and Turkey &#8211; had all once enjoyed periods of economic, military, or naval greatness, but by the end of the 18th [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3" face="Verdana" color="#333333">On the eve of the French Revolution the political situation in Europe was remarkably simple. The Continent was dominated by five great powers: Britain, France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. Their neighbors &#8211; Spain, Sweden, and Turkey &#8211; had all once enjoyed periods of economic, military, or naval greatness, but by the end of the 18th century had slipped into the ranks of the lesser powers. Most of western Germany remained fragmented into hundreds of minor principalities, ecclesiastical cities, and minor states contained within the Holy Roman Empire. Italy, similarly, contained a number of small kingdoms, some independent and others controlled by Austria. Europe was overwhelmingly agrarian and feudal, particularly in the east, with monarchs ruling absolutely within their domains. Britain was a somewhat different case: though the vast majority of her people were disenfranchised, the monarchy ruled under constitutional constraints. The nation&#8217;s prosperity was based not on agriculture but on trade. The process of industrialization, though still in its infancy, was well under way.</p>
<p>A generation before the French Revolution, Prussia, under the ruling house of Hohenzollern, had established herself as Europe&#8217;s newest great power, having won a series of costly and exhausting wars in which she had taken on and defeated practically every major state on the Continent. Frederick the Great had inherited from his father, Frederick William (1713-40), a highly militarized, extremely efficient state where the landed aristocracy and king enjoyed a close relationship. The aristocracy were freeholders of their land and, in effect, over their peasants as well. In return, the crown taxed the nation heavily in order to maintain a standing army proportionally much larger than that of any other European state. Frederick used that army aggressively: he invaded Austrian Silesia in 1740, and thus began the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-48). This was followed by the Seven Years&#8217; War (1756-63) (see Osprey Essential Histories,The Seven Years&#8217; War, by Daniel Marston) in which Prussia used her formidable army for the glory of the nation and to consolidate her territorial gains, generally at the expense of Austria. During the Seven Years&#8217; War Frederick fought the greatest coalition ever seen in Europe &#8211; Austria, France, Russia, Sweden, and most of the German states of the Holy Roman Empire &#8211; and survived intact. It was the hard-fought bloody encounters of this war that confirmed for Prussia her place among the Great Powers.</p>
<p>The Russian Empire covered a vast stretch of territory containing at the turn of the century about 48 million subjects, over half of whom were serfs tied to the land. The autocratic Romanov dynasty had ruled since the early 17th century. Russia&#8217;s military reputation had been won under Peter the Great, who had defeated the Swedes in the Great Northern War (1700-21). Although Russia had briefly fought Prussia in the later years of the Seven Years&#8217; War, her territorial gains were made at Polish and Turkish expense during the reign of Catherine the Great (1762-96), particularly during the First Partition of Poland in 1772 and in the annexation of the Crimea, an Ottoman possession, in 1783. Russia fought simultaneous conflicts with Sweden (1788-90) and, in alliance with Austria, Turkey (1787-92). She was ultimately successful in both of these conflicts. When the French Revolutionary Wars began, Catherine the Great remained neutral and she died four years later in 1796 without having challenged the Revolution. That task was left to her son and successor, Paul I, who would finally face France during the War of the Second Coalition (1798-1802). Paul was known for his mental instability and obsession with military matters and was assassinated in 1801.</p>
<p>George III, who had presided over the somewhat different and more constitutional monarchy of Britain since 1760, proved to be one of the French Revolution&#8217;s most implacable opponents. Political power rested with Parliament and the Prime Minister. William Pitt the Younger had attained office in 1783 with a loyal following in the House of Commons and the support of the crown. Though small by continental standards &#8211; with a population of fewer than 10 million &#8211; Britain was the world&#8217;s most prosperous nation. Her wealth was based on thriving trade with Europe and her exclusive access to a vast empire which, in addition to Canada and, above all, India, included newly acquired territories in Australia and many of the bountiful &quot;sugar islands&quot; of the West Indies. As international trade was the basis of the rapidly increasing national wealth, the protection of trade was paramount. Britain&#8217;s unrivaled merchant fleet, which exceeded 10,000 vessels, could confidently rely on the power of the Royal Navy for its protection. Although agriculture was still important &#8211; accounting for one-third of the national product &#8211; Britain was the birthplace of the recent phenomenon of industrialization, and its growing manufacturing capacity played a major role in stimulating a booming economy. Britain and France were long-standing enemies, having fought one another regularly over the past century and on opposite sides in nearly every conflict in which the two countries were engaged since the Middle Ages.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://historywarsweapons.com/political-situation-in-europe-on-the-eve-of-the-french-revolution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Convicts and Settlement of Australia</title>
