I've been going through pieces of the book lately. "History of England 1914 – 1945", written by the large but somewhat forgotten English historian Alan John Percival Taylor today. The book, published in 1965, portrays England's social, political and cultural life, but mostly besides Europe, reaching for its description (against the title) besides the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
A.J.P Taylor was an excellent past lecturer in Oxford. All lectures were conducted without notes, crowds of students gathered in the auditorium where he lectured. He began the lecture on time at 9 a.m., as Oxford's only lecturer without even a minute late. University staff protested – in a typical English-like kind – that "It is hard to prepare breakfast on time so early in the morning“ but Taylor answered briefly: "The university exists to advance knowledge, not gourmets" .
From our Polish perspective, it is worth mentioning his very critical, harsh and punctuating lies of the communists a speech at the “obsessed” legislature of Intellectualists in Wrocław in 1948. Taylor was 1 of the fewer speakers who opposed the russian propaganda and the laurel speeches of the remaining "intellectualists" at this propaganda Congress.

In the mentioned ‘History of England’ you can find these sentences, which, in my opinion, peculiarly present have a peculiar impression:

"By August 1914, a reasonable, law-abiding English (and a European) could have passed through life and barely noticed the existence of the State, but for the existence of local message and local police. He could travel freely. He could live where he wanted and how he liked. He didn't have an authoritative number or ID. He could have gone abroad briefly or left his country forever without a passport or any authoritative permit. He could trade his money for any another currency without restrictions and limits. He could buy goods from any country in the planet under the same conditions he bought from his homeland. A foreigner could spend his life in a country he liked, without approval and without notification to the police. Moreover, in England, unlike the countries of the European continent, the state did not require its citizens to carry out military service. An Englishman could enlist, if he wanted, in a regular army, navy or territory. He could besides ignore, if he wanted, the demands of national defence.”

"Anglik paid taxes on a modest scale, little than 8% of his income in 1913."

"All this changed the impact of the large War".

Many people today, after more than 100 years of "democratic-liberal experiment" in Europe, may find it hard to full realize the meaning of these sentences. respective decades of “brainwashing” in universal education has elevated democracy and liberalism to the rank of religion, presenting this strategy as “the only, best and irreplaceable”. Freedom of travel is besides presented as the accomplishment of democracy, liberalism and, of course, progress.
But in fact the planet inactive a small over 100 years ago, before the large War or planet War I, was a much more free, friendly world, and above all a perception of a human being as full free, independent and liable for himself.
As Hans Hermann Hoppe rightly writes, at the end of planet War I, the process of the departure of the full Western planet from monarchy-based governments and the indivisible power of kings for the democratic-republic, indivisible regulation of the "People" was closed.
In fact, the process began with the French Revolution, but until 1914 there were only 3 republics in Europe: France, Switzerland and, from 1911, Portugal. In 1918, almost all monarchs disappeared, and in those countries where the monarchy was nominally preserved – large Britain, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries – kings no longer actually exercised power and had small to say. The Romanov, Hohenzoller and Habsburg dynasties ceased to hold power and Russia, Germany and Austria became democratic republics.
As Hoppe rightly points out, this historical transformation can be presented as a transition from the Austrian strategy to the American system.
The large War began as a conventional territorial conflict, but after the United States joined it, it truly became ideological.
For president Wilson, planet War I in Europe has become his ideological mission to pave the way for democracy everywhere and to “free” the planet from dynastic rulers.

When an allied US Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate in March 1917, and in Russia a democratic Republican Kierensky government was formed, Wilson was not happy due to the fact that after the abdication of the Tsar, the war yet became a purely ideological conflict: "a conflict of good and evil."
Wilson and his abroad policy advisors specified as George D. Herron or Edward Mandell home did not like Germany, but Austria even hated it. According to them, Austria started the war, and America was expected to end it. Austria lost, America won. In Austria, the monarch ruled – Emperor Francis Joseph – and in America elected Democratic president Woodrow Wilson.

As described by Erik Kuehnelt-Leddihn: "For Wilson and America Austria was far more disgusting than Germany. Its existence contradicted the thought of Mazzini's national state. Austria was the heiress of many traditions and symbols, dating back to the Holy Roman Empire (two-headed eagle, black and gold colors, etc.); the ruling dynasty erstwhile ruled in Spain; it led the counterreformation and the Holy Covenant; it fought against the unification of Italy; it abolished the uprising in Hungary, the leader of which was Kossuth (in fresh York is its monument), and it besides supported the morally monarchic experimentation in Mexico. The very word “Habsburg” reminded Wilson of associations with Catholicism, Armada, Inquisition, Metternich, the imprisonment of Lafayette in Olmütz and Silvia Pellico in Spielberg fortress. specified a state had to be destroyed, specified a dynasty had to vanish from the face of the Earth.”

