Official language: English, Irish, Scottish

Land area: 93,628 sq mi/242,495 sq km

Population:  62,761,000

Dominant religion: Christianity

Capital: London

Current leader: Prime Minister David Cameron

The United Kingdom is an island country in northwestern Europe, lying across the English Channel from France. It consists of the island of Great Britain, the northern one-sixth of the island of Ireland and dozens of nearby smaller islands including the Channel Islands. Great Britain, Ireland and the nearby smaller islands are sometimes referred to as the British Isles.

 The island of Great Britain is divided into three self-governing political units – England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is also self-governing. While all inhabitants of Great Britain are commonly referred to as British the people of Scotland and Wales, with their own cultures and political opinions that sometimes differ greatly from those of England, prefer to be called Scots and Welsh, respectively. Whites make up about 93 percent of the United Kingdom’s population. Among them, about 5 percent are people from nearby European countries such as Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands in addition to a small number of people from poorer European countries such as Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania and Ukraine who came seeking better opportunities. The United Kingdom’s non-white population comes primarily from its former colonies in Africa and Asia, especially from member-states of the Commonwealth of Nations. Over 90 percent of the U.K.’s population resides in urban areas.

 The Industrial Revolution began in the United Kingdom in the 1700’s and today the country remains one of the world’s five most industrialized nations and leading economies. As an island nation with a large population, manufacturing and trading constitutes the bulk of its lifeline. It is also the largest producer of petroleum and natural gas in the European Union. The country also has deposits of important minerals such as chalk, clay, fluorspar, gypsum, salt and gravel. Another important source of income for the country is the millions of tourists who visit this beautiful country every year to taste its rich culture and history. The United Kingdom is also a top destination for students hoping to broaden their education, particularly at either Cambridge or Oxford, both which are considered by many academics to be the world’s finest universities.

 Very few nations in the world can boast a prouder and more storied history than United Kingdom can. In terms of percentage of the entire world, the British Empire, at its height, was the largest empire ever amassed. By the dawn of the 20th Century, roughly one-quarter of the world and its population was under British rule and for the better part of 200 years its navy was the master of the world’s seas. While the loss of its American Colonies in the American Revolution was one of its greatest setbacks it continued to build a great empire that eventually consisted of large swaths of Africa, Asia, North America and Oceania. But fall from glory awaited. The aftermath of World War I began spelling doom. The Japan and the United States were emerging as world powers while the citizens of the Empire’s possessions, particularly Ireland, were becoming increasingly restive and demanding greater freedom. In 1931, the United Kingdom granted independence to Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, New Zealand and South Africa although all of them would remain members of the Commonwealth of Nations. World War II, however, was the final seal of death for the British Empire. While the United Kingdom fought bravely and fiercely under the leadership of Winston Churchill, bringing Germany’s successes to a halt in 1942, its failure to protect its possessions in Asia against the Japanese juggernaut exposed its weakness. Immediately after the war, more colonies demanded and were granted independence. In 1947 the United Kingdom lost both India and Pakistan. The following year Burma became independent. In the early 1960’s it lost Malaysia and Singapore and most of its possessions in Africa. By 1980 all that remained of the once mighty British Empire were Hong Kong, Gibraltar and a few island protectorates and dependencies in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

 Despite its decline, the United Kingdom remains one of the world’s most influential countries as well as an economic superpower. Its monarch, Queen Elizabeth, remains the head of state in most of country’s former colonies. In 1982 it proved that it was still a military force to be reckoned with in its naval shootout with Argentina in the Falkland Islands War. It played a role in expelling the Iraqi army from Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War and also helped removed Saddam Hussein from power during the 2003 Gulf War.

“Be the Change you wish to see in the world”  

Mahatma Gandhi

I have watched as countless Americans sit back and voice their outrage over the Nations economic recession, or dire need for healthcare reform but I have yet to find anyone who had the courage to try and make a change.  Our parents sat back while their youth passed away, and in their old age they sit there frustrated, bitter and scorn towards the government for taking our Nation the route that it did.  Mahatma Gandhi may be one of the most influential men to ever impact a nation like he had done in India.  Through non-violence, Gandhi was able to liberate an entire nation from the oppressive rule of Great Britain.  Egypt had just undergone one of the greatest and most elaborate overthrows the world has ever seen, a revolution that all started from a program as simple as Facebook.  These precedents placed before us prove that it is possible to achieve reformation and change through the most unlikely of avenues.  All it takes is the ambition and willingness to usher it in!