		<link>http://historywarsweapons.com/convicts-and-settlement-of-australia/</link>
		<comments>http://historywarsweapons.com/convicts-and-settlement-of-australia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:42:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historywarsweapons.com/?p=6489</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The settlement of Australia began with the establishment of a convicts colony at the end of the 18th century. Following the American Revolution, Britain was no longer able to transport convicts to North America. With jails and prison hulks already overcrowded, it was essential that an alternative be found quickly. In 1779, Joseph Banks suggested [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3" face="Verdana" color="#333333">The <strong>settlement of Australia</strong> began with the establishment of a <strong>convicts</strong> colony at the end of the 18th century. Following the American Revolution, Britain was no longer able to transport convicts to North America. With jails and prison hulks already overcrowded, it was essential that an alternative be found quickly. In 1779, Joseph Banks suggested New South Wales, Australia, as a fine site for a colony of convicts and in 1786 Lord Sydney, as Home Secretary in the Pitt Government, announced that the king had decided upon Botany Bay as a place for convicts under sentence of transportation. Less than two years later, in January 1788, the First Fleet sailed into Botany Bay, under the command of Captain Arthur Philip, who was to be the colony&#8217;s first governor. Philip was immediately disappointed with the landscape and sent a small boat north to find a more suitable landfall; the crew soon returned with the news that in Port Jackson they had found the finest harbor in the world and a good sheltered cove, which was called Sydney Cove. This first fleet was composed of 11 ships carrying about 750 males and female convicts, 400 sailors, 4 companies of marines, and enough livestock and supplies for two years.</p>
<p>The Second Fleet arrived in 1790 with more convicts and some supplies, and a year later, following the landing of the Third Fleet, the population increased to about 4300 convicts and military personnel. As crops began to yield, New South Wales became less dependent of Britain for food. There were still, however, huge social gulfs in the fledgeling colony: officers and their families were in control, clinging to a civilized British upper class lifestyle; soldiers, free settlers, and even emancipated convicts were beginning to eke out a living; nevertheless, the majority of the population were still in chains, regarded as the dregs of humanity and living in squalid conditions.</p>
<p>Little of the country was explored during the first years and few people ventured further than Sydney Cove. Philip believed New South Wales would not progress if the colony continued to rely soley on the labor of convicts, who were already busy constructing government roads and buildings. He believed that prosperity depended on attracting free settlers, to whom convicts could be assigned as laborers and on the granting of land to officers, soldiers, and worthy emancipated convicts. This began to happen when Philip returned to England, and his second in command, Grose, took over. Grose tipped the balance of power further in favor of the military by granting land to officers of the New South Wales Corps. With money, land, and cheap labor suddenly at their disposal, the so-called Rum Corps became exploitative, making huge profits at the expense of the small farmers; they began to pay for labor and local products in rum, and were soon able to buy whole shiploads of goods and resell them at two or three times their original value. New South Wales was becoming an important port on trade routes as whaling and sealing were increasing.</p>
<p>The Rum Corps, meeting little resistance, continued to do virtually as they pleased, all the while getting richer and more arrogant. They, and in particular one John Macarthur, managed to upset, defy, out-maneuver, and outlast three governors, including William Bligh of the Bounty mutiny fame. Bligh actually faced a second mutiny when the Rum Corps officers rebelled and ordered his arrest. The Rum Rebellion was the final straw for the British Government, which dispatched Lieutenant Colonel Lachlan Macquarie with his own regiment and orders for the return to London of the New South Wales Corps. Incidentally, that John Macarthur was to have far-reaching effects on the colony&#8217;s first staple industry. It was his understanding of the country&#8217;s grazing potential that fostered his own profitable sheep breeding concerns and prompted the introduction of the merino in the belief that careful breeding could produce wool of exceptional quality. Though it was his vision, it was his wife, Elizabeth, who did most of the work, for Macarthur remained in England for nearly a decade for his part in the Rum Rebellion.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://historywarsweapons.com/convicts-and-settlement-of-australia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Discovery and Exploration of Australia</title>
		<link>http://historywarsweapons.com/discovery-and-exploration-of-australia/</link>
