'The whole world's in a terrible state of chassis.' The end of a religious holiday is a good time for a long review of the human condition. It must be conceded that there are few grounds for optimism. Lent is more apparent than Resurrection. The quotation above comes from Juno and the Paycock. 'Chassis' means chaos - suitable then, suitable now.
The Twentieth Century can be divided into various phases. In the early years, tension was growing, much of it arising from the long slow decline of the Turkish Empire. Chassis is an inevitable consequence of the end of Empires. The tumbling masonry is always perilous. In the first years of the Century, there was trouble in the Balkans and the Middle East, as well as great power rivalry. The British had eventually prevailed in the Boer War, but receiving no end of a lesson in the process. Other powers enjoyed the spectacle of guerilla farmers twisting mighty Albion's tail.
Meanwhile the French still felt the scars of 1870/71. At the end of his three blitzkreig victories, Bismarck hoped that he had settled Europe. Events had other ideas, and cancer played a baleful part. In 1888, Frederick III became the German Emperor. During the Franco-Prussian war, he had successfully commanded an Army in the field, winning prestige. Married to Queen Victoria's eldest daughter, he admired many aspects of the British system of government and thus had liberal and constitutional instincts, despite his Prussian heritage. He inherited a geopolitics in which there was a lot of dry tinder in Central Europe. Could the resulting conflagration have been avoided? Alas, the chances were diminished by the new Emperor's health. He came to the throne in death's shadow. His reign lasted only 99 days.
His successor Wilhelm II was a strutting, insecure creature who admired Prussian militarism. Early on, he dismissed Bismarck, who may have been aging but who still possessed great wisdom. Kaiser Bill, with very little wisdom, did not really grow up until he moved to exile in Holland, after losing the war, and his throne.
The Great War had terrible consequences. So many of its aspects were heart-rending. Think of the cheerful volunteers, the Pals' Battalions and others, who marched off singing, dreaming of glory and victory, to end up in their final parade among the fields of Flanders: seas of white tombstones. Hideous slaughter was followed by the fall of dynasties, and Bolshevism. Among the peoples of Europe, a phrase circulated: the War to end all Wars. That was the hope. It had no purchase on reality. Instead, it became the war to encourage more war.
1914 to 1945 saw a second fall of man. By the end, the Holocaust had become a permanent stain on European civilisation and tens of millions of others had been butchered. There were also the millions who had barely survived as paupers and refugees scraping a living in shattered cities, while around a hundred million other Europeans were condemned to servitude under communism.
By then, no-one was talking about a war to end all wars. Instead, men were clinging to the hope of survival. Orwell's 1984 captures a widespread mood. Europe was dominated by the Iron Curtain. Just as the First World War had created a playing field for the Second, so it in its turn could well lead to the Third, and the final death of European civilisation.
This did not happen. Men crawled away from the abyss. But this owed nothing to a growth of moral sentiment or an outbreak of common sense, merely to the grimmest of paradoxes. Mankind was simultaneously menaced and saved by nuclear weapons. Fear provided the road to a precarious future.
Fast forward a generation, and life in Europe was vastly better than the thoughtful observers of 1945 could have predicted. The Cold War had produced stability. Those who devised NATO had intended to keep the Americans in, the Germans down and the Russians out. The Yanks had indeed done their duty, while a new Germany no longer needed to be kept down. As for the Russians, they were determined to hold on to their own Empire, as Poles, East Germans, Hungarians and Czechs discovered. Yet though the Warsaw Pact may have grown out of war and conquest, it gradually became part of the architecture of post-war peace.
The EU also contributed to post-war economic growth, while assisting other nations to grow into democracy. It worked for almost every member state, except the UK. When we did join, our political elite hoped that its magic formula would cure our longer-term economic difficulties. That did not work, for a range of reasons, starting with our inability to bring the British trade unions into the rule of law, and because of an entirely different political and legal culture, the first and ancient fruit of the English Channel. But we had all survived the Second World War.
Then came a decade in which mere survival appeared to have been transformed into enduring success. By its end, and moving into the next few years, the West was winning the Cold War. The Europeans left behind by Yalta had gained their freedom. It seemed likely that Russia and indeed China were en route to becoming part of a peaceful world framework. South Africa had made a bold leap to democracy, and a peace process was taking hold in Ireland. Ronald Reagan had made Americans feel good about themselves. Margaret Thatcher, the fellow paladin of Western freedom, may not have spread so much good will, but she had revived the animal spirits of the British middle classes while dispatching socialism to a museum of political archaeology.
In the great ones' wake, George Bush senior expressed his desire for a kinder, gentler America while John Major wanted a country at ease with itself. President Bush also proclaimed a new world order, which did indeed seem to be emerging, while Francis Fukuyama hailed the end of history.
Alas, it quickly became clear that history had other ideas. Mr Putin went over to the dark side. Mr Xi showed no interest in becoming part of an American-led world order. Amidst all the optimism, Sam Huntingdon had identified the clash of civilisations. He was right. At various stages, attempts had been made to solve the Palestinian problem, principally with a two-state solution. That got nowhere and now seems further away than ever. The hopes and dreams of 1990 gradually dissipated: the high-flown rhetoric ended in a fall of Icarus.
Then came Ukraine, Palestine again, tension in Taiwan - and President Trump.
What are we to make of Mr Trump? One would not be surprised to learn that President Andrew Jackson used the F-word in public. At the height of the Suez crisis, the White House reverberated with Eisenhower's curses, while the money markets trembled, the Pound quailed and with it, Britain's super-power status. But that immensely dignified President knew when some language was only to be uttered in private.
Not Donald Trump. Yet even a few weeks ago, there appeared to be some grounds for hope. Suppose the US brought about regime change in Venezuela, Cuba and Iran? If so, Mr Trump could be forgiven an ocean of profanity. None of that now seems likely.
As a result of the Donald's elephantine blunderings, the peacetime world is now more dangerous than since the Cuban missile crisis. No-one can predict the next phase of the Ukraine conflict. NATO has been shaken, even to the extent that Europeans may be willing to live up to their responsibilities. But if the West cannot rely on the US, Europe cannot enjoy stability. Is there hope that post-Trump, the NATO regime could return to the status quo? It would be foolish to bank on it.
Meanwhile the Iranians have been enraged. But how badly have they been weakened? John Bolton, one of the wisest of all hawks, seems to believe that the US may have scotched the snake, not killed it. Certainly Sam Huntingdon seems more relevant than George Bush's new world order. Equally, it is hard to see a case for allowing Western policy to be determined by Bibi Netanyahu. Eventually, somehow, someone will have to address the Palestinian question.
This site will continue to address that and other questions. Do I hear a call for answers? We will try.