When I am old and my children are thinking about having children of their own, I do not want to sit back and voice idle remarks about how things need to change when I have done nothing to change it!  I would rather go down with lessons learned from trying then to ponder on what ifs of not trying at all.  Gandhi said it correct, we must be the change we wish to see in the world.  We cannot rely on other people to take action when we clearly see a need for action to be taken.  Imagine what would have happened if Gandhi had never acted upon the need of a voice and leader to rebel against Britain, there is no guarantee that India would have turned out the way it has today.  I refuse to be a senior citizen that sits and complains of social security, and the poor economic situation that my generation has left my children and grandchildren in.  

With college tuition spiking at seemingly an all time high, and the job market and economic stimulus at an all time low, we are left with a recipe for calamity.  We as Americans not only face grave danger but as an entire Generation we are confronted with a serious threat!  For the continuity of our legacy and lively hood hangs somewhere between the plausible realities of both a great depression and a bright vibrant future full of potential!  A pendulum that reserves the right at any given moment to sway in either direction.  Is the legacy we wish to leave for our children and grandchildren one of depression, poverty and hunger?  Because I refuse to leave a legacy of such turmoil for my descendants, therefore arising the need for reform, a deviation from our current system of running things.  

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.”

Albert Einstein

Our law makers, politicians and Americans are foolish if they believe that change is able to come about by merely doing nothing.  It is the same perpetual cycle with no deviation from routine.  Every four years we watch Presidential hopefuls travel and tour the country promising change and reformation, while they are mere demagogues seeking only to further their own career.  They are charismatic leaders who manipulate the emotions of their people to gain power.  And when they have gained enough influence and public approval they take office, but unlike their campaign which took them all over the country their term in office is shrouded with cloaks and daggers which seem to create the illusion of an Immortal President.  A President that is no longer in touch and on the same playing field as every other American.  Being President is a job that by no stretch of the imagination could I understand the pressure and responsibility involved.  But the quandary does not lay blame with the President as much as it does the system in which he dwells in.  Because if the President of the United States is our hand picked leader, chosen not only to defend our freedoms but represent us when we are unable to do so ourselves, then who will listen and care for us when he is too busy to do just that?  Who will voice the concerns and cares of the people to congress and senate when the President is unable to do if for us?

What many people fail to realize is that the true strength and power of the United States Government is not the Air Force, nor the Army but its citizens.  What is the responsibility and role of a power or leader with no one to govern or lead?  Our founding fathers have left us with a democracy, not a monarch nor dictatorship.  But what our democracy has come to in this current time is a mere shell of its true nature.  I believe that in order to ever expect anything to change we must first understand it is our right to have a say in government and our future!  Not a mere show of a mandatory satisfaction of the law, or as many call it a presidential election.  Because we must be involved in the progression and evolution of our Nation everyday of every year, not 6 months every 4 years.  And we must participate in our own reformation process not 1 day in November every four years but everyday!  We must WRITE for our Voice; it is our God given Write to Reform!  And may every word written or spoken move not only mountains but statues and monuments for the cause of expansion, progression and change for a brighter tomorrow!

Official language:  Italian

Land area: 116,408 sq mi/301,415 sq km

Population:  59,216,000

Dominant religion:  Christianity

Capital: Rome

Current leader:  Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi

Italy is a country in Europe, surrounded by Switzerland and Austria to the north, Slovenia to the northeast, the Adriatic Sea to the east, the Ionian Sea to the south, the Tyrrhenian Sea to the west and France to the northeast. Italy occupies a distinctive boot-shaped peninsula that juts down into the Mediterranean Sea. Its territory also includes many offshore islands, the largest of which are Sardinia and Sicily.

 Italy was the center of one of the greatest empires that ever existed – the Roman Empire. At its peak, it included all lands bordering the Mediterranean Sea, including parts of North Africa and as far north in Europe as Great Britain. But by the A.D. 600’s the empire had broken up. Italy has preserved many treasures of its past, helping make it one of the world’s leading tourist destinations.