		<comments>http://historywarsweapons.com/discovery-and-exploration-of-australia/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 21:30:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historywarsweapons.com/?p=6483</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although Captain James Cook is popularly credited with Australia discovery, it was probably a Portuguese who first sighted the Australian continent, while credit for its earliest coastal exploration must go to a Dutchman. Portuguese navigators had come within sight of the coast in the first half of the 16th century, and in 1606, the Spaniard [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3" face="Verdana" color="#333333">Although Captain James Cook is popularly credited with <strong>Australia discovery</strong>, it was probably a Portuguese who first sighted the Australian continent, while credit for its earliest <strong>coastal exploration</strong> must go to a Dutchman. Portuguese navigators had come within sight of the coast in the first half of the 16th century, and in 1606, the Spaniard Torres sailed through the strait between Cape York and New Guinea that would bear his name. In the early 1600s Dutch sailors, in search of gold and spices, reached the west coast of Cape York and several other places on the west coast; what they found was a dry, harsh, unpleasant country and they rapidly scuttle back the the kinder climates of Batavia in the Dutch East Indies. In 1642, the Dutch East Indies Company, in pursuit of fertile lands and riches of any sort mounted an expedition to explore the lands to the south. Abel Tasman made two voyages from Batavia in the 1640s during which he discovered a region he called Van Diemens Lands, later called Tasmania, though he was unaware it was an island.</p>
<p>The dismal Australian continent was forgotten until 1768, when the British Admiralty instructed Captain James Cook to lead a scientific expedition to Tahiti, to observe the transit of planet Venus, and begin a search for the Great South Land. On board his ship Endeavour were also several scientists, including an astronomer and a group of naturalists and artists led by Josephs Banks. After circumnavigating both islands of New Zealand, Cook set sail in search of the Great South Land, planning to head west until he found the unexplored east coast of the land known as New Holland. On April 19, 1770, the extreme southeastern tip of the continent was sighted and named Point Hicks, and when the Endeavour was a navigable distance from the shore, Cook turned north to follow the coast and search for a suitable landfall. It was nine days before an opening in the cliffs was sighted and the ship and crew found sheltered anchorage in a harbor they named Botany Bay.</p>
<p>During they forays ashore, the scientists recorded descriptions of plants, animals, and birds, the likes of which had never been seen, as they attempted to communicated with the few natives inhabitants who all but ignored these; they were the first white men to set foot on the east coast. After leaving Botany Bay, James Cook continued north, charting the coastline as they sailed. He noted that the fertile east coast was different from the inhospitable land the earlier explorers had seen to the south and west. When the Endevour was badly damaged on a reef off north Queensland, Cook was forced to make a temporary settlement. It took six weeks to repair the ship, during which time Cook and the scientists investigated their surroundings further; this time making contact with the local Aborigines. After repairing the Endevour, navigating the Great Barrier Reef and rounding Cape York, Cook again put ashore to raise the Union Jack, rename the continent New South Wales, claiming it for the British in the name of King George III.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://historywarsweapons.com/discovery-and-exploration-of-australia/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UN Resolution 181</title>
		<link>http://historywarsweapons.com/un-resolution-181/</link>
		<comments>http://historywarsweapons.com/un-resolution-181/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2011 17:50:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historywarsweapons.com/?p=6390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On November 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed the Resolution 181, which was a plan to partition the British Mandate territory of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State, with the Greater Jerusalem area under international control. The Jewish accepted the UN Resolution 181 and created the State of Israel, which [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span style="font-family: Verdana;">On November 29, 1947, the <span style="font-weight: bold;">United Nations General Assembly</span> passed the <span style="font-weight: bold;">Resolution 181</span>, which was a plan to partition the British Mandate territory of Palestine into a Jewish State and an Arab State, with the Greater Jerusalem area under international control. The Jewish accepted the UN Resolution 181 and created the State of Israel, which was officially declared by David Ben-Gurion on May 14, 1948; as the Palestinian Arabs, as well as all the Arab countries, rejected the UN Partition Plan, since they opposed the existence a Jewish State, war broke out on May 15, 1948, when Israel was suddenly attacked from all fronts by Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq; this is known in history as the Israeli War of Independence.