It was precisely that planet War I was not a conventional war, it was not limited to a conflict over certain territories, but it was an ideological war that had specified crucial consequences for Europe after it ended. After its completion, it was the time of liberal rule, the time of democracy and the de facto time of control and regulation of freedom, including freedom of travel.

For for centuries, they have been travelling freely in Europe. If we go back, past shows that the first peculiar paper to be issued to travellers in England in the time of Henry V (Parliamentary Act of 1414) was the alleged "security document", which is hard to compare with today's passport. As Mark Salter writes in his book ‘Rights of passage: The Passport in global Relations", this bill of the British Parliament of 1414 may be regarded as the first written mention of a "passport" in modern history. This free paper was not issued for control purposes but was intended to facilitate trade and travel mainly to inland foreigners for commercial purposes. These papers were based on a ‘gentlemen's contract’, mainly aimed at enabling abroad travellers, previously considered enemies, "Moving to and from the kingdom for trade and negotiation". Sometimes the subjects besides received this document, but at that time they had to pay for it.

The word ‘passport’ itself has not yet been established. In 1420, in France, King Louis XI began issuing certificates permitting the free circulation of goods; this concept was yet extended, to a limited extent, mostly to the French public in 1464. For this reason, it is suggested that the word is derived from a combination of the words "pass" and "port" with respect to commercial access through seaports; others believe that the word is derived from the French "port" referring to the city gate.

Passport as a paper akin to its present function, i.e. as a certain instrument of state regulation, was only born during the French Revolution of 1789. Already specified an early bureaucracy of the Republic had the desire to control the movement of its citizens. Initially, average people received passes only for the control of their movements within the country, especially the control of entry to Paris. But after King Louis XVI tried to flee Paris, and abroad powers began to be seen as threatening revolutions, the authorities began to require specified papers erstwhile they left and entered the country.

By the end of the 18th century, until the French Revolution the individual's nationality was of small political importance. The revolution created 1 of the world's first "national states", defined more by the territorial and "national" identity of its nation than by its subordinateity to its monarch. This fresh knowing and politicisation of the concepts of "citizen" and "nationality" has made identity papers an integral part of the creation of a modern state.

In the early 19th century, with increased movement of people in the years preceding the industrial revolution, passports began to be seen as a means of safety and identification. However, these papers were far from valid today. As more and more people considered migration to another countries in search of better life opportunities, the authorities wanted to find an effective way to manage this process and the first "passport documents" were actually visas.
At the beginning of the industrial revolution, in the second half of the 19th century, population migrations were seen as a natural manifestation of free trade and travel, without requiring control. As evidence of specified knowing of freedom of travel at the time, an example of debates criticizing any passports can be given due to the request for written descriptions of the physical appearance of the holder of specified a document, which, as has been argued, is demeaning to those wearing them!
This led to the temporary cessation of any passport document. France was the first country to mitigate passport requirements in 1861, and most another European countries shortly followed in its footsteps.
But the 20th century was approaching, and the debates on passport control came back.
Just before planet War I, it was re-established that any form of physical description was required in passports, mainly due to the increasing fear of German spies in the UK. However, with the spread of photography in the early 20th century, photographs rapidly replaced the request to describe physical appearance. Citizens were asked to send a photograph of their choice to be utilized in a paper issued by the state, and any families even decided to send group photos, which were besides accepted.

Let us add to the order that passports became a request for global travel immediately after the large War, and in 1920, through the League of Nations, steps were taken to harmonise the modern passport. In 1947, the issue came under the authority of the global civilian Aviation Organisation (ICAO), which inactive sets passport standards today.

Today we are trying to convince ourselves that what we are experiencing today, erstwhile we want to go a small further distant from home, is the "freedom of travel" – the accomplishment of the top democracy, liberalism, internationalism and whatever else. But past reveals another truth. In particular, fresh years have shown how deceptive freedom can be erstwhile it is licensed by omnipotent governments without de facto being subject to any control. In fact, it is hard to presume that a free and reasonable individual inactive believes that we are surviving present in a free planet and in a strategy of that freedom guaranteeing.

Sławomir Starzyński