By PETER YOUNG

Amidst today’s countless international dramas, one milestone of history last week has been hardly mentioned. November 9 was the 35th anniversary of the Berlin Wall coming down in 1989. Leading as it did to the reunification of Germany the following year, historians maintain it was one of the most significant geopolitical events of the time because it reshaped the modern world.

For younger people who did not live through these seismic events and might be interested in the historical record, the wall was constructed in 1961 by the then ruling communist German Democratic Republic (GDR) government. The city was divided after the Second World War in to four zones controlled respectively by the victors of the war - Britain, the US, the Soviet Union (USSR) and France - that ended in Europe on May 8, 1945, and the wall was in response to the increasing numbers escaping to the West.

The exodus of people from east to west that had inevitably built up was unacceptable to the USSR. Thus, unsurprisingly, what was called the Berlin Crisis of 1958-61 arose when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev demanded that the US, Britain and France should pull their forces out of Berlin. But, while it remained partly under western control, being located deep inside East German territory made its protection from a communist takeover a constant challenge for western powers.

Before that, there had been the drama of the Berlin airlift in 1948-49 which was one of the first major crises of the Cold War. The successful operation of the Western powers supplying Berlin by air was precipitated by the Soviet Union’s blockade of the Western allies’ road, rail and river access to their sector of Berlin, and this massive airlift was seen as the first allied victory of the Cold War.

During the war years, the Soviet Union had for the most part overrun countries like Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania – as well as the part of Germany that became the GDR or East Germany – and these were later satellite states whose governments were established on the Kremlin’s orders so were dominated by communists. This created between them and the West what became known as an “Iron Curtain”, an imaginary barrier with a name claimed to have been coined first by Winston Churchill himself at a speech in Fulton, Missouri in 1946. Meanwhile, the Berlin Wall built years later was not only intended to prevent people from escaping to a better life by crossing in to the Western sectors but it was also a symbol of the continuing division between East and West.

The famous Yalta Conference took place in February, 1945, which was about three months before the end of the war in Europe. The “big three” – Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin – discussed the post-war reorganization of Germany and European countries. They agreed to the USSR establishing a ‘sphere of influence’ in central and eastern Europe in order to provide a geopolitical buffer zone between it and the western capitalist world. Those who argue that the ailing Roosevelt gave in too easily to this Soviet demand forget that one factor was that the US was more concerned at that time about ending the war in the Pacific.

This finally happened in August that year after atom bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But some people considered that the Soviet concerns were partly justified after having been invaded by Germany in the summer of 1941 despite having signed a non-aggression pact with them in 1939 when the two countries agreed not to attack each other. But Stalin was, of course, also intent on spreading communist power and influence.

Fast forward more than 40 years, and in the period leading up to the dismantlement of the Berlin Wall, a wave of protests occurred in various countries across the Soviet bloc because of acute economic problems and major food shortages. In early November 1989, there was the biggest demonstration in the history of the GDR when an estimated one million people gathered to demand democratic reform and the end of Soviet occupation. It was said at the time that the communist bloc was teetering on the brink of collapse in the face of dissatisfaction arising from the Gorbachev reforms of “glasnost” (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), as well as the earlier economic problems and food shortages. The revolutionary trend started in Poland and spread rapidly to Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania.

That said, the Berlin Wall built some 15 years after the end of WW2 was, in Soviet eyes, partially successful in splitting the East from the West by keeping the city isolated and surrounded by communist East Germany for nearly 30 years.

Reunification of West and East Germany took place under the leadership of the then chancellor of West Germany, Helmut Kohl, who became chancellor of a united Germany from 1990-98. The Cold War came to an end, the Soviet Union collapsed and a new era of cooperation emerged. These were indeed momentous times in European and world history.

Trump in the driver's seat again

In the wake of the US media’s wall to wall coverage of this year’s presidential election, most people will have surely reached saturation point on the subject. It is therefore superfluous to offer further comment, though it is hard to ignore entirely an election that had been billed as hugely consequential.

Nonetheless, having read or watched a cross section of the UK and foreign press and US media since the election, I hope there might be a scintilla of interest in views I have gleaned about the failures of the Democrats in last week’s overwhelming success for Donald Trump. According to the polls, the scale of his triumph was clearly unexpected.