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana;" /><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">Background</span><br style="font-family: Verdana;" /><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">The newly-created United Nations, which was the successor of the League of Nations, took the first steps to solve the long dispute between the Jewish and Arabs in Palestine, which until then had been a British Mandate granted to the United Kingdom by the former League of Nations in 1922 after the dissolution of the Turkish Empire as a consequence of World War I. In May 1947, the United Nations appointed a committee, composed of representative from eleven countries. To make the committee more neutral, none of the Great Powers were represented. After three months of hearings and general survey of the situation in Palestine, the UN committee officially released its report on August 1947. A majority of nations, which included Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay, recommended the creation of two independent States: a Jewish and an Arab one.</span><br style="font-family: Verdana;" /><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">Approval of the UN Plan</span><br style="font-family: Verdana;" /><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions, the Resolution 181. The 33 countries which voted in favor of the partition were Bolivia, Brazil, Belgium, Australia, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxemburg, Nicaragua, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, the Soviet Union, the United States, Venezuela, South Africa, Sweden, Poland, Paraguay, Philippines, and Ukraine. The 13 countries that voted against the Resolution 181 were: Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, India, Lebanon, Turkey, Yemen, Pakistan, Cuba, and Afghanistan. The 10 countries that abstained were: Argentina, Chile, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, Mexico, Hondura, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Colombia, and China.</span></font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://historywarsweapons.com/un-resolution-181/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Egyptian-Israeli Peace Process</title>
		<link>http://historywarsweapons.com/egyptian-israeli-peace-process/</link>
		<comments>http://historywarsweapons.com/egyptian-israeli-peace-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Dec 2011 21:10:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historywarsweapons.com/?p=6384</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat visited Jerusalem in November 1977 after thirty years of hostility with his Jewish neighbors. His visit was a response to an invitation of the newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. During this two-day visit, which included a speech before the Knesset, the Egyptian leader created a new psychological climate in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3" face="Verdana" color="#333333"><strong>Egyptian</strong> President Anwar al-Sadat visited Jerusalem in November 1977 after thirty years of hostility with his Jewish neighbors. His visit was a response to an invitation of the newly elected <strong>Israeli</strong> Prime Minister Menachem Begin. During this two-day visit, which included a speech before the Knesset, the Egyptian leader created a new psychological climate in the Middle East, which would open the door for a <strong>peace process</strong> between Israel and Egypt. Anwar al-Sadat recognized Israel&#8217;s right to exist and established the basis for direct negotiations between the two countries.</p>
<p>In September 1978, US President Jimmy Carter invited Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President al-Sadat to meet with him at Camp David, where they agreed on a framework for peace between Israel and Egypt and a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. It set out broad principles to guide negotiations between Israel and the Arab States. It also established guidelines for a West Bank-Gaza transitional regime of full autonomy for the Palestinians residing in these territories and for a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. The treaty between the two countries was finally signed on March 26, 1979, by Menachem Begin and Anwar al-Sadat, with President Carter signing as witness. Under this treaty, which would become known as the Camp David Accords, Israel returned the Sinai peninsula to Egypt, which became effective in April 1982, and Egypt recognized the existence of Israel as a free independent State; also the rights of the Palestians were recognized, but the fate of Jerusalem was excluded from the peace treaty.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://historywarsweapons.com/egyptian-israeli-peace-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Carter Administration Policy and Cabinet</title>
		<link>http://historywarsweapons.com/carter-administration-policy-and-cabinet/</link>