 The country is one of world’s leading industrialized economies and its products and consumer goods are big sellers. Rome, its capital, and Milan are two of the leading fashion centers in the world as well as economic and financial hubs.

 In the years following the fall of Roman Empire, Italy was split up and changed hands frequently, even being conquered by Napoleon Bonaparte for France. By the late-1800’s it had been mostly restored to its present-day boundaries and had even seized parts of East Africa for itself. Although it fought alongside of the Great Britain, France and the United States during
World War I, nationalism rose in the following years, led by Benito Mussolini, who promised to restore the days of the Roman Empire. In 1935, Italy seized control of Albania and 1936, it took control of Ethiopia.  Italy allied itself with Germany and Japan during World War II. Although it initially enjoyed success its military might later proved to be not very close on par with the other main belligerents of the war and it was the first Axis-aligned country to surrender to the Allies. As proof of how much most ordinary Italians were against involvement in the war, most civilians welcomed the invading Allied armies. Mussolini was later captured, tried and hanged.

 After the war, Italy rebuilt its shattered infrastructure and became a global economic power.

Emmeline Pethick Lawrence

Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence, the daughter of Henry Pethick, a businessman in Bristol, was born in Clifton on 21st October 1867. Emmeline helped organise a club for young working-class girls. Emmeline was shocked by the poverty she encountered and it was during this time she was converted to socialism. In 1895 Emmeline joined with Mary Neal to form the Esperance Club, this involved helping a group of young women establish a co-operative dressmaking business. Emmeline spent her time helping the Independent Labour Party and developing her ideas with the Esperance Club. However, when Emmeline read about the arrest and imprisonment of Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney in October 1905, she decided to take an interest in the suffrage movement. The following year she met Kenney and after a long discussion with her she decided to join the WSPU. A few months after joining, Emmeline was arrested while trying to make a speech in the lobby of the House of Commons. Emmeline was sent to prison, the first of six terms of imprisonment that she served for her political activities. Her husband, Frederick Pethick-Lawrence also became involved in the struggle for the franchise. In 1907 Frederick and Emmeline started the journal Votes for Women. The Pethick-Lawrence’s large home in London also became the office of the WSPU. In 1912 the WSPU organised a new campaign that involved the large-scale smashing of shop-windows. Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence had disagreed with this strategy but Christabel Pankhurst ignored her objections. As soon as this wholesale smashing of shop windows began, the government ordered the arrest of the leaders of the WSPU. Christabel escaped to France but Frederick and Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence were sentenced to nine months imprisonment. Both Emmeline and Frederick Pethick-Lawrence went on hunger strike. Pethick-Lawrence continued to work for the suffrage cause and spent most of her energies after 1912 writing for her journal, Votes for Women. Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence remained active in politics until 1950 when she had a serious accident that left her immobilized. Frederick Pethick-Lawrence looked after Emmeline until she died of a heart attack at her home at Gomshall, Surrey, on 11th March 1954.

Millicent Fawcett

Dame Millicent Garrett Fawcett was born on 11 June, she was an English surragist who campaigned for women to have the vote and an early feminist. She was born Millicent Garrett in Aldeburgh, Suffolk. As a suffragist, as opposed to a suffragette, she took a moderate line, but was a tireless campaigner. She concentrated much of her energy on the struggle to improve women’s opportunities for higher education and in 1871 co-founded Newnham College, Cambridge. She later became president of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, position she held from 1890 until 1919. In July 1901 she was appointed to lead the British government’s commission to South Africa to investigate conditions in the concentration that had been created there in the wake of the Second Boaer war Her report corroborated what the campaigner Emily Hobhouse had said about conditions in the camps.  Millicent Fawcett (leader of NUWSS) was a moderate campaigner, distancing herself from the militant and violent activities of the Pankhurst’s and the Women’s Social and Political Union. She believed that their actions were in fact harming women’s chances of gaining the vote, as they were alienating the MPs who were debating whether or not to give women the vote, as well as souring much of the general public towards the campaign. Despite the publicity given to the WSPU, the NUWSS retained the majority of the support of the women’s movement. In 1913 they had 50,000 members compared to 2,000 of the WSPU.