In the last few days it has been striking that apologists for the Democratic Party have been saying that, even though it hurts to lose a hard-fought election – and so decisively at that – their supporters should not despair because the fight to get its message across to the electorate is not over and that what is now needed is more hard work to make sure that that happens after the pain of disappointment has waned. Democratic leaders are quoted as saying they are still in tearful shock over what they expected to be a much closer race – and it will take a long time to “process what has happened”.

Some commentators are suggesting, however, that this is the wrong approach if Democrats really want to succeed in future elections. The whole issue, they say, is simpler than that. Trump achieved an overwhelming and comprehensive victory that includes control of both the Senate and, more than likely, the House of Representatives as well. This was a surprise because the polls had predicted a contest that was too close to call.

The voters across the board have sent a clear message. They do not like the left-wing policies on offer by the Democrats who seem to be out of touch with the priorities of so many people. In that case, it makes no sense to double down on such policies which they are already threatening to do. The evidence shows that there is no huge public concern about issues like gender identification and change, or critical race theory, or equity and wokeness, the teaching of ‘black lives matter’ in schools and identity politics; and even the abortion issue may have been overplayed. But people do care about inflation and the price of groceries, illegal immigration and crime and believe that illegal immigrants should be deported. They also worry about an issue like parents’ rights in drawing up a school curriculum for their children which, in accordance with hard-left goals, should be a matter for the state. The country has spoken across racial and class lines, with an extraordinary inversion that is seeing Republicans as the home of the working class.

It must surely be clear by now that voters are more interested in their own pocket book than the general claim by Kamala Harris and her colleagues that the US economy was the strongest in the world which is meaningless when those voters face the rising costs of goods in the food store and elsewhere, together with steeply rising rent levels.

After Biden dropped out of the race or, as many believe, was forced out by his own Party, Kamala Harris was “anointed” to replace him and thus bypassed the normal scrutiny of a primary. After the initial momentum which put her ratings up, her campaign stalled because it was clear that she was not up to the job. She showed that she would not be able to distance herself from her boss and bring about the change that people wanted.

During interviews, she was unwilling or unable to discuss policy issues in any depth and people soon realised she did not possess sufficient intellectual horsepower for the top job. She failed to produce a convincing argument that she could lead the country which two thirds of voters had said was on the wrong track. She needed the support of minority groups, Latinos and young black prople - and women in connection with abortion rights - but she underperformed with these key voting groups.

It is now being said that her personal attacks on Trump in the later stages of her campaign - calling him fascist and nazi or unhinged and unstable - backfired on her and only emphasised in people’s minds that she herself was a failed and unqualified candidate compared to her opponent who had already served as president.

The margin of president-elect Trump’s victory suggests that he would have won even if Harris had run a flawless campaign and had been a stronger candidate. The hypocrisy of the mainstream media has been exposed to the extent that it has become widely discredited.

Now, even the maverick Bernie Sanders has criticised Harris as the blame game gets under way and Nancy Pelosi is criticising Biden for not quitting the race earlier. As the dust settles after a protracted battle, all who want to see political and economic stability in a prosperous US will now surely hope that Donald Trump’s return to the Oval Office will turn out to serve the nation well.

Remembrance Day

How reassuring and comforting – as well as saddening when thinking about the loss of life -- it was to watch at the weekend the TV coverage of the Remembrance Day ceremonies in London and up and down the country. They are always so well organised and the arrangements are consistently appropriate to the occasion. Last year I wrote about this in some detail and it may be worth repeating briefly the background.

In Britain, Armistice Day is observed on November 11 itself – the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918 when the Armistice was signed to end the First World War. Remembrance Sunday is held on the second Sunday of November. This remembers and pays tribute to British service members who have died in wars and other military conflicts since the onset of the First World War. Commemorative events are held on both days. These are a sacred landmark in the nation’s calendar and there is a sombre mood of reflection as the community pays its respects.

At the traditional ceremony last Sunday at the Cenotaph memorial in Whitehall in central London, tens of thousands of veterans and civilians joined King Charles who led the nation in two minutes’ silence in remembrance of the men and women who last their lives. Other members of the Royal Family and political leaders were also present.

In a troubled and turbulent world, long may these sombre ceremonies, with their traditional pomp, rituals and precision, continue.