		<comments>http://historywarsweapons.com/carter-administration-policy-and-cabinet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:25:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historywarsweapons.com/?p=6275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Carter Administration was characterized by four pivotal problems which the president could not solve: stagflation, energy crisis, the American hostage in Teheran, and Latin America. These predicaments cost him the 1980 election which he lost to Ronald Reagan. The Carter Administration was marked by double-digit inflation, very high interest rates, and oil shortages. Although [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3" face="Verdana" color="#333333">The <strong>Carter Administration</strong> was characterized by four pivotal problems which the president could not solve: stagflation, energy crisis, the American hostage in Teheran, and Latin America. These predicaments cost him the 1980 election which he lost to Ronald Reagan. The Carter Administration was marked by double-digit inflation, very high interest rates, and oil shortages. Although the American economy grew an average of 2.5%, below the historical average, the 1979 energy crisis ended this period of growth as both inflation and interest rates rose with a sharp drop in economic activity. The sudden increase of crude oil prices, raised by OPEC, the world&#8217;s leading oil exporting cartel, forced inflation to double-digit levels, averaging 11.3% in 1979 and 13.5% in 1980. The sudden shortage of gasoline as the 1979 summer vacation season began exacerbated the problem, and would come to symbolize the crisis among the public in general. As a result, Carter appointed G. William Miller as Secretary of the Treasury and named Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Volcker followed a tight monetary policy to bring down inflation, which he considered his priority. Volcker succeeded, but only by first going through an unpleasant phase during which the economy got stagnant and unemployment rose even higher.</p>
<p>When it came to foreign policy, Jimmy Carter was too idealistic and naive, lacking an insight into the different historical and political processes of the world&#8217;s nations, each with its own cultural and social background. By the end of 1978, an Islamic fundamentalist revolution broke out in Iran that ousted Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Shah of Iran, from power. In response to the political asylum (temporarily to receive cancer treatment) granted to the Shah of Iran by the United States, the Iranian Muslim militants seized the American embassy in Teheran in November 1979, taking 52 Americans hostage. The Iranians demanded the return of the Shah to Iran for trial; the return of the Shah&#8217;s wealth to the Iranian people; and an admission of guilt by the United States for its past actions in Iran. This became known as the hostage crisis, which the Carter Administration was incapable to solve. The hostage crisis continued during the last year of Carter&#8217;s presidency, whose responses to the crisis were largely seen as contributing to Carter&#8217;s defeat in the 1980 election. The release of the hostages was negotiated and secured at the end of the Carter administration, but not before giving in to the Islamist government demands. The Shah had died in Egypt in 1980 and could not be turned in to the fundamentalists, but the United States released all assets belonging to both the Shah and Iran to the Ayahatolah government, sending a secret deplomatic message apologizing for &quot;its past actions in Iran&quot;.</p>
<p>The Human Rights policy of Jimmy Carter consisted in demanding many foreign governments the respect of human rights of leftist terrorist organizations members who had been arrested and prosecuted for murder and terrorist acts in these countries, specially Latin American countries. But the Carter Administration never moved a single finger or spoke a single word to defend the human rights of the victims of these leftist terrorist organization members. For example, in Argentina, thousands of people (businessmen, political and labor union leaders, military personnel, innocent bystanders, etc.) were kidnapped, tortured, murdered, or mangled to smithereens in bomb blasts perpetrated by Montoneros, ERP, and other extremist clandestine organizations. Thousands upon thousands of victims of human rights violations committed by extreme left movements in Latin America were forgotten by the Carter Administration. So concerned was president Carter for the human rights of leftist guerrilla fighters and urban terrorists that he let go of Nicaragua to the Sandinistas under Daniel Ortega, who once in power murdered more people without a fair trial than the former dictator Anastasio Somoza. For real fairness and justice, the world had to wait for the arrival of a new kind of president in the White House: Ronald Reagan, a real leader the Western Civilization miss today.</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter Administration Cabinet</p>
<p>Secretary of States: Cyrus Vance (replaced by Edmund Muskie in 1980)<br />
Secretary of Defense: Harold Brown<br />
Attorney General: Griffin Bell<br />
Secretary of Commerce: Juanita Kreps (replaced by Philips M Klutznick in 1979)<br />
Secretary of the Treasury: Micheal Blumenthal (replaced by G William Miller in 1979)</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://historywarsweapons.com/carter-administration-policy-and-cabinet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Celts in Spain</title>
		<link>http://historywarsweapons.com/celts-in-spain/</link>
		<comments>http://historywarsweapons.com/celts-in-spain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historywarsweapons.com/?p=6269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The origin of the Celts in Spain is more certain than that of the Iberians. Unlike the Iberians the Celts were of Indo-European race. In the third century B.C. they occupied a territory embracing the greater part of the lands from the modern Balkan states through northern Italy and France, with extremities in Britain and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3" face="Verdana" color="#333333">The origin of the <strong>Celts in Spain</strong> is more certain than that of the Iberians. Unlike the Iberians the Celts were of Indo-European race. In the third century B.C. they occupied a territory embracing the greater part of the lands from the modern Balkan states through northern Italy and France, with extremities in Britain and Spain. They entered the peninsula possibly as early as the 7th century B.C., but certainly not later than the fourth, coming by way of the Pyrenees. They were good smiths and introduced iron into the Iberian peninsula. It is generally held that they dominated the northwest and west, the regions of modern Galicia and Portugal, leaving south and eastern Spain in full possession of the Iberians. In the center of the Iberian peninsula the two races mingled to form the Celtiberians, in which the Celtic elements were the more important. There were smaller sub divisions for these peoples, such as Galicians, Turdetanians, Austurians, and Lusitanians. The Galicians constituted a federation of forty tribes and the Lusitanians thirty.</p>
<p>The social and political organization of the Celts in Spain were similar to other Indo-European peoples. The unit was the gens, made up of a number of families, forming an independent whole and bound together by the religious practices as they worshipped the same gods. Various gens united to form a larger unit, the tribe, which was united by the same racial/cultural and religious ties. For military and defensive purposes, several tribes joined together into a confederation. Each of the tribe was ruled by a chief and an assembly of older men. In some tribes property was owned in common, and there is a reason to believe that this practice was quite extensive. In some respects the tribes varied considerably as regards the stage of culture they had attained. Speaking generally, ancient writers discribed the Spanish as peoples of physical endurance, heroic valor, and fidelity (even to the point of death). Like the Celtic tribes in the rest of Europe, the Celts in Spain were warlike people.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://historywarsweapons.com/celts-in-spain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Congress of Vienna</title>
		<link>http://historywarsweapons.com/congress-of-vienna/</link>
		<comments>http://historywarsweapons.com/congress-of-vienna/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:54:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historywarsweapons.com/?p=6252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Congress of Vienna was an international summit of European States representatives convened in Vienna from September 1814, to June 1815, and presided over by Austria&#8217;s representative Prince Klemens von Metternich. The purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to establish a balance of power that would keep the peace by redrawing Europe&#8217;s political map [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3" face="Verdana" color="#333333">The <strong>Congress of Vienna</strong> was an international summit of European States representatives convened in Vienna from September 1814, to June 1815, and presided over by Austria&#8217;s representative Prince Klemens von Metternich. The purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to establish a balance of power that would keep the peace by redrawing Europe&#8217;s political map after the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of the Nations, at Leipzig, and the signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1814, which put an end to the Six Coaltion War against Napoleon. The United Kingdom was represented first by its Foreign Secretary, Viscount Castlereagh; then by the Duke of Wellington, after Castlereagh&#8217;s return to England in February 1815; and in the last weeks, by the Earl of Clancarty, after Wellington left to face Napoleon during the Hundred Days.</p>
<p>The result of the Congress of Vienna was to deprive France of all the territories which had been conquered by Napoleon; Ferdinand VII was restored to the throne of Spain; Norway and Sweden united under a single ruler; Louis XVIII was also restored to the throne of France, which concretized after the Battle of Waterloo; Austria recovered most of the territory it had lost during the Napoleonic Wars, also obtaining the Lombardy and Venice in Italy; Russia was given most of the Duchy of Warsaw (Poland) and was allowed to keep Finland, which it had annexed from Sweden in 1809; a German Confederation of 38 states was formed from the previous 360 of the Holy Roman Empire, under the presidency of the Austrian Emperor; the Dutch Republic was united with the Austrian Netherlands to form a single kingdom of the Netherlands under the House of Orange.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://historywarsweapons.com/congress-of-vienna/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nationalism and Romanticism in Europe</title>
		<link>http://historywarsweapons.com/nationalism-and-romanticism-in-europe/</link>
		<comments>http://historywarsweapons.com/nationalism-and-romanticism-in-europe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 13:42:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historywarsweapons.com/?p=6222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Romanticism was a literary and philosophical movement which began in Europe at the end of the 18th century, sparking nationalism. Whereas the thinkers of the enlightenment emphasized the primacy of reason, Romanticism emphasized intuition, imagination, and feeling, to a point that has led to some romantic thinkers being accused of irrationalism. This movement also elevated [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3" face="Verdana" color="#333333"><strong>Romanticism</strong> was a literary and philosophical movement which began in <strong>Europe</strong> at the end of the 18th century, sparking <strong>nationalism</strong>.</font><font size="3" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><span style="font-family: Verdana;"> Whereas the thinkers of the enlightenment emphasized the primacy of reason, Romanticism emphasized intuition, imagination, and feeling, to a point that has led to some romantic thinkers being accused of irrationalism. This movement also elevated folk art, traditions, and ancient custom of people to something noble.</span></font></p>
<p><font size="3" face="Verdana" color="#333333">The French Revolution unleashed a new political idea in Europe, with the notion that States should constitute the whole of a people or &quot;nation.&quot; Hence, France was the nation of the French and should include all of them. If the French Revolution introduced this new concept of nation, Napoleonic invasion of Germany and Prussia, with the chain of abuse committed by the foraging and marauding French troops in Teutonic territories, such as looting, pillaging, stealing cattle, raping and murdering of farmers, triggered a profound nationalism that had racial implications; thus, in Germany, Romanticism meant nationalism, which would lead to the German unification between 1866 and 1871, led by Prussia. This nationalistic Romanticism in Germany spread to every aspect of culture, including music and literature.</p>
<p>Thus, Multi-ethnic empires, such as the Ottoman Turks, were threatened with extinction as this idea found political and military expression. In 1848, a wave of nationalist revolts burst across Europe, sweeping a revolutionary government to power in Hungary and threatening to overturn the Prussian and French regimes. In 1861 nationalism contributed to the unification of Italy with Giuseppe Garibaldi playing an important role. Similarly, nationalist feelings contributed to the decay of the Ottoman Empire, from the Greek declaration of independence in 1821. All these movements appealed to a national ideal, inspiring a fervor that loyalty to a dynasty, or remote imperial power, had almost never been able to do.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://historywarsweapons.com/nationalism-and-romanticism-in-europe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Growth of European Imperialism in the 2nd Half of the 19th Century</title>
		<link>http://historywarsweapons.com/growth-of-european-imperialism-in-the-2nd-half-of-the-19th-century/</link>
		<comments>http://historywarsweapons.com/growth-of-european-imperialism-in-the-2nd-half-of-the-19th-century/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Thor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://historywarsweapons.com/?p=6200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The second half of the 19th century saw a new growth of European imperialism, which developed a momentum of its own far beyond the need to protect trading posts or suppress native opposition. Many of the wars fought in the last half of the century were imperial, in which Western technological superiority and organization normally [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3" color="#333333" face="Verdana">The <strong>second half of the 19th century</strong> saw a new <strong>growth of European imperialism</strong>, which developed a momentum of its own far beyond the need to protect trading posts or suppress native opposition. Many of the wars fought in the last half of the century were imperial, in which Western technological superiority and organization normally proved decisive. At Omdurman in the Sudan in 1898, Kitchener, the British commander, simply deployed his 25,000 men in tight formation, and when the opposing Mahdists charged, they were scythed down by his Maxim machine guns: the Sudanese lost up to 30,000 men for the loss of only 50 of the Anglo-Egyptian force.</p>
<p>In 1864, after a series of military engagements, France, ruled by Emperor Napoleon III, acquired Indochina in South East Asia. However, non-European armies did, occasionally, emerge victorious. In 1896 the Italians were defeated at Adowa by an Ethiopian army armed with 100,000 rifles that the French governor of Somaliland had obligingly sold to them. Where native armies adopted guerrilla warfare, such as Samori Tour&eacute; in West Africa in the 1880s and 1890s, European tactics struggled to overcome them. Eventually, however, even stubborn resistance was not enough. The Europeans or Americans had superior industrial and demographic resources, and could weather defeats their opponents could not.</p>
<p>Germany&rsquo;s victories in 1866 and 1870 led German statesmen and generals to believe that rapid deployment and the exploitation of technology should override all other concerns. At the end of the 19th century, European countries became embroiled in an arms race that was ruinously expensive and contributed to a chilling climate of mistrust in international diplomacy. The rapid growth of the German economy, unaccompanied by a corresponding increase in political sophistication, led to a dangerous alliance of economic power, nationalist agitation, and technological prowess, which, when a spark set it alight, would lead to the appalling carnage of World War I.</font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://historywarsweapons.com/growth-of-european-imperialism-in-the-2nd-half-of-the-19th-century/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