Public Watchdog

Many have designated the press as a “public watchdog.”  It is more than that.  It brings news and information to the  public that it reaches.  It constitutes men, women, children, ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups.  Stations have carved out a niche to whom to focus their messages.  Many in America do so through advertisements.  Professionals at these stations are well aware of their responsibilities and report news that make it possible for citizens to vote at the polls.  These analysts dissect hard to comprehend issues and break them down into digestible bits and pieces.

The public watchdog role has often come under attack because the media have recently evolved in partisanship ways.  Some see the New York Times, CNN and CNBC as liberal, while FOX and the Daily Standard as conservative.  They argue that this divide is generated by a particular media’s desire to cash in on the sentiments of the time.  Hence some members of the mass media’s audience question their relevance in being fair and impartial.

Market Place of Ideas

Image via Wikipedia

Some persons bemoan the fact that the market place of ideas are shrinking.  They look at Rupert Murdoch that wields influence around the world with his media Empire.  He owns the Times, Sunday Times, Sun, and at one time the News of the World in the United Kingdom.  In the 1980s, he influenced the conservative politics under Margaret Thatcher.  In the 1990s, he switched his support to Labor and became quite a force for Tony Blair.  In 2001, the Express also endorsed Blair.

Many in America are concerned about state sponsored privileges provided by the media in Great Britain.  They prefer to see advertising as a free enterprise.  Some do not make the connection of the influences of such ads on the nature of programs, but rather see the British model as having sovereign consumers targeted in their informational role.  British programmers see themselves as being able to raise the standards of the viewing public.  In America, media is viewed differently.  It is concerned with the bottom line.  What sells is of prime importance.  Some Europeans view American media as appealing to the lowest common denominator.  That is why some Americans, refer to TV as “the idiot box.”

Media Rights

Media rights are fought for daily.  Some see the concept of “good and evil” being played out when they point to John Milton.  Individual rights may be foremost on the mind to those that subscribe to the philosophy of John Locke.  Attaining that ever elusive truth in reporting may buy into John Stuart Mill’s concept that he expresses so well in his book, On Liberty.

Despite these lofty concepts there is censorship with which to contend.  It may not be state censorship because of classified documents, but self censorship.  Some times it is media policy to protect the identities for good reasons of children and some persons.  Individuals that receive a bad press are also free to seek redress if they think that they have been maligned by malicious reporting. Such libel suits have been brought against some media companies but they are rarely successful.  In America, the First Amendment is still foremost among reporter’s right of free speech.  Each year we hear about freedom of press violations in the U.S.A., Great Britain, and many other countries around the world.

- – -

Unlike a Marxist system like in North Korea and Cuba, that is known for its propaganda, the mass media in the U.S.A. and Britain seek to be responsible to the public.  There may be problems, differences, and partisanship, but they have many attributes in common.

- – -

Image via Ekstrabladet.dk

Villy Søvndal is a member of SF (Socialist People’s Party). SF is part of the government in Denmark along with the social democrats and R (radical left). The government is furthermore supported by the far left party Enhedslisten. But mr. Søvndal has said something that has angered both politicians and the media. He has admitted that it may be hard for the government to reach an actual agreement on an important issue. He has gone as far as saying that Denmark can’t possibly agree on all the parts of the Euro Plus Pact.

But not everyone is mad at the poor socialist. In Great Britain the conservative government supports Søvndal’s statements. They do this because last week British Prime Minister David Cameron vetoed the new Euro Plus Pact, which seemingly made everyone frown at Great Britain. Now the conservative Brits can use this incident to show that Britain isn’t going crazy and there is more EU skepticism outside Britain even in EU-positive governments!

The British conservative member of the EU-parliament Sajjad Karim supports Søvndal:
“It does not surprise me the slightest that the Danish foreign minister says what he does. I’m glad that more politicians around Europe are taking this debate.”

So now Britain is pulling away from Europe in a way that some parts of our nation may not appreciate, what future Britain? What of Scotland, already nationalist drums call longingly for Independence. Closer European ties offer a perfect environment for there national ambitions to flourish within the wider family of Europe.

I respect nationalists, The Scottish and my locals the Welsh. They want and will get more say in there independent futures. I personally don’t fit any nationalist requirements, being half Scottish half English by birth, and having half Welsh children, I feel British to my very core and will do whatever our independent political futures holds.

Will Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales vote for European membership rather than continuing within the United Kingdom? Is it possible the unthinkable could happen? Could the death bell be ringing for the trusty old United Kingdom? Oh I am sure the new independent nations would thrive and live on together happily enough, but I truly feel, if Great Britain in her current form where to pass away, we will have lost a very dear, much loved, irreplaceable friend. 

So I say this, long live the Queen and long live our beloved United Kingdom.

Australia Victorius.

The Champions Trophy concluded on Sunday. Eight teams Participated in the Competition.  Group A was of World Champions Australia, Spain, Great Britain and Pakistan. Group B was of Germany, Korea, Netherlands and Home team New Zealand.

Great Britain defeated Pakistan 2-1 while Australia started their campaign by defeating Spain 3-2. Germany defeated New Zealand 2-1. Netherlands defeated Korea 2-0.

Great Britain were defeated by Australia 4-1 on Match Day two. Spain defeated Pakistan 4-2. Netherlands defeated Germany 3-2. New Zealand defeated Korea 6-1.

 Great Britain were defeated by Spain 8-1. Australia defeated Pakistan 6-1. Korea drew Germany 3-3. Home team New Zealand drew Netherlands 3-3 on Match Day Three.

 In The Second Round More Groups were drawn. Pakistan, Korea, Great Britain, and Germany made a Group. Netherlands, Australia, Spain and New Zealand made another Group.

Pakistan defeated Korea 6-2. Great Britain were defeated by Germany 2-1. Australia defeated Netherlands 4-2. Spain defeated New Zealand 3-2. Germany defeated Pakistan 5-0. Great Britain defeated Korea 4-3. Spain defeated Netherlands 3-1 to book their place in the finals. Australia continued their great run by defeating NewZealand2-1.

  Netherlands defeated NewZealand to win the Third Place. Germany defeated Great Britain 1-0 to win the Fifth Place. Pakistan defeated Korea 5-4 to win the Seventh Place.

World Cup Winners Australia defeated Spain 1-0 to win the Champions Trophy.

Part I: Introducing: The Gallipoli Campaign and it’s basic plan.

This essay will be explaining whether the Gallipoli Campaign was a TOTAL failure or not? I will set my opinion based on different sources during that time and historical written records from Primary and Secondary Sources. Basically, this essay will be based on my opinions backed up from facts and sources before, during and after the war. This essay is divided into 5 different parts to organize the facts and opinions of this essay. Before the Gallipoli Campaign was carried out, the expected results were:

• It would open up a sea route to the Russian Front so that the Allies could get supplies to the Russians.

• It would establish a new front. Allied troops could march through the Balkans and attack Germany’s principal ally, Austria-Hungary.

• It would relieve pressure on the Russian forces by drawing troops away from the Russian Front.

• Little Resistance, Quick Victory.

• No Land Invasion, No Trench Warfare

The principles of the plan were to attack Turkey past the Dardanelles Strait, a narrow stretch of water linking the Aegean Sea. The leader of this plan was Winston Churchill; head of the British Navy. This plan seemed to be very attractive because Britain had the most powerful navy in the world. There was going to be some infantry in support to attack any land-based guns that might threaten any of the warships. The plan involved no land invasions so there was no danger of troops getting bogged down in trench warfare like they had to on the Western Front. That was just the plan, but what really happened?

Part II : The Real Outcome

In March 1915 the warships began their assault in the Dardanelles Strait. The first thing they did was to bombard the strong forts that lined the strait and then they made their advance. As the British and French ships entered the strait, a chain of mines and shell fire from the forts sank 3 battle cruisers and damaged others. Thus, the British Navy was threatened. Now, the commanders have decided that this naval attack would not succeed and the risks of the ships continuing to Constantinople was just too great. They decided that they would launch a land invasion to capture the peninsula. They thought that once the Turks were driven off Gallipoli, the naval operation could continue. Later, in April, a force of French, British and the ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand) troops attacked Helles beach.

Unfortunately, the commanders have underestimated the power of the Turks. They were refused any aid from the Royal Flying Corps which could have provided them quite an advantage. A new German commander Otto Liman von Sanders helped the Turks to defend as they doubled the defensive forces and dug them into strong positions on hills. Later in the very morning, the first troops went ashore and charged up the steep hillsides and were hit by a hail of machine-gun fire.

Despite the losses against the Alliance, the troops fought very bravely and even managed to capture a number of Turkish trenches. The objective was clearly not achievable but the commanders still forced the troops to dig. With the dead corpses decaying along the front line, disease was imminent. On 20 May both sides even agreed on a truce. They buried the dead and some troops and even exchanged greetings. But the next day, the killing started again. In November, the troops faced another problem – frostbite. The harsh winter came and since the troops were badly equipped, they were attacked with frostbite and 300 troops died in a single snowstorm with 16000 reported cases of frostbite. In December, the win was impossible and the order to withdraw was a success and very well organized. In the end, the campaign was considered a failure and Churchill was badly humiliated.

Part III: Sources help us more.

“The expedition was plagued by inadequate resources. The question arose, if Britain lacked the resources to conduct such a campaign, was it wise to attempt it in the first place?” – From “The Great War: Myth and Reality” by D. Marshall, 1988. Source: 1

“… The men are kept too long and too thick in the trenches: they become stupefied after five days… Almost always in Gallipoli the attacks were made by men in the trenches and not by fresh troops… The Turks dig like moles and prepare line after line for defense; seven or eight close behind the other…” – Major H Mynors Farmar, Staff Captain, 86th Brigade, writing about fighting at Gallipoli. Source: 2

“… , the casualties were appalling. Again and again, battalions were all but wiped out; the trauma inflicted on the survivors must have been terrible” – From “Gallipoli” , by Michael Hickey, 1995. Source: 3

“ A successful military operation against the Gallipoli peninsula must binge upon the ability of the fleet… to dominate the Turkish defenses with gunfire and to crush their field troops during that period of helplessness while an army is disembarking, but also to cover the advance of the troops once ashore…” – From a pre-war report about the strength of the Gallipoli positions, which goes on to say that such an operation would not be possible. The report was not given to the commanders of the Gallipoli campaign. Source: 4

Part IV: So was it a TOTAL failure?

I disagree with this campaign being considered a total failure because soldiers still managed to capture some Turkish trenches and in the end the troops were able to retreat with ease. It was, however, a huge failure, because the primary objective was not completed due to miscalculations of the plan. They underestimated their enemies and many soldiers died to natural causes such as disease and frostbite. Churchill was demoted after this but in an optimistic side of view, not all of the soldiers died and that campaign did not last as long as the Western Front stalemate.

This campaign showed the strength of the Turks and this was a lesson to the Alliance. Source 2 clearly states how quickly the men were demoralized and how bad the decisions were made to send out stupefied men to No Man’s Land. Source 4 shows how they could have defeated the Turks at Gallipoli even before the actual campaign. Source 3 clearly shows how scared were the men and how dramatically were each of the battalions wiped out.

Part V: Conclusion

Basically, this campaign was not a TOTAL failure but it was a huge failure to the Alliance and Admiral Winston Churchill himself. This campaign could have been won much more easier if they would also send more land-based troops and better air support to destroy the forts and trenches. Air support should have been with the troops at all times; if possible that is.

In summary, this campaign was a huge embarassment for the Alliance and it would have been better not carried out in the first place. The conditions in the trenches was horrible. The trenches were packed with rotting corpses, heat, frostbite (winter), and flies everywhere. The casualties in this campaign were horrible.

Image via Wikipedia

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

Creation Of The United Nations:

After the wrath of World War ii, the world is seeking peace and prosperity again among all nations of the world. Before the world had over 170 states with their own territories, people and government. But the world has one world organization for peace which all states will meet in one conference table – The United Nations.

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

The United Nations had created with two group with nations that have oneness. In the year 1943 where where world war ii is about to find it’s final pace. The world leaders from U.S.A, Russia, Great Britain and China, with their significant meeting they agreed to settle world peace. They staged a meeting again fro August to October 1944. At Dumbarton Oaks in Washington D.C. Here they finalized to call world organization, The United Nations. In April 1945, world leaders set a meeting in San Francisco, California to write charters of the Organization.

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

There were ten world sessions for 400 delegations as their representatives from different nations. Finally, the charter of the U.N finished in June 1945.

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr