The Memory Hole

More CIA stories from John Stockwell: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ The documentary "THE CIA, CONGRESS AND THE PRESS" delves into the intricate relationship between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), mass media, and public opinion manipulation. Former CIA insiders and authors intimately familiar with the agency reveal the pervasive infiltration of the media by the CIA, shedding light on how it's utilized to shape and control public sentiment. Whistleblowers like John Stockwell share firsthand experiences of covert operations conducted worldwide, unraveling the intricate web of tactics employed to sway narratives and disseminate misinformation. As the film progresses, viewers are confronted with specific instances of disinformation, juxtaposed against broader governmental practices. The focus intensifies on the Reagan Administration, exposing a pattern of deceit, information distortion, and systematic manipulation of the press. Throughout its 59 minutes and 25 seconds runtime, the documentary presents a stark portrayal of how governmental bodies, specifically the CIA, wielded their influence within media channels, underscoring the concerning implications for public trust and the authenticity of information disseminated to the masses. Recorded on June 10, 1987, it remains a compelling insight into the complexities of media manipulation and government misinformation tactics. Media manipulation is a series of related techniques in which partisans create an image or argument that favors their particular interests.[1] Such tactics may include the use of logical fallacies, manipulation, outright deception (disinformation), rhetorical and propaganda techniques, and often involve the suppression of information or points of view by crowding them out, by inducing other people or groups of people to stop listening to certain arguments, or by simply diverting attention elsewhere. In Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul writes that public opinion can only express itself through channels which are provided by the mass media of communication – without which there could be no propaganda.[2] It is used within public relations, propaganda, marketing, etc. While the objective for each context is quite different, the broad techniques are often similar. As illustrated below, many of the more modern mass media manipulation methods are types of distraction, on the assumption that the public has a limited attention span. Contexts Activism Main article: Activism Activism is the practice or doctrine that has an emphasis on direct vigorous action especially supporting or opposing one side of a controversial matter.[3] It is quite simply starting a movement to affect or change social views. It is frequently started by influential individuals but is done collectively through social movements with large masses.[4] These social movements can be done through public rallies, strikes, street marches and even rants on social media. Advertising Duration: 1 minute and 1 second.1:01Subtitles available.CC "Daisy", a TV commercial for the re-election of U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson. It aired only once, in September 1964, and is considered both one of the most controversial and one of the most effective political ads in U.S. history. Main article: Advertising Advertising is a form of promotion that seeks to persuade a certain audience to purchase a good or service. One of the first types of marketing, it aims to persuade its target market to either buy, sell, or carry out a particular action.[5] This tends to be done by businesses who wish to sell their product by paying media outlets to show their products or services on television breaks, banners on websites and mobile applications. These advertisements are not only done by businesses but can also be done by certain groups. Non-commercial advertisers are those who spend money on advertising in a hope to raise awareness for a cause or promote specific ideas.[6] These include groups such as interest groups, political parties, government organizations and religious movements. Most of these organizations intend to spread a message or sway public opinion instead of trying to sell products or services. Advertising can not only be found on social media, but it is also evident on billboards, newspapers, magazines and even word of mouth. Hoaxing Main article: Hoax A hoax is something intended to deceive or defraud. Misleading public stunts, scientific frauds, false bomb threats and business scams are examples of hoaxes.[7] Propagandizing Main article: Propaganda Propagandizing is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is commonly created by governments, but some forms of mass communication created by other powerful organizations can be considered propaganda as well. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes. While the term propaganda has justifiably acquired a strongly negative connotation by association with its most manipulative and jingoistic examples (e.g. Nazi propaganda used to justify the Holocaust), propaganda in its original sense was neutral, and could refer to uses that were generally benign or innocuous, such as public health recommendations, signs encouraging citizens to participate in a census or election, or messages encouraging persons to report crimes to the police, among others. Propaganda uses societal norms and myths that people hear and believe. Because people respond to, understand and remember more simple ideas this is what is used to influence people's beliefs, attitudes and values.[8] Psychological warfare Main article: Psychological warfare Psychological warfare is sometimes considered synonymous with propaganda. The principal distinction being that propaganda normally occurs within a nation, whereas psychological warfare normally takes place between nations, often during war or cold war. Various techniques are used to influence a target's values, beliefs, emotions, motives, reasoning, or behavior. Target audiences can be governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. This tactic has been used in multiple wars throughout history. During World War II, the western Allies, expected that the Soviet Union would drop leaflets on the US and England. During the conflict with Iraq, American and English forces dropped leaflets, with many of the leaflets telling the people how to surrender. In the Korean War both sides would use loud speakers from the front lines.[9] In 2009 people in Israel in the Gaza war received text messages on their cell phones threatening them with rocket attacks. The Palestinian people were getting phone calls and leaflets warning them that they were going to drop rockets on them. These phone calls and leaflets were not always accurate.[10] Public relations Main article: Public relations Public relations (PR) is the management of the flow of information between an individual or an organization and the public. Public relations may include an organization or individual gaining exposure to their audiences using topics of public interest and news items that do not require direct payment. PR is generally created by specialized individuals or firms at the behest of already public individuals or organizations, as a way of managing their public profile. Techniques Internet manipulation Main article: Internet manipulation Astroturfing Main article: Astroturfing Astroturfing is when there is an intent and attempt to create the illusion of support for a particular cause, person, or stance. While this is mainly connected to and seen on the internet, it has also happened in newspapers during times of political elections.[11] Corporations and political parties try to imitate grassroots movements in order to sway the public to believing something that isn't true.[12] Clickbait Main article: Clickbait Clickbait refers to headlines of online news articles that are sensationalized or sometimes completely fake. It uses people's natural curiosity to get people to click. In some cases clickbait is simply used to generate income, more clicks means more money made with advertisers.[13] But these headlines and articles can also be used to influence a group of people on social media. They are constructed to appeal to the interest group's pre-existing biases and thus to be shared within filter bubbles.[14] Propaganda laundering Main article: Propaganda Propaganda laundering is a method of using a less trusted or less popular platform to publish a story of dubious origin or veracity for the purposes of reporting on that report, rather than the story itself. This technique serves to insulate the secondary more established media from having to issue a retraction if the report is false. Generally secondary reports will report that the original report is reporting without verifying or making the report themselves.[citation needed] Search engine marketing Main article: Search engine marketing In search engine marketing websites use market research, from past searches and other sources, to increase their visibility in search engine results pages. This allows them to guide search results along the lines they desire, and thereby influence searchers.[15][16] Business have many tactics to lure customers into their websites and to generate revenue such as banner ads, search engine optimization and pay-per-click marketing tools. They all serve a different purpose and use different tools that appeal to multiple types of users. Banner ads appear on sites that then redirect to other sites that are similar. Search engine optimization is changing a page to seem more reliable or applicable than other similar pages. Pay-per-click involves certain words being highlighted because they were bought by advertisers to then redirect to a page containing information or selling whatever that word pertained to. By using the internet, users are susceptible to these type of advertisements without a clear advertising campaign being viewed. Distraction Distraction by major events Commonly known as "smoke screen", this technique consists of making the public focus its attention on a topic that is more convenient for the propagandist. This particular type of media manipulation has been referenced many times in popular culture. Some examples are: The movie Wag the Dog (1997), which illustrates the public being deceitfully distracted from an important topic by presenting another that whose only quality is that of being more attractive. In the U.S. TV series House of Cards, when protagonist Frank Underwood finds himself trapped in a media rampage, he addresses the viewer and says: "From the lion's den or a pack of wolves. When you're fresh meat, kill and throw them something fresher". Politicians distract the public by showing them "shiny object" issues through the use of TV and other media. Sometimes they can be as simple as a politician with a reality show, like Sarah Palin had for a short time back in 2009, which aired on TLC.[17] Distracting the public This is a mere variation of the traditional arguments known, in logic, as ad hominem and ad populum but applied to countries instead of individuals. This technique consists on refuting arguments by appealing to nationalism or by inspiring fear and hate towards a foreign country or to all the foreigners. It has the potential of being important since it gives the propagandists the power to discredit any information coming from other countries. Some examples are: Q: "What do you think about Khokara's politic on X matter?" A: "I think they've been wrong about everything for the last 20 years or so..." Q: "Your idea is quite similar to the one proposed in Falala." A: "Are you suggesting Falala is a better country than ours?" Straw man fallacy Main article: Straw man An informal fallacy. The "straw man" consists of appearing to refute the opponent's argument while actually attacking another topic. For it to work properly the topic that was actually refuted and the one that should have been refuted need to be similar. Distraction by scapegoat Main article: Scapegoating This is a combination of the straw man fallacy and the ad hominem argument. It is often used to incriminate someone in order to argument the innocence of someone else. Audio manipulation Main article: Sound bite Photo manipulation Main article: Photo manipulation Visual media can be transformed through photo manipulation, commonly called "photoshopping." This can make a product, person, or idea seem more appealing. This is done by highlighting certain features on the product and using certain editing tools to enlarge the photo, to attract and persuade the public. Video manipulation Main article: video manipulation Video manipulation is a new variant of media manipulation that targets digital video using a combination of traditional video processing and video editing techniques and auxiliary methods from artificial intelligence like face recognition. In typical video manipulation, the facial structure, body movements, and voice of the subject are replicated in order to create a fabricated recording of the subject. The applications of these methods range from educational videos to videos aimed at (mass) manipulation and propaganda, a straightforward extension of the long-standing possibilities of photo manipulation. This form of computer-generated misinformation has contributed to fake news, and there have been instances when this technology was used during political campaigns.[citation needed] Compliance professionals A compliance professional is an expert that utilizes and perfects means of gaining media influence. Though the means of gaining influence are common, their aims vary from political, economic, to personal. Thus the label of compliance professional applies to diverse groups of people, including propagandists, marketers, pollsters, salespeople and political advocates. Techniques Means of influence include, but are not limited to, the methods outlined in Influence: Science and Practice:[18] Authority Commitment and consistency Reciprocation Scarcity Social proof Additionally, techniques like framing and less formal means of effective obfuscation, such as the use of logical fallacies, are used to gain compliance. See also iconMedia portal Related topics Agnotology Concentration of media ownership Consumer confusion Consumer psychology Consumer science Crowd manipulation Deception Disinformation Demagogy Front organization Gatekeeping (communication) Gotcha journalism Guerrilla marketing Outline of public relations Ideocracy Ideology Indoctrination Internet manipulation McCarthyism Media regulation Media transparency Meme News management Pallywood Promotion (marketing) Sensationalism Spin (public relations) The True Believer Under color of authority Viral marketing Notable compliance experts Edward Bernays Ryan Holiday Ivy Lee Frank Luntz Notable media manipulation theorists Noam Chomsky Edward S. Herman Michael Moore Michael Parenti

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Civil liberties in the United States are certain unalienable rights retained by (as opposed to privileges granted to) citizens of the United States under the Constitution of the United States, as interpreted and clarified by the Supreme Court of the United States and lower federal courts.[1] Civil liberties are simply defined as individual legal and constitutional protections from entities more powerful than an individual, for example, parts of the government, other individuals, or corporations. The explicitly defined liberties make up the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to privacy.[2] There are also many liberties of people not defined in the Constitution, as stated in the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The extent of civil liberties and the percentage of the population of the United States who had access to these liberties has expanded over time. For example, the Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote (about 6% of the population).[3][4][5] The 'Three-Fifths Compromise' allowed the southern slaveholders to consolidate power and maintain slavery in America for eighty years after the ratification of the Constitution.[6] And the Bill of Rights had little impact on judgements by the courts for the first 130 years after ratification.[7] United States Constitution Freedom of religion Main article: Freedom of religion in the United States Main article: Free Exercise Clause The text of Amendment I to the United States Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, states that: "Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"[8] — United States Constitution, Amendment I Freedom of expression Main article: Freedom of speech in the United States Free Speech Clause Main article: Free Speech Clause The text of Amendment I to the United States Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, states that: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech,"[8] — United States Constitution, Amendment I Free Press Clause The text of Amendment I to the United States Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, states that: "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the press,"[8] — United States Constitution, Amendment I Free Assembly Clause The text of Amendment I to the United States Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, states that: "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble,"[8] — United States Constitution, Amendment I Petition Clause Main article: Petition Clause The text of Amendment I to the United States Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, states that: "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."[8] — United States Constitution, Amendment I Free speech exceptions Main article: United States free speech exceptions The following types of speech are not protected constitutionally: defamation or false statements, child pornography, obscenity, damaging the national security interests, verbal acts, and fighting words. Because these categories fall outside of the First Amendment privileges, the courts can legally restrict or criminalize any expressive act within them. Other expressions, including threat of bodily harm or publicizing illegal activity, may also be ruled illegal.[9] Right to keep and bear arms Main article: Right to keep and bear arms in the United States The text of Amendment II to the United States Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, states that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[8] — United States Constitution, Amendment II Sexual freedom The concept of sexual freedom includes a broad range of different rights that are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The idea of sexual freedom has sprung more from the popular opinion of society in more recent years, and has had very little Constitutional backing. The following liberties are included under sexual freedom: sexual expression, sexual choices, sexual education, reproductive justice, and sexual health.[10] Sexual freedom in general is considered an implied procedure, and is not mentioned in the Constitution. Sexual freedoms include the freedom to have consensual sex with whomever a person chooses, at any time, for any reason, provided the person is of the age of majority. Marriage is not required, nor are there any requirements as to the gender or number of people you have sex with. Sexual freedom includes the freedom to have private consensual homosexual sex (Lawrence v. Texas). Equal protection Main article: Equal Protection Clause Equal protection prevents the government from creating laws that are discriminatory in application or effect. Right to vote The text of Amendment XIV to the United States Constitution, ratified July 9, 1868, states that: "when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one (eighteen) years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one (eighteen) years of age in such State."[8] — United States Constitution, Article XIV The text of Amendment XV to the United States Constitution, ratified February 3, 1870, states that: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."[8] — United States Constitution, Article XV The text of Amendment XIX to the United States Constitution, ratified August 18, 1919, states that: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."[8] — United States Constitution, Amendment XIX The text of Amendment XXIV to the United States Constitution, ratified January 23, 1964, states that: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."[8] — United States Constitution, Amendment XXIII The text of Amendment XXVI to the United States Constitution, ratified July 1, 1971, states that: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age."[8] — United States Constitution, Amendment XXVI Right to parent one's children The right to parent one's own children also includes the right for a parent to teach their children as they see fit, and not have others govern over what their children are taught. Right to privacy This section is an excerpt from Right to privacy § United States.[edit] The Constitution of the United States and United States Bill of Rights do not explicitly include a right to privacy.[11] Currently no federal law takes a holistic approach to privacy regulation. In the US, privacy and expectations of privacy have been determined via court cases. Those protections have been established through court decisions provide a reasonable expectations of privacy. The Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text.[12] In 1890, Warren and Brandeis drafted an article published in the Harvard Law Review titled "The Right To Privacy" that is often cited as the first implicit finding of a U.S. stance on the right to privacy.[13] Right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of civil liberties cases, including Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which invalidated a successful 1922 Oregon initiative requiring compulsory public education; Roe v. Wade, which struck down an abortion law from Texas, and thus restricted state powers to enforce laws against abortion; and Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law, and thus eliminated state powers to enforce laws against sodomy. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization later overruled Roe v. Wade, in part due to the Supreme Court finding that the right to privacy was not mentioned in the constitution,[14] leaving the future validity of these decisions uncertain.[15] Legally, the right of privacy is a basic law[16] which includes: The right of persons to be free from unwarranted publicity Unwarranted appropriation of one's personality Publicizing one's private affairs without a legitimate public concern Wrongful intrusion into one's private activities For the health care sector where medical records are part of an individual's privacy, The Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act was passed in 1996. This act safeguards medical data of the patient which also includes giving individuals rights over their health information, like getting a copy of their records and seeking correction.[17] Medical anthropologist Khiara Bridges has argued that the US Medicare system requires so much personal disclosure from pregnant women that they effectively do not have privacy rights.[18] CCPA [19] In 2018, California set out to create a policy promoting data protection, the first state in the United States to pursue such protection. The resulting effort is the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), reviewed as a critical juncture where the legal definition of what privacy entails from California lawmakers' perspective. The California Consumer Protection Act is a privacy law protecting the residents of California and their Personal identifying information. The law enacts regulation over all companies regardless of operational geography protecting the six Intentional Acts included in the law. The intentions included in the Act provide California residents with the right to: Know what personal data is being collected about them. Know whether their personal data is sold or disclosed and to whom. Say no to the sale of personal data. Access their personal data. Request a business to delete any personal information about a consumer collected from that consumer. Not be discriminated against for exercising their privacy rights. Right to marriage The 1967 United States Supreme Court ruling in the case Loving v. Virginia found a fundamental right to marriage, regardless of race. The 2015 United States Supreme Court ruling in the case Obergefell v. Hodges found a fundamental right to marriage, regardless of gender. Rights of self-defense [icon] This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (December 2021) See also American Civil Liberties Union Civil liberties in the United Kingdom Civil rights in the United States Constitution of the United States References "AskMe: Civil liberties vs. Civil rights". Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties "Expansion of Rights and Liberties - The Right of Suffrage". Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom. National Archives. Archived from the original on July 6, 2016. Retrieved April 21, 2015. Murrin, John M.; Johnson, Paul E.; McPherson, James M.; Fahs, Alice; Gerstle, Gary (2012). Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People (6th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. p. 296. ISBN 9780495904991. Janda, Kenneth; Berry, Jeffrey M.; Goldman, Jerry (2008). The challenge of democracy: government in America (9. ed., update ed.). Houghton Mifflin. p. 207. ISBN 9780618990948. "We Hold These Truths to be Self-evident;" An Interdisciplinary Analysis of the Roots of Racism & slavery in America Kenneth N. Addison; Introduction P. xxii "The Bill Of Rights: A Brief History". ACLU. Retrieved 21 April 2015. United States Constitution Basic Information About the First Amendment & Censorship "State of Sexual Freedom in the United States, 2010 Report" (PDF). Woodhull Freedom Foundation. 2010. "The Right of Privacy The Issue: Does the Constitution protect the right of privacy? If so, what aspects of privacy receive protection?". University of Missouri – Kansas City School of Law. Retrieved 29 September 2020. R.H. Clark (1974). "Constitutional Sources of the Penumbral Right to Privacy". Villanova Law Review. Retrieved 29 September 2020. Warren, Samuel; Brandeis, Louis D. (1890). "The Right to Privacy". Harvard Law Review. 4 (5): 193–220. doi:10.2307/1321160. JSTOR 1321160. Archived from the original on 23 October 2008. Retrieved 3 May 2022. "Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, ending right to abortion upheld for decades". NPR.org. Retrieved 2022-06-25. Frias, Lauren. "What is Griswold v. Connecticut? How access to contraception and other privacy rights could be at risk after SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade". Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-06-25. "The Legal Right to Privacy | Stimmel Law". www.stimmel-law.com. Retrieved 25 June 2021. "Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 | CMS". www.cms.gov. Retrieved 2022-09-21. Bridges, Khiara M. (2017). The poverty of privacy rights. Stanford, California. ISBN 978-0-8047-9545-6. "California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)". State of California - Department of Justice - Office of the Attorney General. 2018-10-15. Retrieved 2022-09-24. Further reading Abbott, Lewis F. Defending Liberty: The Case for a New Bill of Rights ISR Publications 2019. Alexander, Keith L. Lawsuit Seeks Right to Carry Concealed Weapons in the District. Www.washingtonpost.com. The Washington Post, 8 Aug. 2009. Web. 29 Sept. 2009. American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU.org. n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2009. FindLaw. First Amendment - Religion and Expression. FindLaw for Legal Professionals. FindLaw, 2009. Web. 29 Sept. 2009. Gordon, Jesse. Civil Liberties vs. Civil Rights. OnTheIssues.org. Ed. Jesse Gordon. Jesse Gordon, 3 Aug. 2000. Web. 29 Sept. 2009. Scalia, Antonin. District of Columbia v. Heller. Oyez.org. The US Supreme Court Media, June 2008. Web. 29 Sept. 2009. vte United States articles History By period 1776–1789 1789–1815 1815–1849 1849–1865 1865–1917 1917–1945 1945–1964 1964–1980 1980–1991 1991–2008 2008–present By event Pre-colonial era Colonial era Stamp Act Congress Thirteen Colonies Continental Congress Continental Association United Colonies military history Founding Fathers Halifax Resolves Lee Resolution Declaration of Independence American Revolution War Treaty of Paris Articles of Confederation Perpetual Union Confederation period American frontier Constitution drafting and ratification Bill of Rights Federalist Era War of 1812 Territorial evolution Mexican–American War Civil War Reconstruction era Indian Wars Native genocide Gilded Age Progressive Era Women's suffrage Civil rights movement 1865–1896 1896–1954 1954–1968 Spanish–American War Imperialism World War I Roaring Twenties Great Depression World War II home front American Century Cold War Korean War Space Race Feminist Movement LGBT Movement Vietnam War Post-Cold War (1991–2008) September 11 attacks War on Terror War in Afghanistan Iraq War Great Recession COVID-19 pandemic By topic Outline of U.S. history Demographic Discoveries Economic debt ceiling Inventions before 1890 1890–1945 after 1991 Military Postal Technological and industrial Geography Territory Contiguous United States counties federal district federal enclaves Indian reservations insular zones minor outlying islands populated places states Earthquakes Extreme points Islands Mountains peaks ranges Appalachian Rocky Sierra Nevada National Park Service National Parks Regions East Coast West Coast Great Plains Gulf Mid-Atlantic Midwestern New England Pacific Central Eastern Northern Northeastern Northwestern Southern Southeastern Southwestern Western Longest rivers Arkansas Colorado Columbia Mississippi Missouri Red (South) Rio Grande Yukon Time Water supply and sanitation World Heritage Sites Politics Federal Executive President of the United States powers Executive Office Vice President Cabinet Executive departments Independent agencies Intelligence Community Director of National Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency National Security Agency National Reconnaissance Office Law enforcement ATF CBP Diplomatic Security DEA FBI ICE Marshals Secret Service TSA Inspector generals Civil service Public policy Legislative House of Representatives current members Speaker Sergeant at Arms Senate current members President pro tempore President Sergeant at Arms Capitol Police Library of Congress Congressional Budget Office Government Accountability Office Government Publishing Office Judicial Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices list Marshal Police Courts of appeals list of judges District courts/Territorial courts list of courts list of judges Other tribunals U.S. attorney Law Bill of Rights civil liberties Code of Federal Regulations Constitution federalism preemption separation of powers civil rights Federal Reporter United States Code United States Reports Uniformed Armed Forces Army Marine Corps Navy Air Force Space Force Coast Guard National Guard NOAA Corps Public Health Service Corps State, Federal District, and Territorial Executive Governor list Lieutenant governor list Secretary of state Attorney general Treasurer Auditor/Comptroller Agriculture commissioner Insurance commissioner Public utilities commission State police list Legislative List of legislatures List of legislators Judicial Supreme courts Chief justices District attorney list Law State constitutions Statutory codes Uniform act Comparison of governments Tribal Tribal sovereignty Native American recognition in the United States Federally recognized tribes Federally recognized Alaska Native tribes State-recognized tribes Indian reservation list Hawaiian home land Local County List of counties and county equivalents County executive Sheriff Clerk Cities Consolidated city-county Independent city Coterminous municipality Charter Mayor–council government Council–manager government City commission government Mayor City manager City council Minor divisions Township Town meeting Special district School district list Corruption Elections Electoral College Red states and blue states Foreign relations foreign policy Imperial presidency Ideologies Anti-Americanism exceptionalism nationalism Parties Democratic Republican Third parties Scandals Economy By sector Agriculture Banking Communications Companies Energy Insurance Manufacturing Mining Science and technology Tourism Trade by state Currency Exports Federal budget Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States Federal Reserve System Financial position Labor unions Public debt Social welfare programs Taxation Unemployment Wall Street Transport Aviation Driving Public transportation Rail transportation Transportation policy Transportation safety Trucking industry Society Culture Americana Architecture Cinema Crime Cuisine Dance Death care Women Demographics Economic issues affluence eviction homeownership household income income inequality middle class personal income poverty standard of living wealth working class Education attainment literacy Family Fashion Flag Folklore Great American Novel Holidays Homelessness Housing Human rights Languages American English Indigenous languages ASL Black American Sign Language HSL Plains Sign Talk Arabic Chinese French German Italian Russian Spanish Literature Media journalism internet newspapers radio television Music Names National symbols Columbia Mount Rushmore Statue of Liberty Uncle Sam People Philosophy Political ideologies Race Religion Sexuality adolescent Social class Society Sports Theater Transportation Video games Visual art Social class Affluence American Dream Educational attainment Homelessness Homeownership Household income Income inequality Middle class Personal income Poverty Standard of living Health Healthcare Abortion Birth control Prenatal care Hospice care Immigrant health care Rationing Health care finance Health insurance costs Health care prices Prescription drug prices Disability Health insurance Food safety Physician shortage Poverty and health Race and health Race and maternal health Medical racism Obesity Medical deserts Women's reproductive health Maternal mortality Life expectancy Issues Ages of consent Capital punishment Crime incarceration Criticism of government Discrimination affirmative action antisemitism hair texture intersex rights Islamophobia LGBT rights racism Native American African American same-sex marriage Drug policy Energy policy Environmental issues Environmental movement Climate change Environmental education Gun politics Mass shootings hunger obesity smoking Human rights Immigration illegal International rankings National security Mass surveillance Terrorism Separation of church and state Xenophobia OutlineIndex Category Portal Categories: Civil liberties in the United States Rights United States constitutional law

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90 percent of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90 percent of the city's industry.[186] Although an important industrial city, Nagasaki had been spared from firebombing because its geography made it difficult to locate at night with AN/APQ-13 radar.[120] Unlike the other target cities, Nagasaki had not been placed off limits to bombers by the Joint Chiefs of Staff's 3 July directive,[120][187] and was bombed on a small scale five times. During one of these raids on 1 August, a number of conventional high-explosive bombs were dropped on the city. A few hit the shipyards and dock areas in the southwest portion of the city, and several hit the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works.[186] By early August, the city was defended by the 134th Anti-Aircraft Regiment of the 4th Anti-Aircraft Division with four batteries of 7 cm (2.8 in) anti-aircraft guns and two searchlight batteries.[115] A photo of the harbor at Nagasaki in August 1945 before the city was hit with the atomic bomb The harbor at Nagasaki in August 1945 before the city was hit with the atomic bomb In contrast to Hiroshima, almost all of the buildings were of old-fashioned Japanese construction, consisting of timber or timber-framed buildings with timber walls (with or without plaster) and tile roofs. Many of the smaller industries and business establishments were also situated in buildings of timber or other materials not designed to withstand explosions. Nagasaki had been permitted to grow for many years without conforming to any definite city zoning plan; residences were erected adjacent to factory buildings and to each other almost as closely as possible throughout the entire industrial valley. On the day of the bombing, an estimated 263,000 people were in Nagasaki, including 240,000 Japanese residents, 10,000 Korean residents, 2,500 conscripted Korean workers, 9,000 Japanese soldiers, 600 conscripted Chinese workers, and 400 Allied prisoners of war in a camp to the north of Nagasaki.[188] Bombing of Nagasaki The Bockscar B-29 and a post war Mk III nuclear weapon painted to resemble the Fat Man bomb, at the National Museum of the United States Air Force, Dayton, Ohio Responsibility for the timing of the second bombing was delegated to Tibbets. Scheduled for 11 August, the raid was moved earlier by two days to avoid a five-day period of bad weather forecast to begin on 10 August.[189] Three bomb pre-assemblies had been transported to Tinian, labeled F-31, F-32, and F-33 on their exteriors. On 8 August, a dress rehearsal was conducted off Tinian by Sweeney using Bockscar as the drop airplane. Assembly F-33 was expended testing the components and F-31 was designated for the 9 August mission.[190] Special Mission 16, secondary target Nagasaki, 9 August 1945[191] Aircraft Pilot Call sign Mission role Enola Gay Captain George W. Marquardt Dimples 82 Weather reconnaissance (Kokura) Laggin' Dragon Captain Charles F. McKnight Dimples 95 Weather reconnaissance (Nagasaki) Bockscar Major Charles W. Sweeney Dimples 77 Weapon delivery The Great Artiste Captain Frederick C. Bock Dimples 89 Blast measurement instrumentation Big Stink Major James I. Hopkins, Jr. Dimples 90 Strike observation and photography Full House Major Ralph R. Taylor Dimples 83 Strike spare – did not complete mission At 03:47 Tinian time (GMT+10), 02:47 Japanese time,[192] on the morning of 9 August 1945, Bockscar, flown by Sweeney's crew, lifted off from Tinian island with the Fat Man, with Kokura as the primary target and Nagasaki the secondary target. The mission plan for the second attack was nearly identical to that of the Hiroshima mission, with two B-29s flying an hour ahead as weather scouts and two additional B-29s in Sweeney's flight for instrumentation and photographic support of the mission. Sweeney took off with his weapon already armed but with the electrical safety plugs still engaged.[193] During pre-flight inspection of Bockscar, the flight engineer notified Sweeney that an inoperative fuel transfer pump made it impossible to use 2,400 liters (640 U.S. gal) of fuel carried in a reserve tank. This fuel would still have to be carried all the way to Japan and back, consuming still more fuel. Replacing the pump would take hours; moving the Fat Man to another aircraft might take just as long and was dangerous as well, as the bomb was live. Tibbets and Sweeney therefore elected to have Bockscar continue the mission.[194][195] The before image looks like a city. In the after image, everything has been obliterated and it is recognisable as the same area only by the rivers running through it, which form an island in the centre of the photographs. Nagasaki before and after the bombing, after the fires had burned out This time Penney and Cheshire were allowed to accompany the mission, flying as observers on the third plane, Big Stink, flown by the group's operations officer, Major James I. Hopkins, Jr. Observers aboard the weather planes reported both targets clear. When Sweeney's aircraft arrived at the assembly point for his flight off the coast of Japan, Big Stink failed to make the rendezvous.[193] According to Cheshire, Hopkins was at varying heights including 2,700 meters (9,000 ft) higher than he should have been, and was not flying tight circles over Yakushima as previously agreed with Sweeney and Captain Frederick C. Bock, who was piloting the support B-29 The Great Artiste. Instead, Hopkins was flying 64-kilometer (40 mi) dogleg patterns.[196] Though ordered not to circle longer than fifteen minutes, Sweeney continued to wait for Big Stink for forty minutes. Before leaving the rendezvous point, Sweeney consulted Ashworth, who was in charge of the bomb. As commander of the aircraft, Sweeney made the decision to proceed to the primary, the city of Kokura.[197] After exceeding the original departure time limit by nearly a half-hour, Bockscar, accompanied by The Great Artiste, proceeded to Kokura, thirty minutes away. The delay at the rendezvous had resulted in clouds and drifting smoke over Kokura from fires started by a major firebombing raid by 224 B-29s on nearby Yahata the previous day.[198] Additionally, the Yahata Steel Works intentionally burned coal tar, to produce black smoke.[199] The clouds and smoke resulted in 70 percent of the area over Kokura being covered, obscuring the aiming point. Three bomb runs were made over the next 50 minutes, burning fuel and exposing the aircraft repeatedly to the heavy defenses around Kokura, but the bombardier was unable to drop visually. By the time of the third bomb run, Japanese anti-aircraft fire was getting close, and Second Lieutenant Jacob Beser, who was monitoring Japanese communications, reported activity on the Japanese fighter direction radio bands.[200] With fuel running low because of the failed fuel pump, Bockscar and The Great Artiste headed for their secondary target, Nagasaki.[193] Fuel consumption calculations made en route indicated that Bockscar had insufficient fuel to reach Iwo Jima and would be forced to divert to Okinawa, which had become entirely Allied-occupied territory only six weeks earlier. After initially deciding that if Nagasaki were obscured on their arrival the crew would carry the bomb to Okinawa and dispose of it in the ocean if necessary, Ashworth agreed with Sweeney's suggestion that a radar approach would be used if the target was obscured.[201][202] At about 07:50 Japanese time, an air raid alert was sounded in Nagasaki, but the "all clear" signal was given at 08:30. When only two B-29 Superfortresses were sighted at 10:53 Japanese Time (GMT+9), the Japanese apparently assumed that the planes were only on reconnaissance and no further alarm was given.[203] A few minutes later at 11:00 Japanese Time, The Great Artiste dropped instruments attached to three parachutes. These instruments also contained an unsigned letter to Professor Ryokichi Sagane, a physicist at the University of Tokyo who studied with three of the scientists responsible for the atomic bomb at the University of California, Berkeley, urging him to tell the public about the danger involved with these weapons of mass destruction. The messages were found by military authorities but not turned over to Sagane until a month later.[204] In 1949, one of the authors of the letter, Luis Alvarez, met with Sagane and signed the letter.[205] At 11:01 Japanese Time, a last-minute break in the clouds over Nagasaki allowed Bockscar's bombardier, Captain Kermit Beahan, to visually sight the target as ordered. The Fat Man weapon, containing a core of about 5 kg (11 lb) of plutonium, was dropped over the city's industrial valley. It exploded 47 seconds later at 11:02 Japanese Time[192] at 503 ± 10 m (1,650 ± 33 ft), above a tennis court,[206] halfway between the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works in the south and the Nagasaki Arsenal in the north. This was nearly 3 km (1.9 mi) northwest of the planned hypocenter; the blast was confined to the Urakami Valley and a major portion of the city was protected by the intervening hills.[207] The resulting explosion released the equivalent energy of 21 ± 2 kt (87.9 ± 8.4 TJ).[138] Big Stink spotted the explosion from 160 kilometers (100 mi) away, and flew over to observe.[208] The bomb destroyed the Roman Catholic Urakami Tenshudo Church Bockscar flew on to Okinawa, arriving with only sufficient fuel for a single approach. Sweeney tried repeatedly to contact the control tower for landing clearance, but received no answer. He could see heavy air traffic landing and taking off from Yontan Airfield. Firing off every flare on board to alert the field to his emergency landing, the Bockscar came in fast, landing at 230 km/h (140 mph) instead of the normal 190 kilometers per hour (120 mph). The number two engine died from fuel starvation as he began the final approach. Touching down on only three engines midway down the landing strip, Bockscar bounced up into the air again for about 7.6 meters (25 ft) before slamming back down hard. The heavy B-29 slewed left and towards a row of parked B-24 bombers before the pilots managed to regain control. Its reversible propellers were insufficient to slow the aircraft adequately, and with both pilots standing on the brakes, Bockscar made a swerving 90-degree turn at the end of the runway to avoid running off it. A second engine died from fuel exhaustion before the plane came to a stop.[209] Following the mission, there was confusion over the identification of the plane. The first eyewitness account by war correspondent William L. Laurence of The New York Times, who accompanied the mission aboard the aircraft piloted by Bock, reported that Sweeney was leading the mission in The Great Artiste. He also noted its "Victor" number as 77, which was that of Bockscar.[210] Laurence had interviewed Sweeney and his crew, and was aware that they referred to their airplane as The Great Artiste. Except for Enola Gay, none of the 393d's B-29s had yet had names painted on the noses, a fact which Laurence himself noted in his account. Unaware of the switch in aircraft, Laurence assumed Victor 77 was The Great Artiste,[211] which was in fact, Victor 89.[212] Events on the ground Although the bomb was more powerful than the one used on Hiroshima, its effects were confined by hillsides to the narrow Urakami Valley.[213] Of 7,500 Japanese employees who worked inside the Mitsubishi Munitions plant, including "mobilized" students and regular workers, 6,200 were killed. Some 17,000–22,000 others who worked in other war plants and factories in the city died as well.[214] Casualty estimates for immediate deaths vary widely, ranging from 22,000 to 75,000.[214] At least 35,000–40,000 people were killed and 60,000 others injured.[215][216] In the days and months following the explosion, more people died from their injuries. Because of the presence of undocumented foreign workers, and a number of military personnel in transit, there are great discrepancies in the estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945; a range of 60,000 to 80,000 can be found in various studies.[121] Y�suke Yamahata photographed this child incinerated in Nagasaki. American forces censored such images in Japan until 1952.[217][218] Unlike Hiroshima's military death toll, only 150 Japanese soldiers were killed instantly, including 36 from the 134th AAA Regiment of the 4th AAA Division.[115] At least eight Allied prisoners of war (POWs) died from the bombing, and as many as thirteen may have died. The eight confirmed deaths included a British POW, Royal Air Force Corporal Ronald Shaw,[219] and seven Dutch POWs.[220] One American POW, Joe Kieyoomia, was in Nagasaki at the time of the bombing but survived, reportedly having been shielded from the effects of the bomb by the concrete walls of his cell.[221] There were 24 Australian POWs in Nagasaki, all of whom survived.[222] The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mi), followed by fires across the northern portion of the city to 3.2 km (2 mi) south of the bomb.[143][223] About 58 percent of the Mitsubishi Arms Plant was damaged, and about 78 percent of the Mitsubishi Steel Works. The Mitsubishi Electric Works suffered only 10 percent structural damage as it was on the border of the main destruction zone. The Nagasaki Arsenal was destroyed in the blast.[224] Although many fires likewise burnt following the bombing, in contrast to Hiroshima where sufficient fuel density was available, no firestorm developed in Nagasaki as the damaged areas did not furnish enough fuel to generate the phenomenon. Instead, ambient wind pushed the fire spread along the valley.[225] Had the bomb been dropped more precisely at the intended aiming point, which was downtown Nagasaki at the heart of the historic district, the destruction to medical and administrative infrastructure would have been even greater.[64] As in Hiroshima, the bombing badly dislocated the city's medical facilities. A makeshift hospital was established at the Shinkozen Primary School, which served as the main medical center. The trains were still running, and evacuated many victims to hospitals in nearby towns. A medical team from a naval hospital reached the city in the evening, and fire-fighting brigades from the neighboring towns assisted in fighting the fires.[226] Takashi Nagai was a doctor working in the radiology department of Nagasaki Medical College Hospital. He received a serious injury that severed his right temporal artery, but joined the rest of the surviving medical staff in treating bombing victims.[227] Plans for more atomic attacks on Japan Main article: Third Shot Memorandum from Leslie Groves to George C. Marshall regarding the third bomb, with Marshall's hand-written caveat that the third bomb not be used without express presidential instruction There were plans for further attacks on Japan following Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Groves expected to have another "Fat Man" atomic bomb ready for use on 19 August, with three more in September and a further three in October.[87] A second Little Boy bomb (using U-235) would not be available until December 1945.[228][229] On 10 August, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that "the next bomb ... should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." The memo today contains hand-written comment written by Marshall: "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President."[87] At the cabinet meeting that morning, Truman discussed these actions. James Forrestal paraphrased Truman as saying "there will be further dropping of the atomic bomb," while Henry A. Wallace recorded in his diary that: "Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrific. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids.'"[230] The previous order that the target cities were to be attacked with atomic bombs "as made ready" was thus modified.[231] There was already discussion in the War Department about conserving the bombs then in production for Operation Downfall, and Marshall suggested to Stimson that the remaining cities on the target list be spared attack with atomic bombs.[232] Two more Fat Man assemblies were readied, and scheduled to leave Kirtland Field for Tinian on 11 and 14 August,[233] and Tibbets was ordered by LeMay to return to Albuquerque, New Mexico, to collect them.[234] At Los Alamos, technicians worked 24 hours straight to cast another plutonium core.[235] Although cast, it still needed to be pressed and coated, which would take until 16 August.[236] Therefore, it could have been ready for use on 19 August. Unable to reach Marshall, Groves ordered on his own authority on 13 August that the core should not be shipped.[231] Surrender of Japan and subsequent occupation Main articles: Surrender of Japan and Occupation of Japan Until 9 August, Japan's war council still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. The full cabinet met at 14:30 on 9 August, and spent most of the day debating surrender. Anami conceded that victory was unlikely, but argued in favor of continuing the war. The meeting ended at 17:30, with no decision having been reached. Suzuki went to the palace to report on the outcome of the meeting, where he met with K�ichi Kido, the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal of Japan. Kido informed him that the emperor had agreed to hold an imperial conference, and gave a strong indication that the emperor would consent to surrender on condition that kokutai be preserved. A second cabinet meeting was held at 18:00. Only four ministers supported Anami's position of adhering to the four conditions, but since cabinet decisions had to be unanimous, no decision was reached before it ended at 22:00.[237] Calling an imperial conference required the signatures of the prime minister and the two service chiefs, but the Chief Cabinet Secretary Hisatsune Sakomizu had already obtained signatures from Toyoda and General Yoshijir� Umezu in advance, and he reneged on his promise to inform them if a meeting was to be held. The meeting commenced at 23:50. No consensus had emerged by 02:00 on 10 August, but the emperor gave his "sacred decision",[238] authorizing the Foreign Minister, Shigenori T�g�, to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration "does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler."[239] On 12 August, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. One of his uncles, Prince Asaka, asked whether the war would be continued if the kokutai could not be preserved. Hirohito simply replied, "Of course."[240] As the Allied terms seemed to leave intact the principle of the preservation of the Throne, Hirohito recorded on 14 August his capitulation announcement which was broadcast to the Japanese nation the next day despite an attempted military coup d'état by militarists opposed to the surrender.[241] In his declaration's fifth paragraph, Hirohito solely mentions the duration of the conflict; and did not explicitly mention the Soviets as a factor for surrender: But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by every one—the gallant fighting of military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people, the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. The sixth paragraph by Hirohito specifically mentions the use of nuclear ordnance devices, from the aspect of the unprecedented damage they caused: Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. The seventh paragraph gives the reason for the ending of hostilities against the Allies: Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, or to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.[242] In his "Rescript to the Soldiers and Sailors" delivered on 17 August, Hirohito did not refer to the atomic bombs or possible human extinction, and instead described the Soviet declaration of war as "endangering the very foundation of the Empire's existence."[243] Reportage See also: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in popular culture The front page of Chicago Daily Tribune dated 8 August 1945. The cartoon refers back to the Japanese Pearl Harbor Attack to rationalize the American atomic bombing. The Hiroshima ruins in March and April 1946, by Daniel A. McGovern and Harry Mimura On 10 August 1945, the day after the Nagasaki bombing, military photographer Y�suke Yamahata, correspondent Higashi, and artist Yamada arrived in the city with instructions to record the destruction for propaganda purposes. Yamahata took scores of photographs, and on 21 August, they appeared in Mainichi Shimbun, a popular Japanese newspaper. After Japan's surrender and the arrival of American forces, copies of his photographs were seized amid the ensuing censorship, but some records have survived.[244] Leslie Nakashima, a former United Press (UP) journalist, filed the first personal account of the scene to appear in American newspapers. He observed that large numbers of survivors continued to die from what later became recognized as radiation poisoning.[245] On 31 August, The New York Times published an abbreviated version of his 27 August UP article. Nearly all references to uranium poisoning were omitted. An editor's note was added to say that, according to American scientists, "the atomic bomb will not have any lingering after-effects."[246][245] A telegram sent by Fritz Bilfinger, delegate of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), on 30 August 1945 from Hiroshima Wilfred Burchett was also one of the first Western journalists to visit Hiroshima after the bombing. He arrived alone by train from Tokyo on 2 September, defying the traveling ban put in place on Western correspondents.[247] Burchett's dispatch, "The Atomic Plague", was printed by the Daily Express newspaper in London on 5 September 1945. The reports from Nakashima and Burchett informed the public for the first time of the gruesome effects of radiation and nuclear fallout—radiation burns and radiation poisoning, sometimes lasting more than thirty days after the blast.[248][249] Burchett especially noted that people were dying "horribly" after bleeding from orifices, and their flesh would rot away from the injection holes where vitamin A was administered, to no avail.[247] The New York Times then apparently reversed course and ran a front-page story by Bill Lawrence confirming the existence of a terrifying affliction in Hiroshima, where many had symptoms such as hair loss and vomiting blood before dying.[247] Lawrence had gained access to the city as part of a press junket promoting the U.S. Army Air Force. Some reporters were horrified by the scene, however, referring to what they saw as a "death laboratory" littered with "human guinea pigs". General MacArthur found the reporting to have turned from good PR into bad PR and threatened to court martial the entire group. He withdrew Burchett's press accreditation and expelled the journalist from the occupation zones.[250] The authorities also accused him of being under the sway of Japanese propaganda and later suppressed another story, on the Nagasaki bombing, by George Weller of the Chicago Daily News. Less than a week after his New York Times story was published, Lawrence also backtracked and dismissed the reports on radiation sickness as Japanese efforts to undermine American morale.[251][247] A member of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Lieutenant Daniel A. McGovern, arrived in September 1945 to document the effects of the bombing of Japan.[252] He used a film crew to document the effects of the bombings in early 1946. The film crew shot 27,000 m (90,000 ft) of film, resulting in a three-hour documentary titled The Effects of the Atomic Bombs Against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The documentary included images from hospitals, burned-out buildings and cars, and rows of skulls and bones on the ground. It was classified "secret" for the next 22 years.[253][254] Motion picture company Nippon Eigasha started sending cameramen to Nagasaki and Hiroshima in September 1945. On 24 October 1945, a U.S. military policeman stopped a Nippon Eigasha cameraman from continuing to film in Nagasaki. All Nippon Eigasha's reels were confiscated by the American authorities, but they were requested by the Japanese government, and declassified.[254] The public release of film footage of the city post-attack, and some research about the effects of the attack, was restricted during the occupation of Japan,[255] but the Hiroshima-based magazine, Chugoku Bunka, in its first issue published on 10 March 1946, devoted itself to detailing the damage from the bombing.[256] The book Hiroshima, written by Pulitzer Prize winner John Hersey and originally published in article form in The New Yorker,[257] is reported to have reached Tokyo in English by January 1947, and the translated version was released in Japan in 1949.[258][259][260] It narrated the stories of the lives of six bomb survivors from immediately prior to, and months after, the dropping of the Little Boy bomb.[257] Beginning in 1974, a compilation of drawings and artwork made by the survivors of the bombings began to be compiled, with completion in 1977, and under both book and exhibition format, it was titled The Unforgettable Fire.[261] Life among the rubble in Hiroshima in March and April 1946. Film footage taken by Lieutenant Daniel A. McGovern (director) and Harry Mimura (cameraman) for a United States Strategic Bombing Survey project. The bombing amazed Otto Hahn and other German atomic scientists, whom the British held at Farm Hall in Operation Epsilon. Hahn stated that he had not believed an atomic weapon "would be possible for another twenty years"; Werner Heisenberg did not believe the news at first. Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker said "I think it's dreadful of the Americans to have done it. I think it is madness on their part", but Heisenberg replied, "One could equally well say 'That's the quickest way of ending the war'". Hahn was grateful that the German project had not succeeded in developing "such an inhumane weapon"; Karl Wirtz observed that even if it had, "we would have obliterated London but would still not have conquered the world, and then they would have dropped them on us".[262] Hahn told the others, "Once I wanted to suggest that all uranium should be sunk to the bottom of the ocean".[262] The Vatican agreed; L'Osservatore Romano expressed regret that the bomb's inventors did not destroy the weapon for the benefit of humanity.[263] Rev. Cuthbert Thicknesse, the dean of St Albans, prohibited using St Albans Abbey for a thanksgiving service for the war's end, calling the use of atomic weapons "an act of wholesale, indiscriminate massacre".[264] Nonetheless, news of the atomic bombing was greeted enthusiastically in the U.S.; a poll in Fortune magazine in late 1945 showed a significant minority of Americans (23 percent) wishing that more atomic bombs could have been dropped on Japan.[265][266] The initial positive response was supported by the imagery presented to the public (mainly the powerful images of the mushroom cloud).[265] During this time in America, it was a common practice for editors to keep graphic images of death out of films, magazines, and newspapers.[267] Post-attack casualties See also: Epidemiology data for low-linear energy transfer radiation, Acute radiation syndrome § History, Radiobiology, Hiroshima (book), and Terufumi Sasaki Silent film footage taken in Hiroshima in March 1946 showing survivors with severe burns and keloid scars. Survivors were asked to stand in the orientation they were in at the time of the flash, to document and convey the line-of-sight nature of flash burns, and to show that, much like a sunburn, thick clothing and fabric offered protection in many cases. The sometimes extensive burn scar contracture is not unusual, being common to all second- and third-degree burns when they cover a large area of skin. An estimated 90,000 to 140,000 people in Hiroshima (up to 39 percent of the population) and 60,000 to 80,000 people in Nagasaki (up to 32 percent of the population) died in 1945,[121] though the number which died immediately as a result of exposure to the blast, heat, or due to radiation, is unknown. One Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission report discusses 6,882 people examined in Hiroshima and 6,621 people examined in Nagasaki, who were largely within 2,000 meters (6,600 ft) of the hypocenter, who suffered injuries from the blast and heat but died from complications frequently compounded by acute radiation syndrome (ARS), all within about 20 to 30 days.[268][269] Many people not injured by the blast eventually died within that timeframe as well after suffering from ARS. At the time, the doctors had no idea what the cause was and were unable to effectively treat the condition.[247] Midori Naka was the first death officially certified to be the result of radiation poisoning or, as it was referred to by many, the "atomic bomb disease". She was some 650 meters (2,130 ft) from the hypocenter at Hiroshima and would die on 24 August 1945 after traveling to Tokyo. It was unappreciated at the time but the average radiation dose that would kill approximately 50 percent of adults (the LD50) was approximately halved; that is, smaller doses were made more lethal when the individual experienced concurrent blast or burn polytraumatic injuries.[270] Conventional skin injuries that cover a large area frequently result in bacterial infection; the risk of sepsis and death is increased when a usually non-lethal radiation dose moderately suppresses the white blood cell count.[271] In the spring of 1948, the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) was established in accordance with a presidential directive from Truman to the National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council to conduct investigations of the late effects of radiation among the survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[272] In 1956, the ABCC published The Effect of Exposure to the Atomic Bombs on Pregnancy Termination in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[273] The ABCC became the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) on 1 April 1975. A binational organization run by both the United States and Japan, the RERF is still in operation today.[274] Cancer increases Cancers do not immediately emerge after exposure to radiation; instead, radiation-induced cancer has a minimum latency period of some five years and above, and leukemia some two years and above, peaking around six to eight years later.[275] Jarrett Foley published the first major reports on the significant increased incidence of the latter among survivors. Almost all cases of leukemia over the following 50 years were in people exposed to more than 1Gy.[276] In a strictly dependent manner dependent on their distance from the hypocenter, in the 1987 Life Span Study, conducted by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, a statistical excess of 507 cancers, of undefined lethality, were observed in 79,972 hibakusha who had still been living between 1958 and 1987 and who took part in the study.[277] As the epidemiology study continues with time, the RERF estimates that, from 1950 to 2000, 46 percent of leukemia deaths which may include Sadako Sasaki and 11 percent of solid cancers of unspecified lethality were likely due to radiation from the bombs or some other post-attack city effects, with the statistical excess being 200 leukemia deaths and 1,700 solid cancers of undeclared lethality. Both of these statistics being derived from the observation of approximately half of the total survivors, strictly those who took part in the study.[278] A meta-analysis from 2016 found that radiation exposure increases cancer risk, but also that the average lifespan of survivors was reduced by only a few months compared to those not exposed to radiation.[279] Birth defect investigations While during the preimplantation period, that is one to ten days following conception, intrauterine radiation exposure of "at least 0.2 Gy" can cause complications of implantation and death of the human embryo.[280] The number of miscarriages caused by the radiation from the bombings, during this radiosensitive period, is not known. One of the early studies conducted by the ABCC was on the outcome of pregnancies occurring in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in a control city, Kure, located 29 km (18 mi) south of Hiroshima, to discern the conditions and outcomes related to radiation exposure.[281] James V. Neel led the study which found that the overall number of birth defects was not significantly higher among the children of survivors who were pregnant at the time of the bombings.[282] He also studied the longevity of the children who survived the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reporting that between 90 and 95 percent were still living 50 years later.[283] While the National Academy of Sciences raised the possibility that Neel's procedure did not filter the Kure population for possible radiation exposure which could bias the results,[284] overall, a statistically insignificant increase in birth defects occurred directly after the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima when the cities were taken as wholes, in terms of distance from the hypocenters. However, Neel and others noted that in approximately 50 humans who were of an early gestational age at the time of the bombing and who were all within about 1 kilometer (0.62 mi) of the hypocenter, an increase in microencephaly and anencephaly was observed upon birth, with the incidence of these two particular malformations being nearly 3 times what was to be expected when compared to the control group in Kure.[285] In 1985, Johns Hopkins University geneticist James F. Crow examined Neel's research and confirmed that the number of birth defects was not significantly higher in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[286] Many members of the ABCC and its successor Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) were still looking for possible birth defects among the survivors decades later, but found no evidence that they were significantly common among the survivors or inherited in the children of survivors.[283][287] Investigations into brain development See also: Radiation-induced cognitive decline Despite the small sample size of 1,600 to 1,800 persons who came forth as prenatally exposed at the time of the bombings, that were both within a close proximity to the two hypocenters, to survive the in utero absorption of a substantial dose of radiation and then the malnourished post-attack environment, data from this cohort do support the increased risk of severe mental retardation (SMR), that was observed in some 30 individuals, with SMR being a common outcome of the aforementioned microencephaly. While a lack of statistical data, with just 30 individuals out of 1,800, prevents a definitive determination of a threshold point, the data collected suggests a threshold intrauterine or fetal dose for SMR, at the most radiosensitive period of cognitive development, when there is the largest number of undifferentiated neural cells (8 to 15 weeks post-conception) to begin at a threshold dose of approximately "0.09" to "0.15" Gy, with the risk then linearly increasing to a 43-percent rate of SMR when exposed to a fetal dose of 1 Gy at any point during these weeks of rapid neurogenesis.[288][289] However either side of this radiosensitive age, none of the prenatally exposed to the bombings at an age less than 8 weeks, that is prior to synaptogenesis or at a gestational age more than 26 weeks "were observed to be mentally retarded", with the condition therefore being isolated to those solely of 8–26 weeks of age and who absorbed more than approximately "0.09" to "0.15" Gy of prompt radiation energy.[288][290] Examination of the prenatally exposed in terms of IQ performance and school records, determined the beginning of a statistically significant reduction in both, when exposed to greater than 0.1 to 0.5 gray, during the same gestational period of 8–25 weeks. However outside this period, at less than 8 weeks and greater than 26 after conception, "there is no evidence of a radiation-related effect on scholastic performance."[288] The reporting of doses in terms of absorbed energy in units of grays and rads – rather than the biologically significant, biologically weighted sievert in both the SMR and cognitive performance data – is typical.[290] The reported threshold dose variance between the two cities is suggested to be a manifestation of the difference between X-ray and neutron absorption, with Little Boy emitting substantially more neutron flux, whereas the Baratol that surrounded the core of Fat Man filtered or shifted the absorbed neutron-radiation profile, so that the dose of radiation energy received in Nagasaki was mostly that from exposure to X-rays/gamma rays. Contrast this to the environment within 1500 meters of the hypocenter at Hiroshima, where the in-utero dose depended more on the absorption of neutrons which have a higher biological effect per unit of energy absorbed.[291] From the radiation dose reconstruction work, the estimated dosimetry at Hiroshima still has the largest uncertainty as the Little Boy bomb design was never tested before deployment or afterward, therefore the estimated radiation profile absorbed by individuals at Hiroshima had required greater reliance on calculations than the Japanese soil, concrete and roof-tile measurements which began to reach accurate levels and thereby inform researchers, in the 1990s.[292][293][294] Many other investigations into cognitive outcomes, such as schizophrenia as a result of prenatal exposure, have been conducted with "no statistically significant linear relationship seen". There is a suggestion that in the most extremely exposed, those who survived within a kilometer or so of the hypocenters, a trend emerges akin to that seen in SMR, though the sample size is too small to determine with any significance.[295] Hibakusha Main article: Hibakusha Torii, Nagasaki, Japan. One-legged torii in the background The survivors of the bombings are called hibakusha (被爆者, pronounced [çibaꜜkɯ̥ɕa] or [çibakɯ̥ꜜɕa]), a Japanese word that translates to "explosion-affected people". The Japanese government has recognized about 650,000 people as hibakusha. As of March 31, 2023, 113,649 were still alive, mostly in Japan.[296] The government of Japan recognizes about one percent of these as having illnesses caused by radiation.[297][better source needed] The memorials in Hiroshima and Nagasaki contain lists of the names of the hibakusha who are known to have died since the bombings. Updated annually on the anniversaries of the bombings, as of August 2023, the memorials record the names of 535,000 hibakusha; 339,227 in Hiroshima[298] and 195,607 in Nagasaki.[299] If they discuss their background, hibakusha and their children were (and still are) victims of fear-based discrimination and exclusion for marriage or work[300] due to public ignorance; much of the public persist with the belief that the hibakusha carry some hereditary or even contagious disease.[301] This is despite the fact that no statistically demonstrable increase of birth defects/congenital malformations was found among the later conceived children born to survivors of the nuclear weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or has been found in the later conceived children of cancer survivors who had previously received radiotherapy.[302][303][304] The surviving women of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that could conceive, who were exposed to substantial amounts of radiation, had children with no higher incidence of abnormalities/birth defects than the rate which is observed in the Japanese average.[305][306][307] A study of the long-term psychological effects of the bombings on the survivors found that even 17–20 years after the bombings had occurred survivors showed a higher prevalence of anxiety and somatization symptoms.[308] Double survivors Perhaps as many as 200 people from Hiroshima sought refuge in Nagasaki. The 2006 documentary Twice Survived: The Doubly Atomic Bombed of Hiroshima and Nagasaki documented 165 nijū hibakusha (lit. double explosion-affected people), nine of whom claimed to be in the blast zone in both cities.[309] On 24 March 2009, the Japanese government officially recognized Tsutomu Yamaguchi as a double hibakusha. He was confirmed to be 3 km (1.9 mi) from ground zero in Hiroshima on a business trip when the bomb was detonated. He was seriously burnt on his left side and spent the night in Hiroshima. He arrived at his home city of Nagasaki on 8 August, the day before the bombing, and he was exposed to residual radiation while searching for his relatives. He was the first officially recognized survivor of both bombings.[310] He died in 2010 of stomach cancer.[311] Korean survivors See also: Anti-Korean sentiment § Japan During the war, Japan brought as many as 670,000 Korean conscripts to Japan to work as forced labor.[312] About 5,000–8,000 Koreans were killed in Hiroshima and 1,500–2,000 in Nagasaki.[313] Korean survivors had a difficult time fighting for the same recognition as Hibakusha as afforded to all Japanese survivors, a situation which resulted in the denial of free health benefits to them in Japan. Most issues were eventually addressed in 2008 through lawsuits.[314] Memorials Hiroshima Hiroshima was subsequently struck by Typhoon Ida on 17 September 1945. More than half the bridges were destroyed, and the roads and railroads were damaged, further devastating the city.[315] The population increased from 83,000 soon after the bombing to 146,000 in February 1946.[316] The city was rebuilt after the war, with help from the national government through the Hiroshima Peace Memorial City Construction Law passed in 1949. It provided financial assistance for reconstruction, along with land donated that was previously owned by the national government and used for military purposes.[317] In 1949, a design was selected for the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, the closest surviving building to the location of the bomb's detonation, was designated the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum was opened in 1955 in the Peace Park.[318] Hiroshima also contains a Peace Pagoda, built in 1966 by Nipponzan-My�h�ji.[319] On January 27, 1981, the Atomic Bombing Relic Selecting Committee of Hiroshima announced to build commemorative plaques at nine historical sites related to the bombing in the year. Genbaku Dome, Shima Hospital (hypocenter), Motoyasu Bridge [ja] all unveiled plaques with historical photographs and descriptions. The rest sites planned including Hond� Shopping Street, Motomachi No.2 Army Hospital site, Hiroshima Red Cross Hospital [ja], Fukuromachi Elementary School [ja], Hiroshima City Hall [ja] and Hiroshima Station. The committee also planned to establish 30 commemorative plaques in three years.[320] Panoramic view of Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. The Genbaku Dome can be seen in the center left of the image, the Motoyasu Bridge can be seen in the right of the image. The original target for the bomb was the T-shaped Aioi Bridge seen in the left of the image. Nagasaki Nagasaki was rebuilt in dramatically changed form after the war. The pace of reconstruction was initially slow, and the first simple emergency dwellings were not provided until 1946. The focus on redevelopment was the replacement of war industries with foreign trade, shipbuilding and fishing. This was formally declared when the Nagasaki International Culture City Reconstruction Law was passed in May 1949.[316] New temples were built, as well as new churches owing to an increase in the presence of Christianity. Some of the rubble was left as a memorial, such as a torii at Sann� Shrine, and an arch near ground zero. New structures were also raised as memorials, such as the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum, which was opened in the mid-1990s.[321] A rectangular column rises above a dark stone base with Japanese writing on it. It sits atop a grass mound which is surrounded by alternating circles of stone path and grass. There is a wall around the whole monument, and bushes beyond. Panoramic view of the monument marking the hypocenter, or ground zero, of the atomic bomb explosion over Nagasaki Debate over bombings Main article: Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender, and the ethical, legal, and military controversies surrounding the United States' justification for them have been the subject of scholarly and popular debate.[322] On one hand, it has been argued that the bombings caused the Japanese surrender, thereby preventing casualties that an invasion of Japan would have involved.[7][323] Stimson talked of saving one million casualties.[324] The naval blockade might have starved the Japanese into submission without an invasion, but this would also have resulted in many more Japanese deaths.[325] However, critics of the bombings have asserted that atomic weapons are fundamentally immoral, that the bombings were war crimes, and that they constituted state terrorism.[326] The Japanese may have surrendered without the bombings, but only an unconditional surrender would satisfy the Allies.[327] Others, such as historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, argued that the entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan "played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation".[328] A view among critics of the bombings, popularized by American historian Gar Alperovitz in 1965, is that the United States used nuclear weapons to intimidate the Soviet Union in the early stages of the Cold War. James Orr wrote that this idea became the accepted position in Japan and that it may have played some part in the decision-making of the US government.[329] Legal considerations Main article: Aerial bombardment and international law The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which address the codes of wartime conduct on land and at sea, were adopted before the rise of air power. Despite repeated diplomatic attempts to update international humanitarian law to include aerial warfare, it was not updated before World War II. The absence of specific international humanitarian law did not mean aerial warfare was not covered under the laws of war, but rather that there was no general agreement of how to interpret those laws.[330] This means that aerial bombardment of civilian areas in enemy territory by all major belligerents during World War II was not prohibited by positive or specific customary international humanitarian law.[331] In 1963 the bombings were subjected to judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda v. The State. The District Court of Tokyo ruled the use of nuclear weapons in warfare was not illegal,[332][333] but held in its obiter dictum[333] that the atomic bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illegal under international law of that time, as an indiscriminate bombardment of undefended cities. The court denied the appellants compensation on the grounds that the Japanese government had waived the right for reparations from the U.S. government under the Treaty of San Francisco.[334] Legacy Main article: Nuclear warfare By 30 June 1946, there were components for nine atomic bombs in the US arsenal, all Fat Man devices identical to the one used at Nagasaki.[335] The nuclear weapons were handmade devices, and a great deal of work remained to improve their ease of assembly, safety, reliability and storage before they were ready for production. There were also many improvements to their performance that had been suggested or recommended, but that had not been possible under the pressure of wartime development.[336] The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, decried the use of the atomic bombs as adopting "an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages",[337] but in October 1947 he reported a military requirement for 400 bombs.[338] The American monopoly on nuclear weapons lasted four years before the Soviet Union detonated an atomic bomb in September 1949.[338] The United States responded with the development of the hydrogen bomb, a thousand times as powerful as the bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[339] Such ordinary fission bombs would henceforth be regarded as small tactical nuclear weapons. By 1986, the United States had 23,317 nuclear weapons and the Soviet Union had 40,159. In early 2019, more than 90% of the world's 13,865 nuclear weapons were owned by the United States and Russia.[340][341] By 2020, nine nations had nuclear weapons,[342] but Japan was not one of them.[343] Japan reluctantly signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in February 1970,[344] but is still sheltered under the American nuclear umbrella. American nuclear weapons were stored on Okinawa, and sometimes in Japan itself, albeit in contravention of agreements between the two nations.[345] Lacking the resources to fight the Soviet Union using conventional forces, NATO came to depend on the use of nuclear weapons to defend itself during the Cold War, a policy that became known in the 1950s as the New Look.[346] In the decades after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States would threaten many times to use its nuclear weapons.[347] On 7 July 2017, more than 120 countries voted to adopt the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Elayne Whyte Gómez, President of the UN negotiations, said, "the world has been waiting for this legal norm for 70 years".[348] As of 2023, Japan has not signed the treaty.[349][350][351] Notes Asada, Sadao (June 2007). Culture Shock and Japanese-American Relations: Historical Essays. University of Missouri Press. p. 228. ISBN 978-0-8262-6569-2. Retrieved 25 July 2023. Giangreco 2009, pp. 2–3, 49–51. Williams 1960, p. 307. Williams 1960, p. 532. Williams 1960, p. 527. Long 1963, pp. 48–49. Brooks & Stanley 2007, pp. 41–44. Appleman et al. 1948, pp. 462–467. Coox 1969, pp. 2540–2544. Giangreco 2009, pp. 32–34. Giangreco 2009, pp. 125–130. Giangreco 2009, pp. 169–171. Giangreco 2009, pp. 45–48. Giangreco 2009, pp. 121–124. Drea 1992, pp. 202–225. "The Final Months of the War With Japan". Central Intelligence Agency. Part III (note 24). Archived from the original on 12 June 2007. Retrieved 17 December 2013. Carroll 2007, p. 48. Giangreco 2009, pp. 98–99. Frank 1999, p. 340. "Minutes of Meeting held at the White House, June 18, 1945". Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Retrieved 1 January 2024. Giangreco 2009, p. 112. Schaffer 1985, pp. 164–165. Craven & Cate 1953, p. 4. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 22–24. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 169–175. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 29–31. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 507–509. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 514–521. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 548–551. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 558–560. Craven & Cate 1953, p. 566. Sandler 2001, pp. 24–26. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 574–576. Long, Tony (9 March 2011). "March 9, 1945: Burning the Heart Out of the Enemy". Wired. Retrieved 8 August 2011. Laurence M. Vance (14 August 2009). "Bombings Worse than Nagasaki and Hiroshima". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Archived from the original on 13 November 2012. Retrieved 8 August 2011. Joseph Coleman (10 March 2005). "1945 Tokyo Firebombing Left Legacy of Terror, Pain". CommonDreams.org. Archived from the original on 27 August 2011. Retrieved 8 August 2011. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 608–610. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 568–570. Edwards 1996, p. 83. Werrell 1996, p. 250. Craven & Cate 1953, p. 750. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 614–617. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 642–643. Kerr 1991, p. 207. Tanaka & Young 2009, pp. 5, 84–85, 117. Coox 1994, pp. 412–414. Coox 1994, p. 422. Zaloga & Noon 2010, p. 54. Zaloga & Noon 2010, pp. 58–59. Giangreco 2009, pp. 79–80. Coox 1994, p. 429. Jones 1985, p. 7. Jones 1985, p. 12. Gowing 1964, pp. 40–43, 76–79. Jones 1985, p. 89. Johnston, Louis; Williamson, Samuel H. (2023). "What Was the U.S. GDP Then?". MeasuringWorth. Retrieved 30 November 2023. United States Gross Domestic Product deflator figures follow the MeasuringWorth series. Jones 1985, pp. 82–84. Jones 1985, pp. 511–516, 522. Grunden 1998, pp. 50–52. "Factsheets: 509th Operational Group". Air Force Historical Studies Office. Archived from the original on 24 February 2013. Retrieved 25 December 2011. "History of 509th Composite Group – 313th Bombardment Wing – Twentieth Air Force – Activation to August 15, 1945" (PDF). 509th Composite Group. 1945. pp. 8–9. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 January 2012. Retrieved 1 February 2012. Tibbets 1998, pp. 163, 167–168. "Minutes of 3rd Target Committee Meeting 28 May 1945" (PDF). National Archives. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 August 2006. Retrieved 9 August 2006. "The Nagasaki atomic bomb damage records, Part 2 Section 1 Chapter 1: Period leading up to the atomic bombing". Nagasaki National Peace Memorial Hall for the Atomic Bomb Victims. Retrieved 29 March 2023. Alex, Wellerstein. "The Luck of Kokura". Restricted Data. Retrieved 30 April 2019. Campbell 2005, p. 25. Craven & Cate 1953, p. 706. Campbell 2005, pp. 14–15. "History of 509th Composite Group – 313th Bombardment Wing – Twentieth Air Force – Activation to 15 August 1945" (PDF). Air Force Historical Research Agency. Tinian. 1945. pp. 17–22. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 January 2012. Retrieved 1 February 2012. Campbell 2005, p. 100. Christman 1998, p. 176. Jones 1985, pp. 528–529. "Atomic Bomb: Decision – Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945". Archived from the original on 8 August 2005. Retrieved 6 August 2005. Reischauer 1986, p. 101. Kelly 2012, pp. 183–203. Wellerstein 2020, pp. 319–321. Wellerstein, Alex. "Henry Stimson didn't go to Kyoto on his honeymoon". Restricted Data: The Nuclear Secrecy Blog. Retrieved 25 July 2023. Jones 1985, p. 529. Hasegawa 2006, pp. 67–68. Hasegawa 2006, pp. 149–150. Jones 1985, p. 530. Frank 1999, pp. 255–256. Compton 1956, p. 240. Compton 1956, pp. 238–239. Frank 1999, pp. 255–260. Newman 1995, p. 86. "The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II, A Collection of Primary Sources" (PDF). National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162. George Washington University. 13 August 1945. Williams, Josette H. "The Information War in the Pacific, 1945 Paths to Peace". Central Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 13 June 2007. Retrieved 5 December 2016.) Craven & Cate 1953, p. 656. Frank 1999, p. 153. McNelly 2000, p. 138. Lifton 1991, p. 17. 空襲予告ビラ�高山市民��管 市内�展示 [Air Raid Notice] (in Japanese). �阜新�社 (Gifu Shinbunsha (Open Library)). Archived from the original on 12 October 2013. Retrieved 31 January 2013. Bungei 1981, p. 215. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 372–373. Gowing 1964, p. 372. "Minutes of a Meeting of the Combined Policy Committee". Washington, DC: United States Department of State. 4 July 1945. Retrieved 18 September 2017. Craven & Cate 1953, pp. 712–713. Letter received from General Thomas Handy to General Carl Spaatz authorizing the dropping of the first atomic bomb. Series: Black and White Photographs of U.S. Air Force and Predecessors' Activities, Facilities, and Personnel, Domestic and Foreign, 1900–2003. National Archives and Records Administration. 25 July 1945. Retrieved 26 January 2018. Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945. File Unit: Ross, Mr. And MRS. Charles G. [Truman's Potsdam diary], 1945–1953. Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum. 25 July 1945. Retrieved 23 October 2020. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 389–390. Hewlett & Anderson 1962, pp. 395–396. Frank 1999, pp. 233–234. The meaning of mokusatsu can fall anywhere in the range of "ignore" to "treat with contempt". Bix 1996, p. 290. Asada 1996, p. 39. Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977, pp. 326, 356, 370. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 262. Hoddeson et al. 1993, p. 265. Coster-Mullen 2012, p. 30. Coster-Mullen 2012, p. 45. Campbell 2005, pp. 38–40. Giangreco 2009, pp. 64–65, 163. Goldstein, Dillon & Wenger 1995, p. 41. Giangreco 2009, pp. 70, 163. Zaloga & Noon 2010, p. 59. United States Strategic Bombing Survey (June 1946). "U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Archived from the original on 11 October 2004. Retrieved 26 July 2009. Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977, pp. 224–225. Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977, p. 38. Groves 1962, p. 316. Frank 1999, p. 263. "Frequently Asked Questions #1". Radiation Effects Research Foundation (Formerly known as the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC)). Archived from the original on 19 September 2007. Retrieved 18 September 2007. Bodden 2007, p. 20. Preston 2005, p. 262. Fiévé & Waley 2003, p. 330. Rotter 2008, p. 267. Nathan, Richard (6 August 2021). "Literary Fallout: The legacies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Red Circle Authors. Archived from the original on 6 August 2021. "509th Timeline: Inception to Hiroshima". The Atomic Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 20 December 2007. Retrieved 5 May 2007. "Timeline #2 – the 509th; The Hiroshima Mission". The Atomic Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 20 June 2013. Retrieved 4 May 2007. Dietz & Van Kirk 2012, p. 462. Dietz & Van Kirk 2012, p. 467. Lewis & Tolzer 1957, p. 72. "Timeline #2- the 509th; The Hiroshima Mission". The Atomic Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 1 May 2013. Retrieved 5 May 2007. Rosen, Rebecca J. "Rare Photo of the Mushroom Cloud Over Hiroshima Discovered in a Former Japanese Elementary School". The Atlantic. Retrieved 4 December 2016. Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977, pp. 391–392. Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977, p. 414. Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977, p. 415. Allen 1969, p. 2566. Kerr et al 2005, pp. 42–43. Malik, John (September 1985). "The Yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Explosions" (PDF). Los Alamos National Laboratory. Retrieved 9 March 2014. describes how various values were recorded for the B-29's altitude at the moment of bomb release over Hiroshima. The strike report said 9,200 meters (30,200 ft), the official history said 9,600 meters (31,600 ft), Parson's log entry was 10,000 meters (32,700 ft), and the navigator's log was 9,470 meters (31,060 ft)—the latter possibly an error transposing two digits. A later calculation using the indicated atmospheric pressure arrived at the figure of 9,800 meters (32,200 ft). Similarly, several values have been reported as the altitude of the Little Boy bomb at the moment of detonation. Published sources vary in the range of 550 to 610 m (1,800 to 2,000 ft) above the city. The device was set to explode at 575 m (1,885 ft), but this was approximate. Malik uses the figure of 580 m (1,903 ft) plus or minus 15 m (50 ft), determined after data review by Hubbell et al 1969. Radar returns from the tops of multistory buildings near the hypocenter may have triggered the detonation at a somewhat higher altitude than planned. Kerr et al. (2005) found that a detonation altitude of 600 m (1,968.5 ft), plus or minus 20 m (65.6 ft), gave the best fit for all the measurement discrepancies. "The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima, Aug 6, 1945". United States Department of Energy. Archived from the original on 24 June 2010. Retrieved 25 June 2010. Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977, pp. 423. 427. "The Bomb-"Little Boy"". The Atomic Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 17 April 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2007. W. McRaney; J. McGahan (6 August 1980). Radiation Dose Reconstruction U.S. Occupation Forces in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, 1945–1946 (DNA 5512F) (PDF). Defense Nuclear Agency. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 June 2006. Retrieved 9 June 2006 – via Defense Threat Reduction Agency. "Super-fortress crew tell their story". The Guardian. 8 August 1945. Retrieved 17 July 2016. Frank 1999, pp. 264–265. Hersey, John (1946). Hiroshima. Knopf. Japan Broadcasting Corporation, ed. (1977). Unforgettable fire: Pictures drawn by atomic bomb survivors. Pantheon Books. Del Tredici, Robert (1987). At Work in the Fields of the Bomb. Harper and Row. pp. 187–189. "The Bomb Explodes". www.atomicarchive.com. Wellerstein, Alex (4 August 2020). "Counting the dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, June 19, 1946. President's Secretary's File, Truman Papers". Harry S. Truman Library & Museum. p. 9. Archived from the original on 1 February 2016. Retrieved 23 January 2016. "Statements by China and the United States of America during the Inscription of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome)". UNESCO. Archived from the original on 29 August 2005. Retrieved 6 August 2005. "A Photo-Essay on the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved 4 December 2016. Broad, William J. (23 May 2016). "The Hiroshima Mushroom Cloud That Wasn't". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 December 2016. Toon et al. 2007, p. 1994. Hiroshima Peace Culture Foundation 2003, p. 14. "Special Exhibit 3". Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Archived from the original on 19 April 2018. Retrieved 30 August 2010. Kato, Toru (4 June 1999). "A Short-Sighted Parrot". Geocities.jp. Archived from the original on 9 March 2009. Retrieved 25 March 2009. Slavick, Elin O'Hara (27 July 2009). "Hiroshima: A Visual Record". Asia-Pacific Journal. 7 (3). Retrieved 21 April 2013. "Testimony of Akiko Takakura". transcript from the video Hiroshima Witness produced by the Hiroshima Peace Cultural Center and NHK. Atomic Archive. Archived from the original on 16 April 2007. Retrieved 30 April 2007. "U. S. Strategic Bombing Survey: The Effects of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, June 19, 1946. President's Secretary's File, Truman Papers". Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum. p. 7. Archived from the original on 1 February 2016. Retrieved 23 January 2016. Ham 2011, p. 330. Ham 2011, pp. 330–331. Blume, Lesley M. M. (2020). Fallout: the Hiroshima cover-up and the reporter who revealed it to the world. New York: First Simon & Schuster. p. 5. ISBN 978-1-982128-51-7. Ham 2011, p. 325. "Memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki". The Asahi Shimbun. 6 August 2005. Retrieved 18 March 2014. Thomas & Morgan-Witts 1977, pp. 443–444. "Heart of Hiroshima Wiped Out as by Giant Bulldozer". Advocate (Burnie, Tas. : 1890–1954). Burnie, Tasmania: National Library of Australia. 9 August 1945. p. 1. Retrieved 17 September 2013. Ham 2011,

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Herbert Warren Kalmbach (October 19, 1921 – September 15, 2017) was an American attorney and banker. He served as the personal attorney to United States President Richard Nixon (1968–1973). He became embroiled in the Watergate scandal due to his fundraising activities in the early 1970s, some of which supported undercover operatives directed by senior White House figures under Nixon. Kalmbach was convicted and served 191 days in jail for his part in the scandal, and lost his license to practice law for a time, although he was later reinstated.[1] Education, early career Kalmbach was born on October 19, 1921, in Port Huron, Michigan.[1] He earned both his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of Southern California, and was admitted to the bar in 1952. He was a real estate lawyer and founding partner of Kalmbach, DeMarco, Knapp & Chillingworth.[2][3] Meets Nixon, political fundraiser Kalmbach was introduced to Richard Nixon, then vice-president, by H. R. Haldeman in the 1950s.[4] He raised money for Richard Nixon's candidacy in the 1960 United States presidential election and again in the 1968 United States presidential election. Banker, becomes Nixon's attorney Kalmbach declined Nixon's offer to appoint him Under Secretary of Commerce, choosing instead to remain in California and build up his law practice, becoming the former Vice President's private lawyer. His law firm prospered during this period; it employed two lawyers in 1968, 14 in 1970, and 24 by 1973. The presidential connection drew United Airlines, Dart Industries, Marriott Corporation, and MCA Inc. as clients. During this period Kalmbach founded the Bank of Newport, in Newport Beach, California. The firm performed routine legal chores for the President. It was a shrewd choice. Kalmbach's solid but unspectacular career as a real estate lawyer was quickly touched with gold. Suddenly major clients from all over the nation were eager to sign up with the attorney who represented the President: United Air Lines, Dart Industries Inc., the Marriott Corp., MCA Inc. (the dominant producer of prime-time TV shows). National companies traditionally seek out lawyers who have friends and clients in high places in Washington, and Kalmbach's were very high indeed.[3][5] Arranges private polling Kalmbach was involved in a secret Nixon polling operation hidden from all but his closest senior advisors. Nixon used the poll results to shape policy and campaign strategy and manipulate popular opinion. On December 21, 1971, Kalmbach set up a Delaware shell corporation with private funding, to hide Administration sponsorship of polls.[6] Joins 1972 re-election campaign Kalmbach was also the Deputy Finance Chairman for the Committee to Re-elect the President. In this capacity he was eventually implicated in a fund-raising scandal involving re-election campaign contributions by Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI) and two other major dairy-farm cooperatives in connection with Nixon's support of an increase in price supports for milk in 1971.[7] Testimony by AMPI general manager George L. Mehrens in 1973 identified Kalmbach as a major solicitor of these contributions.[7] Articles on Charles Colson's involvement in the AMPI scandal indicated that $2 million in contributions had been expected, but that the actual donations were nearer to $400,000, of which some $197,500 had been given by AMPI.[7] Manages finances for undercover operations Kalmbach handled a secret $500,000 fund to finance the sabotage and espionage operations of Donald Segretti.[8][9] Convicted, imprisoned Kalmbach was associate finance chairman of the 1968 Nixon for President campaign and was an unofficial fund-raiser for the Committee for the Re-election of the President, controlling several secret funds. Kalmbach served six months in jail and was fined $10,000 for operating an illegal campaign committee and for offering an ambassadorship in return for political support. He also handled a secret $500,000 fund to finance sabotage and espionage operations in the salary of Donald H. Segretti, a lawyer, whose job it was to discredit the Democrats. including $30,000 to $40,000 in 1972 alone for spying on Democrats.[10] Segretti was paid from re-election funds gathered before the April 7, 1972, cutoff point after which a new law required full disclosure of contributors;[11] Kalmbach told investigators in early 1973 that he had destroyed the contribution records prior to the April 7 date, violating the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which required the records be maintained for two years and which expired only as of the new law's going into effect.[12] Kalmbach claimed in a later FBI interview that he had not known who was supervising Segretti nor what activities he was being paid to perform.[11][13] Kalmbach also raised $220,000 in "hush money" to pay off the Watergate burglars. He claimed that he was told the money was for lawyer's fees; a claim he accepted because he felt the burglars wrongly believed that they were acting on authority.[14][15] But it was his raising of $3.9 million for a secret Republican congressional campaign committee[16] and promising an ambassador a better post in exchange for $100,000 that led to his conviction and imprisonment for 191 days and a $10,000 fine.[17] Kalmbach pleaded guilty on February 25, 1974, on one count of violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act and on one count of promising federal employment as a reward for political activity and support of a candidate. He was sentenced to serve 6 to 18 months in prison for the first count and 6 months in prison on the second count. He executed both sentences concurrently and was released from prison on January 5, 1975.[18] Kalmbach lost his license to practice law, although he was reinstated in 1977.[15][19] Later life Although he retired in the late 1980s, he remained of counsel to Baker Hostetler.[3][9] He died on September 15, 2017, in Newport Beach, California.[1] Notes "Herbert Kalmbach, Who Figured in Watergate Payoffs, Dies at 95". New York Times. September 29, 2017. "Herbert Warren Kalmbach." Almanac of Famous People, 9th ed. Thomson Gale, 2007. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale, 2009. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC. Fee via Fairfax County Public Library, accessed 2009-04-24. "Baker Hostetler - Find Lawyers - Herbert W. Kalmbach". Costa Mesa, California: Baker Hostetler (law firm). Archived from the original on 2011-03-13. Retrieved 2009-04-24. "Herbert W. Kalmbach is Of Counsel to the firm. He has been involved in consulting assignments for a wide variety of clients." All the President's Men, by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, New York, 1974, Simon & Schuster "The Rise and Fall of Herb Kalmbach". Time. March 11, 1974. "Discreet and studiously low-key, Herbert W. Kalmbach, 52, was the ideal lawyer to handle Richard Nixon's personal affairs. Like the President, he was a self-made and extraordinarily diligent man, both traits that Nixon admired in an aide. Above all else, Kalmbach was an unswerving and unquestioning loyalist." Mike Mokrzycki. "Nixon Aides Ran A Covert Polling Operation," Los Angeles Times (AP), August 13, 1995; summarizing The Rise of Presidential Polling: The Nixon White House in Historical Perspective, Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Y. Shapiro, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 163-195 (article consists of 33 pages), Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749700 New York Times News Service. "Nixon's lawyer listed as solicitor," The Dallas Morning News, January 11, 1973, page 5A. United Press International. "A Watergate chronology," The Dallas Morning News, April 29, 1973, page 44A. de Witt, Karen (June 15, 1992). "Watergate, Then And Now. Who Was Who in the Cover-Up and Uncovering of Watergate". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-04-24. "Herbert W. Kalmbach Nixon lawyer" United Press International. "Payment reported," The Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1973, page 2A. United Press International. "Chapin, Segretti face grand jury," The Dallas Morning News, April 12, 1973, page 10A. Seymour M. Hersh, New York Times News Service. "Donor list reported destroyed," The Dallas Morning News, May 4, 1973, page 1A. New York Times Press Service. "Watergate jogs memory: Democrats recall strange election incidents," The Dallas Morning News, May 13, 1973, page 14A. Larry Eichel. "The 'duality' that made the man: Richard Milhous Nixon, 1913-1994," Philadelphia Inquirer, April 24, 1994. "Watergate figures! Where are they? What do they say?", Associated Press, June 14, 1982. James R. Polk. "Top money manager: unpublicized fund-raiser may hold key for Nixon," originally in Washington Star, reprinted in The Dallas Morning News, February 3, 1972, page 2A. Miller and Morris, "Donations flood a loophole," Los Angeles Times, October 11, 1992. Stanley Kutler (ed.), Watergate: the fall of Richard Nixon, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2010), pp. 215-216 "The lives they lead now," Washington Post, June 13, 1982. Further reading Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 10: September, 1973-August, 1976. New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1977. Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 12: September, 1979-August, 1982. New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1983. Who's Who in America. 38th edition, 1974–1975. Wilmette: Marquis Who's Who, 1974. Who's Who in America. 39th edition, 1976–1977. Wilmette: Marquis Who's Who, 1976. Who's Who in the West. 14th edition, 1974–1975. Wilmette: Marquis Who's Who, 1974. Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (AKA Senate Watergate Hearings), 1973. Testimony given to the committee and cross-examination by senators and counsel. Can be found on YouTube. Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata NARA Categories: 1921 births2017 deathsAmerican male criminalsCalifornia lawyersCalifornia RepublicansLawyers disbarred in the Watergate scandalMembers of the Committee for the Re-Election of the PresidentPeople associated with BakerHostetlerPeople convicted in the Watergate scandalPeople from Port Huron, MichiganUSC Gould School of Law alumniUniversity of Southern California alumni The 1972 United States presidential election was the 47th quadrennial presidential election held on Tuesday, November 7, 1972. Incumbent Republican president Richard Nixon defeated Democratic U.S. senator George McGovern in a historic-level landslide. Nixon swept aside challenges from two Republican representatives in the Republican primaries to win renomination. McGovern, who had played a significant role in changing the Democratic nomination system after the 1968 presidential election, mobilized the anti-Vietnam War movement and other liberal supporters to win his party's nomination. Among the candidates he defeated were early front-runner Edmund Muskie, 1968 nominee Hubert Humphrey, governor George Wallace, and representative Shirley Chisholm. Nixon emphasized the strong economy and his success in foreign affairs, while McGovern ran on a platform calling for an immediate end to the Vietnam War and the institution of a guaranteed minimum income. Nixon maintained a large lead in polling. Separately, Nixon's reelection committee broke into the Watergate complex to wiretap the Democratic National Committee's headquarters as part of the Watergate scandal. McGovern's general election campaign was damaged early on by the revelation of his running mate Thomas Eagleton, as well as the perception that McGovern's platform was radical. Eagleton had undergone electroconvulsive therapy as a treatment for depression, and he was replaced by Sargent Shriver after only nineteen days on the ticket. Nixon won the election in a landslide victory, taking 60.7% of the popular vote and carrying 49 states and becoming the first Republican to sweep the South, whereas McGovern took just 37.5% of the popular vote. Meanwhile, this marked the last time the Republican nominee carried Minnesota in a presidential election. The 1972 election was the first since the ratification of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, further expanding the electorate. Both Nixon and his vice president Spiro Agnew would resign from office within two years of the election. The latter resigned due to a bribery scandal in October 1973, and the former resigned in the face of likely impeachment and conviction as a result of the Watergate scandal in August 1974. Republican House Minority Leader Gerald Ford replaced Agnew as vice president in December 1973, and thus, replaced Nixon as president in August 1974. Ford remains the only person in American history to become president without winning an election for president or vice president. Despite this election delivering Nixon's greatest electoral triumph, Nixon later wrote in his memoirs that "it was one of the most frustrating and in many ways the least satisfying of all".[2] Republican nomination Main article: 1972 Republican Party presidential primaries Republican candidates: Richard Nixon, President of the United States from California Pete McCloskey, Representative from California John M. Ashbrook, Representative from Ohio This article is part of a series about Richard Nixon Birthplace Electoral history Depictions Pre-vice presidency 36th Vice President of the United States Post-vice presidency 37th President of the United States Presidency Timeline Transition Inaugurations first second Judicial appointments Appointed federal judges Supreme Court candidates Appointment controversies Policies Economic Nixon shock Foreign Nixon Doctrine Vietnamization Environmental EPA Clean Water NOAA Legacy of Parks Cannabis war on drugs Native American First term End of the draft Visit to China Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty War on cancer Philadelphia Plan Minority Business Enterprise OSHA Apollo program Second term Paris Peace Accords decent interval 1973 Chilean coup d'état Yom Kippur War airlift Mideast Peace Process Marine Mammal Protection Act Endangered Species Act Impeachment process Watergate scandal timeline Tapes United States v. Nixon Resignation speech Pardon Post-presidency Presidential campaigns Vice presidential campaigns Richard Nixon's signature Seal of the President of the United States vte Republican Party (United States) 1972 Republican Party ticket Richard Nixon Spiro Agnew for President for Vice President 37th President of the United States (1969–1974) 39th Vice President of the United States (1969–1973) Campaign Primaries Nixon was a popular incumbent president in 1972, as he was credited with opening the People's Republic of China as a result of his visit that year, and achieving détente with the Soviet Union. Polls showed that Nixon held a strong lead in the Republican primaries. He was challenged by two candidates: liberal Pete McCloskey from California, and conservative John Ashbrook from Ohio. McCloskey ran as an anti-war candidate, while Ashbrook opposed Nixon's détente policies towards China and the Soviet Union. In the New Hampshire primary, McCloskey garnered 19.8% of the vote to Nixon's 67.6%, with Ashbrook receiving 9.7%.[3] Nixon won 1323 of the 1324 delegates to the Republican convention, with McCloskey receiving the vote of one delegate from New Mexico. Vice President Spiro Agnew was re-nominated by acclamation; while both the party's moderate wing and Nixon himself had wanted to replace him with a new running-mate (the moderates favoring Nelson Rockefeller, and Nixon favoring John Connally), it was ultimately concluded that such action would incur too great a risk of losing Agnew's base of conservative supporters. Primary results 1972 Republican Party presidential primaries[4] Candidate Votes % Richard M. Nixon (incumbent) 5,378,704 86.9 Unpledged delegates 317,048 5.1 John M. Ashbrook 311,543 5.0 Paul N. McCloskey 132,731 2.1 George C. Wallace 20,472 0.3 "None of the names shown" 5,350 0.1 Others 22,433 0.4 Total votes 6,188,281 100 Convention Seven members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were brought on federal charges for conspiring to disrupt the Republican convention.[5] They were acquitted by a federal jury in Gainesville, Florida.[5] Democratic nomination Main article: 1972 Democratic Party presidential primaries Overall, fifteen people declared their candidacy for the Democratic Party nomination. They were:[6][7] George McGovern, senator from South Dakota Hubert Humphrey, senator from Minnesota, former vice president, and presidential nominee in 1968 George Wallace, Governor of Alabama Edmund Muskie, senator from Maine, vice presidential nominee in 1968 Eugene J. McCarthy, former senator from Minnesota Henry M. Jackson, senator from Washington Shirley Chisholm, Representative of New York's 12th congressional district Terry Sanford, former governor of North Carolina John Lindsay, Mayor of New York City Wilbur Mills, representative of Arkansas's 2nd congressional district Vance Hartke, senator from Indiana Fred Harris, senator from Oklahoma Sam Yorty, Mayor of Los Angeles Patsy Mink, representative of Hawaii's 2nd congressional district Walter Fauntroy, Delegate from Washington, D. C. Democratic Party (United States) 1972 Democratic Party ticket George McGovern Sargent Shriver for President for Vice President U.S. Senator from South Dakota (1963–1981) 21st U.S. Ambassador to France (1968–1970) Campaign Primaries Senate Majority Whip Ted Kennedy, the youngest brother of late President John F. Kennedy and late United States Senator Robert F. Kennedy, was the favorite to win the 1972 nomination, but he announced he would not be a candidate.[8] The favorite for the Democratic nomination then became Maine Senator Ed Muskie,[9] the 1968 vice-presidential nominee.[10] Muskie's momentum collapsed just prior to the New Hampshire primary, when the so-called "Canuck letter" was published in the Manchester Union-Leader. The letter, actually a forgery from Nixon's "dirty tricks" unit, claimed that Muskie had made disparaging remarks about French-Canadians – a remark likely to injure Muskie's support among the French-American population in northern New England.[11] Subsequently, the paper published an attack on the character of Muskie's wife Jane, reporting that she drank and used off-color language during the campaign. Muskie made an emotional defense of his wife in a speech outside the newspaper's offices during a snowstorm. Though Muskie later stated that what had appeared to the press as tears were actually melted snowflakes, the press reported that Muskie broke down and cried, shattering the candidate's image as calm and reasoned.[11][12] Nearly two years before the election, South Dakota Senator George McGovern entered the race as an anti-war, progressive candidate.[13] McGovern was able to pull together support from the anti-war movement and other grassroots support to win the nomination in a primary system he had played a significant part in designing. On January 25, 1972, New York Representative Shirley Chisholm announced she would run, and became the first African-American woman to run for a major-party presidential nomination. Hawaii Representative Patsy Mink also announced she would run, and became the first Asian American person to run for the Democratic presidential nomination.[14] On April 25, George McGovern won the Massachusetts primary. Two days later, journalist Robert Novak quoted a "Democratic senator", later revealed to be Thomas Eagleton, as saying: "The people don't know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion, and legalization of pot. Once middle America – Catholic middle America, in particular – finds this out, he's dead." The label stuck, and McGovern became known as the candidate of "amnesty, abortion, and acid". It became Humphrey's battle cry to stop McGovern—especially in the Nebraska primary.[15][16] Alabama Governor George Wallace, an infamous segregationist who ran on a third-party ticket in 1968, did well in the South (winning nearly every county in the Florida primary) and among alienated and dissatisfied voters in the North.[17] What might have become a forceful campaign was cut short when Wallace was shot in an assassination attempt by Arthur Bremer on May 15. Wallace was struck by five bullets and left paralyzed from the waist down. The day after the assassination attempt, Wallace won the Michigan and Maryland primaries, but the shooting effectively ended his campaign, and he pulled out in July. In the end, McGovern won the nomination by winning primaries through grassroots support, in spite of establishment opposition. McGovern had led a commission to re-design the Democratic nomination system after the divisive nomination struggle and convention of 1968. However, the new rules angered many prominent Democrats whose influence was marginalized, and those politicians refused to support McGovern's campaign (some even supporting Nixon instead), leaving the McGovern campaign at a significant disadvantage in funding, compared to Nixon. Some of the principles of the McGovern Commission have lasted throughout every subsequent nomination contest, but the Hunt Commission instituted the selection of Superdelegates a decade later, in order to reduce the nomination chances of outsiders like McGovern and Carter. Primary results Statewide contest by winner No primary held Shirley Chisholm Hubert Humphrey Henry M. Jackson George McGovern Wilbur Mills Edmund Muskie 1972 Democratic Party presidential primaries[4] Candidate Votes % Hubert H. Humphrey 4,121,372 25.8 George S. McGovern 4,053,451 25.3 George C. Wallace 3,755,424 23.5 Edmund S. Muskie 1,840,217 11.5 Eugene J. McCarthy 553,955 3.5 Henry M. Jackson 505,198 3.2 Shirley A. Chisholm 430,703 2.7 James T. Sanford 331,415 2.1 John V. Lindsay 196,406 1.2 Sam W. Yorty 79,446 0.5 Wilbur D. Mills 37,401 0.2 Walter E. Fauntroy 21,217 0.1 Unpledged delegates 19,533 0.1 Edward M. Kennedy 16,693 0.1 Rupert V. Hartke 11,798 0.1 Patsy M. Mink 8,286 0.1 "None of the names shown" 6,269 0 Others 5,181 0 Total votes 15,993,965 100 Notable endorsements Edmund Muskie Former Governor of and Secretary of Commerce W. Averell Harriman from New York[18] Senator Harold Hughes from Iowa[19] Senator Birch Bayh from Indiana[20] Senator Adlai Stevenson III from Illinois[21] Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska[22] Former Senator Stephen M. Young from Ohio[23] Governor Milton Shapp of Pennsylvania[24] Former Governor Michael DiSalle of Ohio[23] Ohio State Treasurer Gertrude W. Donahey[25] Astronaut John Glenn from Ohio[23] George McGovern Senator Frank Church from Idaho[26] George Wallace Former Governor Lester Maddox of Georgia[27] Shirley Chisholm Representative Ron Dellums from California[28] Feminist leader and author Betty Friedan[29] Feminist leader, journalist, and DNC official Gloria Steinem[30] Terry Sanford Former President Lyndon B. Johnson from Texas[31] Henry M. Jackson Governor Jimmy Carter of Georgia[32] 1972 Democratic National Convention Duration: 1 minute and 28 seconds.1:28 Video from the Florida conventions Main article: 1972 Democratic National Convention Results: George McGovern – 1864.95 Henry M. Jackson – 525 George Wallace – 381.7 Shirley Chisholm – 151.95 Terry Sanford – 77.5 Hubert Humphrey – 66.7 Wilbur Mills – 33.8 Edmund Muskie – 24.3 Ted Kennedy – 12.7 Sam Yorty – 10 Wayne Hays – 5 John Lindsay – 5 Fred Harris – 2 Eugene McCarthy – 2 Walter Mondale – 2 Ramsey Clark – 1 Walter Fauntroy – 1 Vance Hartke – 1 Harold Hughes – 1 Patsy Mink – 1 Vice presidential vote Most polls showed McGovern running well behind incumbent President Richard Nixon, except when McGovern was paired with Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy. McGovern and his campaign brain trust lobbied Kennedy heavily to accept the bid to be McGovern's running mate, but he continually refused their advances, and instead suggested U.S. Representative (and House Ways and Means Committee chairman) Wilbur Mills of Arkansas and Boston Mayor Kevin White.[33] Offers were then made to Hubert Humphrey, Connecticut Senator Abraham Ribicoff, and Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale, all of whom turned it down. Finally, the vice presidential slot was offered to Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri, who accepted the offer.[33] With hundreds of delegates displeased with McGovern, the vote to ratify Eagleton's candidacy was chaotic, with at least three other candidates having their names put into nomination and votes scattered over 70 candidates.[34] A grassroots attempt to displace Eagleton in favor of Texas state representative Frances Farenthold gained significant traction, though was ultimately unable to change the outcome of the vote.[35] The vice-presidential balloting went on so long that McGovern and Eagleton were forced to begin making their acceptance speeches at around 2 am, local time. After the convention ended, it was discovered that Eagleton had undergone psychiatric electroshock therapy for depression and had concealed this information from McGovern. A Time magazine poll taken at the time found that 77 percent of the respondents said, "Eagleton's medical record would not affect their vote." Nonetheless, the press made frequent references to his "shock therapy", and McGovern feared that this would detract from his campaign platform.[36] McGovern subsequently consulted confidentially with pre-eminent psychiatrists, including Eagleton's own doctors, who advised him that a recurrence of Eagleton's depression was possible and could endanger the country, should Eagleton become president.[37][38][39][40][41] McGovern had initially claimed that he would back Eagleton "1000 percent",[42] only to ask Eagleton to withdraw three days later. This perceived lack of conviction in sticking with his running mate was disastrous for the McGovern campaign. McGovern later approached six prominent Democrats to run for vice president: Ted Kennedy, Edmund Muskie, Hubert Humphrey, Abraham Ribicoff, Larry O'Brien, and Reubin Askew. All six declined. Sargent Shriver, brother-in-law to John, Robert, and Ted Kennedy, former Ambassador to France, and former Director of the Peace Corps, later accepted.[43] He was officially nominated by a special session of the Democratic National Committee. By this time, McGovern's poll ratings had plunged from 41 to 24 percent. Third parties 1972 American Independent Party ticket John G. Schmitz Thomas J. Anderson for President for Vice President U.S. Representative from California's 35th district (1970–1973) Magazine publisher; conservative speaker Campaign Other Candidates Lester Maddox Thomas J. Anderson George Wallace Lieutenant Governor of Georgia (1971–1975) Governor of Georgia (1967–1971) Magazine publisher; conservative speaker Governor of Alabama (1963–1967), (1971–1979) 1968 AIP Presidential Nominee Campaign Campaign Campaign 56 votes 24 votes 8 votes The only major third party candidate in the 1972 election was conservative Republican Representative John G. Schmitz, who ran on the American Independent Party ticket (the party on whose ballot George Wallace ran in 1968). He was on the ballot in 32 states and received 1,099,482 votes. Unlike Wallace, however, he did not win a majority of votes cast in any state, and received no electoral votes, although he did finish ahead of McGovern in four of the most conservative Idaho counties.[44] Schmitz's performance in archconservative Jefferson County was the best by a third-party Presidential candidate in any free or postbellum state county since 1936 when William Lemke reached over twenty-eight percent of the vote in the North Dakota counties of Burke, Sheridan and Hettinger.[45] Schmitz was endorsed by fellow John Birch Society member Walter Brennan, who also served as finance chairman for his campaign.[46] John Hospers and Tonie Nathan of the newly formed Libertarian Party were on the ballot only in Colorado and Washington, but were official write-in candidates in four others, and received 3,674 votes, winning no states. However, they did receive one Electoral College vote from Virginia from a Republican faithless elector (see below). The Libertarian vice-presidential nominee Theodora "Tonie" Nathan became the first Jew and the first woman in U.S. history to receive an Electoral College vote.[47] Linda Jenness was nominated by the Socialist Workers Party, with Andrew Pulley as her running-mate. Benjamin Spock and Julius Hobson were nominated for president and vice-president, respectively, by the People's Party. General election Campaign Richard Nixon during an August 1972 campaign stop George McGovern speaking at an October 1972 campaign rally McGovern ran on a platform of immediately ending the Vietnam War and instituting a radical guaranteed minimum incomes for the nation's poor. His campaign was harmed by his views during the primaries (which alienated many powerful Democrats), the perception that his foreign policy was too extreme, and the Eagleton debacle. With McGovern's campaign weakened by these factors, with the Republicans portraying McGovern as a radical left-wing extremist, Nixon led in the polls by large margins throughout the entire campaign. With an enormous fundraising advantage and a comfortable lead in the polls, Nixon concentrated on large rallies and focused speeches to closed, select audiences, leaving much of the retail campaigning to surrogates like Vice President Agnew. Nixon did not, by design, try to extend his coattails to Republican congressional or gubernatorial candidates, preferring to pad his own margin of victory. Results Election results by county. Richard Nixon George McGovern Results by congressional district. Nixon's percentage of the popular vote was only marginally less than Lyndon Johnson's record in the 1964 election, and his margin of victory was slightly larger. Nixon won a majority vote in 49 states, including McGovern's home state of South Dakota. Only Massachusetts and the District of Columbia voted for the challenger, resulting in an even more lopsided Electoral College tally. McGovern garnered only 37.5 percent of the national popular vote, the lowest share received by a Democratic Party nominee since John W. Davis won only 28.8 percent of the vote in the 1924 election. The only major party candidate since 1972 to receive less than 40 percent of the vote was Republican incumbent President George H. W. Bush who won 37.4 percent of the vote in the 1992 election, a race that (as in 1924) was complicated by a strong non-major-party vote.[48] Nixon received the highest share of the popular vote for a Republican in history. Although the McGovern campaign believed that its candidate had a better chance of defeating Nixon because of the new Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution that lowered the national voting age to 18 from 21, most of the youth vote went to Nixon.[49] This was the first election in American history in which a Republican candidate carried every single Southern state, continuing the region's transformation from a Democratic bastion into a Republican stronghold as Arkansas was carried by a Republican presidential candidate for the first time in a century. By this time, all the Southern states, except Arkansas and Texas, had been carried by a Republican in either the previous election or the one in 1964 (although Republican candidates carried Texas in 1928, 1952 and 1956). As a result of this election, Massachusetts became the only state that Nixon did not carry in any of the three presidential elections in which he was a candidate. Notably, Nixon became the first Republican to ever win two terms in the White House without carrying Massachusetts at least once. This presidential election was the first since 1808 in which New York did not have the largest number of electors in the Electoral College, having fallen to 41 electors vs. California's 45. Additionally, through 2020 it remains the last one in which Minnesota was carried by the Republican candidate.[50] McGovern won a mere 130 counties, plus the District of Columbia and four county-equivalents in Alaska,[b] easily the fewest counties won by any major-party presidential nominee since the advent of popular presidential elections.[51] In nineteen states, McGovern failed to carry a single county;[c] he carried a mere one county-equivalent in a further nine states,[d] and just two counties in a further seven.[e] In contrast to Walter Mondale's narrow 1984 win in Minnesota, McGovern comfortably did win Massachusetts, but lost every other state by no less than five percentage points, as well as 45 states by more than ten percentage points – the exceptions being Massachusetts, Minnesota, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and his home state of South Dakota. This election also made Nixon the second former vice president in American history to serve two terms back-to-back, after Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and 1804. As well as the only two-term Vice President to be elected President twice. Since McGovern carried only one state, bumper stickers reading "Nixon 49 America 1",[52] "Don't Blame Me, I'm From Massachusetts", and "Massachusetts: The One And Only" were popular for a short time in Massachusetts.[53] Nixon managed to win 18% of the African American vote (Gerald Ford would get 16% in 1976).[54] He also remains the only Republican in modern times to threaten the oldest extant Democratic stronghold of South Texas: this is the last election when the Republicans have won Hidalgo or Dimmit counties, the only time Republicans have won La Salle County between William McKinley in 1900 and Donald Trump in 2020, and one of only two occasions since Theodore Roosevelt in 1904[f] that Republicans have gained a majority in Presidio County.[50] More significantly, the 1972 election was the most recent time several highly populous urban counties – including Cook in Illinois, Orleans in Louisiana, Hennepin in Minnesota, Cuyahoga in Ohio, Durham in North Carolina, Queens in New York, and Prince George's in Maryland – have voted Republican.[50] The Wallace vote had also been crucial to Nixon being able to sweep the states that had narrowly held out against him in 1968 (Texas, Maryland, and West Virginia), as well as the states Wallace won himself (Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia). The pro-Wallace group of voters had only given AIP nominee John Schmitz a depressing 2.4% of its support, while 19.1% backed McGovern, and the majority 78.5% broke for Nixon. Nixon, who became term-limited under the provisions of the Twenty-second Amendment as a result of his victory, became the first (and, as of 2023, only) presidential candidate to win a significant number of electoral votes in three presidential elections since the ratification of that Amendment. As of 2023, Nixon was the seventh of seven presidential nominees to win a significant number of electoral votes in at least three elections, the others being Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, William Jennings Bryan, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. He is the only Republican ever to do so. The 520 electoral votes received by Nixon, added to the 301 electoral votes he received in 1968, and the 219 electoral votes he received in 1960, gave him the most total electoral votes received by any candidate who had been previously Vice President to become president (1,040) and the second largest number of electoral votes received by any candidate who was elected to the office of president behind Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1,876 total electoral votes. Electoral results Presidential candidate Party Home state Popular vote[55] Electoral vote[56] Running mate Count Percentage Vice-presidential candidate Home state Electoral vote[56] Richard Milhous Nixon (Incumbent) Republican California 47,168,710 60.67% 520 Spiro Theodore Agnew Maryland 520 George Stanley McGovern Democratic South Dakota 29,173,222 37.52% 17 Robert Sargent Shriver Maryland 17 John G. Schmitz American Independent California 1,100,896 1.42% 0 Thomas J. Anderson Tennessee 0 Linda Jenness Socialist Workers Georgia 83,380[g] 0.11% 0 Andrew Pulley Illinois 0 Benjamin Spock People's California 78,759 0.10% 0 Julius Hobson District of Columbia 0 Louis Fisher Socialist Labor Illinois 53,814 0.07% 0 Genevieve Gunderson Minnesota 0 John G. Hospers Libertarian California 3,674 0.00% 1[h][47] Theodora Nathan Oregon 1[h][47] Other 81,575 0.10% — Other — Total 77,744,030 100% 538 538 Needed to win 270 270 John Hospers received one faithless electoral vote from Virginia. Popular vote Nixon   60.67% McGovern   37.52% Schmitz   1.42% Others   0.39% Electoral vote Nixon   96.65% McGovern   3.16% Hospers   0.19% Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote Results by state Legend Legend States/districts won by Nixon/Agnew States/districts won by McGovern/Shriver † At-large results (Maine used the Congressional District Method) Outcomes of the 1972 United States presidential election by state[58] Richard Nixon Republican George McGovern Democratic John Schmitz American Independent John Hospers Libertarian Margin State Total State electoral votes # % electoral votes # % electoral votes # % electoral votes # % electoral votes # % # Alabama 9 728,701 72.43 9 256,923 25.54 11,918 1.18 471,778 46.89 1,006,093 AL Alaska 3 55,349 58.13 3 32,967 34.62 6,903 7.25 22,382 23.51 95,219 AK Arizona 6 402,812 61.64 6 198,540 30.38 21,208 3.25 204,272 31.26 653,505 AZ Arkansas 6 445,751 68.82 6 198,899 30.71 3,016 0.47 246,852 38.11 647,666 AR California 45 4,602,096 55.00 45 3,475,847 41.54 232,554 2.78 980 0.01 1,126,249 13.46 8,367,862 CA Colorado 7 597,189 62.61 7 329,980 34.59 17,269 1.81 1,111 0.12 267,209 28.01 953,884 CO Connecticut 8 810,763 58.57 8 555,498 40.13 17,239 1.25 255,265 18.44 1,384,277 CT Delaware 3 140,357 59.60 3 92,283 39.18 2,638 1.12 48,074 20.41 235,516 DE D.C. 3 35,226 21.56 127,627 78.10 3 −92,401 −56.54 163,421 DC Florida 17 1,857,759 71.91 17 718,117 27.80 1,139,642 44.12 2,583,283 FL Georgia 12 881,496 75.04 12 289,529 24.65 812 0.07 591,967 50.39 1,174,772 GA Hawaii 4 168,865 62.48 4 101,409 37.52 67,456 24.96 270,274 HI Idaho 4 199,384 64.24 4 80,826 26.04 28,869 9.30 118,558 38.20 310,379 ID Illinois 26 2,788,179 59.03 26 1,913,472 40.51 2,471 0.05 874,707 18.52 4,723,236 IL Indiana 13 1,405,154 66.11 13 708,568 33.34 696,586 32.77 2,125,529 IN Iowa 8 706,207 57.61 8 496,206 40.48 22,056 1.80 210,001 17.13 1,225,944 IA Kansas 7 619,812 67.66 7 270,287 29.50 21,808 2.38 349,525 38.15 916,095 KS Kentucky 9 676,446 63.37 9 371,159 34.77 17,627 1.65 305,287 28.60 1,067,499 KY Louisiana 10 686,852 65.32 10 298,142 28.35 52,099 4.95 388,710 36.97 1,051,491 LA Maine † 2 256,458 61.46 2 160,584 38.48 117 0.03 1 0.00 95,874 22.98 417,271 ME Maine-1 1 135,388 61.42 1 85,028 38.58 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 50,360 22.85 220,416 ME1 Maine-2 1 121,120 61.58 1 75,556 38.42 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown 45,564 23.17 196,676 ME2 Maryland 10 829,305 61.26 10 505,781 37.36 18,726 1.38 323,524 23.90 1,353,812 MD Massachusetts 14 1,112,078 45.23 1,332,540 54.20 14 2,877 0.12 43 0.00 −220,462 −8.97 2,458,756 MA Michigan 21 1,961,721 56.20 21 1,459,435 41.81 63,321 1.81 502,286 14.39 3,490,325 MI Minnesota 10 898,269 51.58 10 802,346 46.07 31,407 1.80 95,923 5.51 1,741,652 MN Mississippi 7 505,125 78.20 7 126,782 19.63 11,598 1.80 378,343 58.57 645,963 MS Missouri 12 1,154,058 62.29 12 698,531 37.71 455,527 24.59 1,852,589 MO Montana 4 183,976 57.93 4 120,197 37.85 13,430 4.23 63,779 20.08 317,603 MT Nebraska 5 406,298 70.50 5 169,991 29.50 236,307 41.00 576,289 NE Nevada 3 115,750 63.68 3 66,016 36.32 49,734 27.36 181,766 NV New Hampshire 4 213,724 63.98 4 116,435 34.86 3,386 1.01 97,289 29.12 334,055 NH New Jersey 17 1,845,502 61.57 17 1,102,211 36.77 34,378 1.15 743,291 24.80 2,997,229 NJ New Mexico 4 235,606 61.05 4 141,084 36.56 8,767 2.27 94,522 24.49 385,931 NM New York 41 4,192,778 58.54 41 2,951,084 41.21 1,241,694 17.34 7,161,830 NY North Carolina 13 1,054,889 69.46 13 438,705 28.89 25,018 1.65 616,184 40.58 1,518,612 NC North Dakota 3 174,109 62.07 3 100,384 35.79 5,646 2.01 73,725 26.28 280,514 ND Ohio 25 2,441,827 59.63 25 1,558,889 38.07 80,067 1.96 882,938 21.56 4,094,787 OH Oklahoma 8 759,025 73.70 8 247,147 24.00 23,728 2.30 511,878 49.70 1,029,900 OK Oregon 6 486,686 52.45 6 392,760 42.33 46,211 4.98 93,926 10.12 927,946 OR Pennsylvania 27 2,714,521 59.11 27 1,796,951 39.13 70,593 1.54 917,570 19.98 4,592,105 PA Rhode Island 4 220,383 53.00 4 194,645 46.81 25 0.01 2 0.00 25,738 6.19 415,808 RI South Carolina 8 478,427 70.58 8 189,270 27.92 10,166 1.50 289,157 42.66 677,880 SC South Dakota 4 166,476 54.15 4 139,945 45.52 26,531 8.63 307,415 SD Tennessee 10 813,147 67.70 10 357,293 29.75 30,373 2.53 455,854 37.95 1,201,182 TN Texas 26 2,298,896 66.20 26 1,154,291 33.24 7,098 0.20 1,144,605 32.96 3,472,714 TX Utah 4 323,643 67.64 4 126,284 26.39 28,549 5.97 197,359 41.25 478,476 UT Vermont 3 117,149 62.66 3 68,174 36.47 48,975 26.20 186,947 VT Virginia 12 988,493 67.84 11 438,887 30.12 19,721 1.35 1 549,606 37.72 1,457,019 VA Washington 9 837,135 56.92 9 568,334 38.64 58,906 4.00 1,537 0.10 268,801 18.28 1,470,847 WA West Virginia 6 484,964 63.61 6 277,435 36.39 207,529 27.22 762,399 WV Wisconsin 11 989,430 53.40 11 810,174 43.72 47,525 2.56 179,256 9.67 1,852,890 WI Wyoming 3 100,464 69.01 3 44,358 30.47 748 0.51 56,106 38.54 145,570 WY TOTALS: 538 47,168,710 60.67 520 29,173,222 37.52 17 1,100,868 1.42 0 3,674 0.00 1 17,995,488 23.15 77,744,027 US For the first time since 1828 Maine allowed its electoral votes to be split between candidates. Two electoral votes were awarded to the winner of the statewide race and one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. This was the first time the Congressional District Method had been used since Michigan used it in 1892. Nixon won all four votes.[59] Close states States where margin of victory was more than 5 percentage points, but less than 10 percentage points (43 electoral votes): Minnesota, 5.51% (95,923 votes) Rhode Island, 6.19% (25,738 votes) South Dakota, 8.63% (26,531 votes) Massachusetts, 8.97% (220,462 votes) Wisconsin, 9.67% (179,256 votes) Tipping point states: Ohio, 21.56% (882,938 votes) (tipping point for a Nixon victory) Maine-1, 22.85% (50,360 votes) (tipping point for a McGovern victory)[60] Statistics [58] Counties with highest percentage of the vote (Republican) Dade County, Georgia 93.45% Glascock County, Georgia 93.38% George County, Mississippi 92.90% Holmes County, Florida 92.51% Smith County, Mississippi 92.35% Counties with highest percentage of the vote (Democratic) Duval County, Texas 85.68% Washington, D. C. 78.10% Shannon County, South Dakota 77.34% Greene County, Alabama 68.32% Charles City County, Virginia 67.84% Counties with highest percentage of the vote (Other) Jefferson County, Idaho 27.51% Lemhi County, Idaho 19.77% Fremont County, Idaho 19.32% Bonneville County, Idaho 18.97% Madison County, Idaho 17.04% Voter demographics Nixon won 36 percent of the Democratic vote, according to an exit poll conducted for CBS News by George Fine Research, Inc.[61] This represents more than twice the percentage of voters who typically defect from their party in presidential elections. Nixon also became the first Republican presidential candidate in American history to win the Roman Catholic vote (53–46), and the first in recent history to win the blue-collar vote, which he won by a 5-to-4 margin. McGovern narrowly won the union vote (50–48), though this difference was within the survey's margin of error of 2 percentage points. McGovern also narrowly won the youth vote (i. e., those aged 18 to 24) 52–46, a narrower margin than many of his strategists had predicted. Early on, the McGovern campaign also significantly over-estimated the number of young people who would vote in the election: They predicted that 18 million would have voted in total, but exit polls indicate that the actual number was about 12 million. McGovern did win comfortably among both African-American and Jewish voters, but by somewhat smaller margins than usual for a Democratic candidate.[61] McGovern won the African American vote by 87% to Nixon's 13%.[62] Aftermath Main article: Watergate scandal On June 17, 1972, five months before election day, five men broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel in Washington, D. C.; the resulting investigation led to the revelation of attempted cover-ups of the break-in within the Nixon administration. What became known as the Watergate scandal eroded President Nixon's public and political support in his second term, and he resigned on August 9, 1974, in the face of probable impeachment by the House of Representatives and removal from office by the Senate. As part of the continuing Watergate investigation in 1974–1975, federal prosecutors offered companies that had given illegal campaign contributions to President Nixon's re-election campaign lenient sentences if they came forward.[63] Many companies complied, including Northrop Grumman, 3M, American Airlines, and Braniff Airlines.[63] By 1976, prosecutors had convicted 18 American corporations of contributing illegally to Nixon's campaign.[63] Despite this election delivering Nixon's greatest electoral triumph, Nixon later wrote in his memoirs that "it was one of the most frustrating and in many ways the least satisfying of all".[64] See also 1972 United States House of Representatives elections 1972 United States Senate elections 1972 United States gubernatorial elections George McGovern 1972 presidential campaign Second inauguration of Richard Nixon Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72, a collection of articles by Hunter S. Thompson on the subject of the election, focusing on the McGovern campaign. Explanatory notes A faithless Republican elector voted for the Libertarian ticket: Hospers–Nathan These were North Slope Borough, plus Bethel, Kusilvak and Hoonah-Angoon Census Areas McGovern failed to carry a single county in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont or Wyoming McGovern carried only one county-equivalent in Arizona (Greenlee), Illinois (Jackson), Louisiana (West Feliciana Parish), Maine (Androscoggin), Maryland (Baltimore), North Dakota (Rolette), Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), Virginia (Charles City), and West Virginia (Logan) McGovern carried just two counties in Colorado, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio and Washington State Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 also obtained a plurality in Presidio County In Arizona, Pima and Yavapai counties had an unusually formatted ballot that led voters to believe they could vote for a major party presidential candidate and simultaneously vote the six individual Socialist Workers Party presidential electors. Technically, these were overvotes, and should not have counted for either the major party candidates or the Socialist Workers Party electors. Within two days of the election, the Attorney General and Pima County Attorney had agreed that all votes should count. The Socialist Workers Party had not qualified as a party, and thus did not have a presidential candidate. In the official state canvass, votes for Nixon, McGovern, or Schmitz, are shown as being for the presidential candidate, the party, and the elector slate of the party; while those for the Socialist Worker Party elector candidates were for those candidates only. In the view of the Secretary of State, the votes were not for Linda Jenness. Some tabulations count the votes for Jenness. Historically, presidential candidate names did not appear on ballots, and voters voted directly for the electors. Nonetheless, votes for the electors are attributed to the presidential candidate. Counting the votes in Arizona for Jenness is consistent with this practice. Because of the confusing ballots, Socialist Workers Party electors received votes on about 21 percent and 8 percent of ballots in Pima and Yavapai, respectively. 30,579 of the party's 30,945 Arizona votes are from those two counties.[57] A Virginia faithless elector, Roger MacBride, though pledged to vote for Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, instead voted for Libertarian candidates John Hospers and Theodora "Tonie" Nathan. Citations "National General Election VEP Turnout Rates, 1789-Present". United States Election Project. CQ Press. Archived from the original on July 25, 2014. Retrieved February 21, 2023. Emig, David (November 7, 2009). "My Morris Moment »". Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved March 29, 2021. "New Hampshire Primary historical past election results. 2008 Democrat & Republican past results. John McCain, Hillary Clinton winners". Primarynewhampshire.com. Archived from the original on July 15, 2011. Retrieved August 17, 2014. Kalb, Deborah, ed. (2010). Guide to U.S. Elections (6th ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press. p. 415. ISBN 9781604265361. Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 52. ISBN 0-465-04195-7. "CQ Almanac Online Edition". Library.cqpress.com. Archived from the original on June 8, 2020. Retrieved August 17, 2016. "Hawai'i, nation lose "a powerful voice" | The Honolulu Advertiser | Hawaii's Newspaper". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on December 19, 2019. Retrieved August 17, 2016. Jack Anderson (June 4, 1971). "Don't count out Ted Kennedy". The Free Lance–Star. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved March 16, 2012. Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 298. ISBN 0-465-04195-7. "Muskie, Edmund Sixtus, (1914–1996)". United States Congress. Archived from the original on December 5, 2010. Retrieved March 16, 2012. Mitchell, Robert (February 9, 2020). "The Democrat who cried (maybe) in New Hampshire and lost the presidential nomination". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 29, 2020. Retrieved March 3, 2020. "Remembering Ed Muskie Archived April 27, 1999, at the Wayback Machine", Online NewsHour, PBS, March 26, 1996.[dead link] R. W. Apple, Jr. (January 18, 1971). "McGovern Enters '72 Race, Pledging Troop Withdrawal" (fee required). The New York Times. p. 1. Archived from the original on June 8, 2020. Retrieved March 16, 2012. Jo Freeman (February 2005). "Shirley Chisholm's 1972 Presidential Campaign". University of Illinois at Chicago Women's History Project. Archived from the original on January 26, 2015. Robert D. Novak (2008). The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington. Random House Digital, Inc. p. 225. ISBN 9781400052004. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved November 20, 2015. Nancy L. Cohen (2012). Delirium: The Politics of Sex in America. Counterpoint Press. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9781619020689. The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. "United States presidential election of 1972". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on June 5, 2020. Retrieved December 3, 2019. Byrd, Lee (April 28, 1972). "Bland, Crybaby Roles Cost Muskie His Lead". Lansing State Journal. p. 1. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. "But of likely greater impediment was the sheer number of those involved, the many "senior advisors" like Clark Clifford and W. Averell Harriman and Luther B. Hodges, and the 19 senators, 34 congressmen and nine governors who had publicly enorsed Muskie." Risser, James (June 9, 1972). "Hughes Stands By Muskie". The Des Moines Register. p. 5. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. "Hughes has spent much of this week helping Muskie, whom Hughes endorsed early this year as the candidate most likely to unify the party and defeat President Nixon in November." "Bayh Endorses Sen. Muskie". The Logansport Press. UPI. March 17, 1972. p. 7. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. "Adlai Stevenson III Endorses Sen. Muskie". Tampa Bay Times. UPI. January 11, 1972. p. 17. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. "More Muskie Support". New York Times. January 15, 1972. Retrieved September 27, 2008. "Sticking by Muskie, Gilligan declares". The Cincinnati Post. April 27, 1972. p. 24. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. "News Capsule: In the nation". The Baltimore Sun. January 26, 1972. p. 2. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. "Gov. Milton Shapp of Pennsylvania endorsed Senator Edmund S. Muskie, dealing a sharp blow to Senator Hubert H. Humphrey's presidential ambitions." "Muskie, HHH calling in Ohio". The Journal Herald. Associated Press. January 12, 1972. p. 12. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. "McGovern Picking Second V.P. Candidate Same Way He Picked First". Ironwood Daily Globe. August 3, 1972. p. 11. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. "Maddox Against Demo Nominees". The Knoxville News-Sentinel. July 14, 1972. p. 10. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. "Maddox, a booster of fellow Democrat Alabama Gov. George Wallace, said Thursday it may be best to turn the present party "over to the promoters of anarchy, Socialism and Communism" and form what he called a New Democratic Party of the People." ""Catalyst for Change": The 1972 Presidential Campaign of Representative Shirley Chisholm". History, Art & Archives of the United States House of Representatives. September 14, 2020. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. Friedan, Betty (August 1, 2006). Life So Far: A Memoir – Google Books. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-9986-2. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved May 28, 2010. "POV – Chisholm '72 . Video: Gloria Steinem reflects on Chisholm's legacy". PBS. Archived from the original on June 16, 2010. Retrieved May 28, 2010. Covington, Howard E.; Ellis, Marion A. (1999). Terry Sanford: politics, progress ... – Google Books. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-2356-3. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved May 28, 2010. "Convention Briefs: Endorses Jackson". Wisconsin State Journal. July 12, 1972. p. 40. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 13, 2022. "Georgia Gov. Jimmy Carter endorsed Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington for the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday and said he would nominate Jackson at the convention tonight." "Introducing... the McGovern Machine". Time Magazine. July 24, 1972. Archived from the original on August 9, 2014. Retrieved September 7, 2008. "All The Votes...Really". All Politics. CNN. Archived from the original on April 24, 2009. Retrieved May 28, 2010. "A Guide to the Frances Tarlton Farenthold Papers, 1913–2013". Texas Archival Resources Online. Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin. Archived from the original on December 31, 2016. Garofoli, Joe (March 26, 2008). "Obama bounces back – speech seemed to help". SFGATE. Archived from the original on May 25, 2011. Retrieved May 28, 2010. McGovern, George S., Grassroots: The Autobiography of George McGovern, New York: Random House, 1977, pp. 214–215 McGovern, George S., Terry: My Daughter's Life-and-Death Struggle with Alcoholism, New York: Random House, 1996, pp. 97 Marano, Richard Michael, Vote Your Conscience: The Last Campaign of George McGovern, Praeger Publishers, 2003, pp. 7 The Washington Post, "George McGovern & the Coldest Plunge", Paul Hendrickson, September 28, 1983 The New York Times, "'Trashing' Candidates" (op-ed), George McGovern, May 11, 1983 "'I'm Behind Him 1000%'". Observer.com. July 21, 2016. Liebovich, Louis (2003). Richard Nixon, Watergate, and the Press: A Historical Retrospective. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 53. ISBN 9780275979157. Menendez, Albert J.; The Geography of Presidential Elections in the United States, 1868–2004, p. 100 ISBN 0786422173 Scammon, Richard M. (compiler); America at the Polls: A Handbook of Presidential Election Statistics 1920–1964; pp. 339, 343 ISBN 0405077114 Actor to Aid Schmitz; The New York Times, August 9, 1972 "Libertarians trying to escape obscurity". Eugene Register-Guard. Associated Press. December 30, 1973. Archived from the original on August 26, 2021. Retrieved July 30, 2012. Feinman, Ronald (September 2, 2016). "Donald Trump Could Be On Way To Worst Major Party Candidate Popular Vote Percentage Since William Howard Taft In 1912 And John W. Davis In 1924!". The Progressive Professor. Archived from the original on December 20, 2019. Retrieved November 7, 2019. Jesse Walker (July 2008). "The Age of Nixon: Rick Perlstein on the left, the right, the '60s, and the illusion of consensus". Reason. Archived from the original on July 18, 2013. Retrieved July 27, 2013. Sullivan, Robert David; 'How the Red and Blue Map Evolved Over the Past Century' Archived November 16, 2016, at the Wayback Machine; America Magazine in The National Catholic Review; June 29, 2016 Menendez, Albert J.; The Geography of Presidential Elections in the United States, 1868–2004, p. 98 ISBN 0786422173 "New York Intelligencer". New York. Vol. 6, no. 35. New York Media, LLC. August 27, 1973. p. 57. Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved March 16, 2019. Lukas, J. Anthony (January 14, 1973). "As Massachusetts went—". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on May 17, 2019. Retrieved March 16, 2019. "Exit Polls – Election Results 2008". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 23, 2020. Retrieved May 11, 2020. Leip, David. "1972 Presidential Election Results". Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Retrieved August 7, 2005. "Electoral College Box Scores 1789–1996". National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved August 7, 2005. Seeley, John (November 22, 2000). "Early and Often". LA Weekly. Retrieved April 10, 2021. "1972 Presidential General Election Data — National". Archived from the original on February 1, 2020. Retrieved March 18, 2013. Barone, Michael; Matthews, Douglas; Ujifusa, Grant (1973). The Almanac of American Politics, 1974. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) Leip, David "How close were U.S. Presidential Elections?", Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Retrieved: January 24, 2013. Rosenthal, Jack (November 9, 1972). "Desertion Rate Doubles". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on December 29, 2019. Retrieved December 1, 2019. "Survey Reports McGovern Got 87% of the Black Vote". The New York Times. November 12, 1972. Archived from the original on February 8, 2023. Retrieved February 8, 2023. Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 31. ISBN 0-465-04195-7. Emig, David (November 7, 2009). "My Morris Moment »". Archived from the original on April 18, 2023. Retrieved March 29, 2021. Bibliography and further reading Alexander, Herbert E. Financing the 1972 Election (1976) online Giglio, James N. (2009). "The Eagleton Affair: Thomas Eagleton, George McGovern, and the 1972 Vice Presidential Nomination". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 39 (4): 647–676. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5705.2009.03731.x. Graebner, Norman A. (1973). "Presidential Politics in a Divided America: 1972". Australian Journal of Politics and History. 19 (1): 28–47. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8497.1973.tb00722.x. Hofstetter, C. Richard; Zukin, Cliff (1979). "TV Network News and Advertising in the Nixon and McGovern Campaigns". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 56 (1): 106–152. doi:10.1177/107769907905600117. S2CID 144048423. Hofstetter, C. Richard. Bias in the news: Network television coverage of the 1972 election campaign (Ohio State University Press, 1976) online Johnstone, Andrew, and Andrew Priest, eds. US Presidential Elections and Foreign Policy: Candidates, Campaigns, and Global Politics from FDR to Bill Clinton (2017) pp 203–228. online Miller, Arthur H., et al. "A majority party in disarray: Policy polarization in the 1972 election." American Political Science Review 70.3 (1976): 753-778; widely cited; online Nicholas, H. G. (1973). "The 1972 Elections". Journal of American Studies. 7 (1): 1–15. doi:10.1017/S0021875800012585. S2CID 145606732. Perry, James M. Us & them: how the press covered the 1972 election (1973) online Simons, Herbert W., James W. Chesebro, and C. Jack Orr. "A movement perspective on the 1972 presidential election." Quarterly Journal of Speech 59.2 (1973): 168-179. online Archived September 23, 2022, at the Wayback Machine Trent, Judith S., and Jimmie D. Trent. "The rhetoric of the challenger: George Stanley McGovern." Communication Studies 25.1 (1974): 11-18. White, Theodore H. (1973). The Making of the President, 1972. New York: Atheneum. ISBN 0-689-10553-3. Primary sources Chester, Edward W. (1977). A guide to political platforms. Porter, Kirk H. and Donald Bruce Johnson, eds. National party platforms, 1840â€

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ A multinational corporation (MNC) – also called a multinational enterprise (MNE), transnational enterprise (TNE), transnational corporation (TNC), international corporation, or stateless corporation,[1] with subtle but contrasting senses – is a corporate organization that owns and controls the production of goods or services in at least one country other than its home country.[2][3] Control is considered an important aspect of an MNC to distinguish it from international portfolio investment organizations, such as some international mutual funds that invest in corporations abroad simply to diversify financial risks. Black's Law Dictionary suggests that a company or group should be considered a multinational corporation "if it derives 25% or more of its revenue from out-of-home-country operations".[4] Most of the largest and most influential companies of the modern age are publicly traded multinational corporations, including Forbes Global 2000 companies. History Colonialism See also: Charter company and Neocolonialism The history of multinational corporations began with the history of colonialism. The first multinational corporations were founded to set up colonial "factories" or port cities.[5] In addition to carrying on trade between the mother country and the colonies, the British East India Company became a quasi-government in its own right, with local government officials and its own army in India .[6][7] The two main examples were the British East India Company founded in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company (VOC) founded in 1602. Others included the Swedish Africa Company founded in 1649, and the Hudson's Bay Company founded in 1670.[8] These early corporations engaged in international trade and exploration, and set up trading posts.[9] The Dutch government took over the VOC in 1799, and during the 19th century, other governments increasingly took over the private companies, most notable in British India.[10] During the process of decolonization, the European colonial charter companies were disbanded, with the final colonial corporation, the Mozambique Company, dissolving in 1972.[9] Mining Mining of gold, silver, copper, and oil was a major activity early on and remains so today. International mining companies became prominent in Britain in the 19th century, such as the Rio Tinto company founded in 1873, which started with the purchase of sulfur and copper mines from the Spanish government. Rio Tinto, now based in London and Melbourne, Australia, has made many acquisitions and expanded globally to mine aluminum, iron ore, copper, uranium, and diamonds.[11] European mines in South Africa began opening in the late 19th century, producing gold and other minerals for the world market, jobs for locals, and business and profits for companies.[12] Cecil Rhodes (1853–1902) was one of the few businessmen in the era who became Prime Minister (of South Africa 1890–1896). His mining enterprises included the British South Africa Company and De Beers. The latter company practically controlled the global diamond market from its base in southern Africa.[13] Oil Further information: Seven Sisters (oil companies) and Anglo-Persian Oil Company In 1945, the United States was the world's largest oil producer. However, their reserves were declining due to high demand; therefore, the United States turned to foreign oil sources, which had a significant impact on the recovery of the West after World War II. Most of the world's oil was found in Latin America and the Middle East (particularly in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf). This increase in non-American production was enabled by multinational corporations known as the "Seven Sisters".[14][15] The "Seven Sisters" was a common term for the seven multinational companies that dominated the global petroleum industry from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s.[16] Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (originally Anglo-Persian; now BP) Royal Dutch Shell Standard Oil Company of California (SoCal, later Chevron) Gulf Oil (merged into Chevron) Texaco (merged into Chevron) Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (Esso, later Exxon, part of ExxonMobil) Standard Oil Company of New York (Socony, later Mobil, part of ExxonMobil) The nationalization of the Iranian oil industry in 1951 by Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and the subsequent boycott of Iranian oil by all companies had dramatic consequences for Iran and the international oil market. Iran was unable to sell any of its oil. In August 1953, the then prime minister was replaced by a pro-American dictatorship led by the Shah, and in October 1954, the Iranian industry was denationalized. Worldwide oil consumption increased rapidly between 1949 and 1970, a period known as the "golden age of oil". This increase in consumption was caused not only by the growth of production by multinational oil companies but also by the strong influence of the United States on the global oil market.[17] In 1959, companies lowered the price of oil due to a surplus in the market. This reduction dealt a significant blow to the finances of producers. Saudi oil minister Abdullah Tariki and Venezuela’s Juan Perez Alfonso entered into a secret agreement (the Mahdi Pact), promising that if the price of oil was lowered a second time, they would take collective action against the companies. This occurred in 1960.[18] Prior to the 1973 oil crisis, the Seven Sisters controlled around 85 percent of the world's petroleum reserves. In the 1970s, most countries with large reserves nationalized their reserves that had been owned by major oil companies. Since then, industry dominance has shifted to the OPEC cartel and state-owned oil and gas companies, such as Saudi Aramco, Gazprom (Russia), China National Petroleum Corporation, National Iranian Oil Company, PDVSA (Venezuela), Petrobras (Brazil), and Petronas (Malaysia). Dealing with OPEC (1973 - 1991) Unilateral increase in oil prices was labeled as "the largest nonviolent transfer of wealth in human history." The OPEC sought immediate discussions regarding participation in national oil industries. Companies were not inclined to object as the price hike benefited both them and OPEC members. In 1980, the Seven Sisters were entirely displaced and replaced by national oil companies (NOCs). The rise in oil prices burdened developing countries with balance of payments deficits, leading to an energy crisis. OPEC members had to abandon their plan of redistributing wealth from the West to the post-colonial South and invest either in foreign expenditures or ostentatious economic development projects. After 1974, most of the money from OPEC members ceased as payments for goods and services or investments in Western industry. In February 1974, the first Washington Energy Conference was convened. The most significant contribution of this conference was the establishment of the International Energy Agency (IEA), enabling states to coordinate policy, gather data, and monitor global oil reserves. In the 1970s, OPEC gradually nationalized the Seven Sisters. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as the only largest world oil producer, could leverage this. However, Saudi Arabia opted for the correct approach and maintained consistent oil prices throughout the 1970s. In 1979, the "second oil shock" came from the collapse of the Shah's regime in Iran. Iran became a regional power due to oil money and American weapons. The Shah eventually abdicated and fled the country. This prompted a strike by thousands of Iranian oil workers, significantly reducing oil production in Iran. Saudi Arabia tried to cope with the crisis by increasing production, but oil prices still soared, leading to the "second oil shock." Saudi Arabia significantly reduced oil production, losing most of its revenues. In 1986, Riyadh changed course, and oil production in Saudi Arabia sharply increased, flooding the market with cheap oil. This caused a worldwide drop in oil prices, hence the "third oil shock" or "counter-shock." However, this shock represented something much bigger—the end of OPEC's dominance and its control over oil prices. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein decided to attack Kuwait. The invasion sparked a crisis in the Middle East, prompting Saudi Arabia to request assistance from the United States. The United States sent a million troops to help, and by February 1991, Iraqi forces were expelled from Kuwait. Due to the oil boycott from Kuwait and Iran, oil prices rose and quickly recovered. Saudi Arabia once again led OPEC, and thanks to assistance in defending Kuwait, new relations emerged between the USA and OPEC. Operation "Desert Storm" brought mutual dependence among the main oil producers. OPEC continued to influence global oil prices but recognized the United States as the largest consumer and guarantor of the existing oil security order.[15] The new normal (1991-2018) Since the Iraq war, OPEC has only a minor influence on oil prices, but it has expanded to 11 members, accounting for about 40 percent of total global oil production, although this is a decline from nearly 50 percent in 1974. Oil has practically become a common commodity, leading to much more volatile prices. Most OPEC members are wealthy, and most remain dependent on oil revenues, which has serious consequences, such as when OPEC members were pressured by the price collapse in 1998–1999. The United States still maintains close relations with Saudi Arabia. In 2003, U.S. forces invaded Iraq with the aim of removing the dictatorship and gaining access to Iraqi oil reserves, giving the United States greater strategic importance from 2000 to 2008. During this period, there was a constant shortage of oil, but its consumption continued to rise, maintaining high prices and leading to concerns about "peak oil". From 2005 to 2012, there were advances in oil and gas extraction, leading to increased production in the United States from 2010. The USA became the leading oil producer, creating tension with OPEC. In 2014, Saudi Arabia increased production to push new American producers out of the market, leading to lower prices. OPEC then reduced production in 2016 to raise prices, further worsening relations with the United States.[15] By 2012, only 7% of the world's known oil reserves were in countries that allowed private international companies free rein; 65% were in the hands of state-owned companies that operated in one country and sold oil to multinationals such as BP, Shell, ExxonMobil and Chevron.[19] Manufacturing Down through the 1930s, about 80% of the international investments by the multinational corporations were concentrated in the primary sector, especially mining (especially oil) and agriculture (rubber, tobacco, sugar, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, tropical fruits). Most went to the Third World colonies. That changed dramatically after 1945 as investors turned to industrialized countries and invested in manufacturing (especially high-tech electronics, chemicals, drugs and vehicles) as well as trade.[20] Sweden's leading manufacturing concern was SKF, a leading maker of bearings for machinery. In order to expand its international business, it decided in 1966 it needed to use the English language. Senior officials, although mostly still Swedish, all learned English and all major internal documents were in English, the lingua franca of multinational corporations.[21] After World War II After the war, the number of businesses having at least one foreign country operation rose drastically from a few thousand to 78,411 in 2007. Meanwhile, 74% of parent companies are located in economically advanced countries. Developing and former communist countries such as China, India, and Brazil being the largest recipients. However, 70% of foreign direct investment went into developed countries in the form of stocks and cash flows. The rise of the number of multinational companies could be due to a stable political environment that encourages cooperation, advances in technology that enables management of faraway regions, and favorable organizational development that encourages business expansion into other countries.[22] Current status Toyota is one of the world's largest multinational corporation(s) with its headquarters in Toyota City, Japan. Toyota is one of the world's largest multinational corporations with its headquarters in Toyota City, Japan. A multinational corporation (MNC) is usually a large corporation incorporated in one country which produces or sells goods or services in various countries.[23] Two common characteristics shared by MNCs are their large size and centrally controlled worldwide activities.[24] Importing and exporting goods and services Making significant investments in a foreign country Buying and selling licenses in foreign markets Engaging in contract manufacturing — permitting a local manufacturer in a foreign country to produce its products Opening manufacturing facilities or assembly operations in foreign countries MNCs may gain from their global presence in a variety of ways. First of all, MNCs can benefit from the economy of scale by spreading R&D expenditures and advertising costs over their global sales, pooling global purchasing power over suppliers, and utilizing their technological and managerial experience globally with minimal additional costs. Furthermore, MNCs can use their global presence to take advantage of underpriced labor services available in certain developing countries, and gain access to special R&D capabilities residing in advanced foreign countries.[25] The problem of moral and legal constraints upon the behavior of multinational corporations, given that they are effectively "stateless" actors, is one of several urgent global socioeconomic problems that has emerged during the late twentieth century.[26] Potentially, the best concept for analyzing society's governance limitations over modern corporations is the concept of "stateless corporations". Coined at least as early as 1991 in Business Week, the conception was theoretically clarified in 1993: that an empirical strategy for defining a stateless corporation is with analytical tools at the intersection between demographic analysis and transportation research. This intersection is known as logistics management, and it describes the importance of rapidly increasing global mobility of resources. In a long history of analysis of multinational corporations, we are some quarter-century into an era of stateless corporations - corporations that meet the realities of the needs of source materials on a worldwide basis and to produce and customize products for individual countries.[27] One of the first multinational business organizations, the East India Company, was established in 1601.[28] After the East India Company, came the Dutch East India Company, founded on March 20, 1603, which would become the largest company in the world for nearly 200 years. The main characteristics of multinational companies are: In general, there is a national strength of large companies as the main body, in the way of foreign direct investment or acquiring local enterprises, established subsidiaries or branches in many countries; It usually has a complete decision-making system and the highest decision-making center, each subsidiary or branch has its own decision-making body, according to its different features and operations to make decisions, but its decision must be subordinated to the highest decision-making centre; MNCs seek markets in worldwide and rational production layout, professional fixed-point production, and fixed-point sales products, in order to achieve maximum profit; Due to strong economic and technical strength, with fast information transmission, as well as funding for rapid cross-border transfers, the multinational has stronger competitiveness in the world; Many large multinational companies have varying degrees of monopoly in some area, due to economic and technical strength or production advantages. Foreign direct investment Main article: Foreign direct investment When a corporation invests in a country which it is not domiciled, it is called foreign direct investment (FDI).[29] Countries may place restrictions on direct investment; for example, China has historically required partnerships with local firms or special approval for certain types of investments by foreigners,[30] although some of these restrictions were eased in 2019.[31] Similarly, the United States Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States scrutinizes foreign investments. In addition, corporations may be prohibited from various business transactions by international sanctions or domestic laws. For example, Chinese domestic corporations or citizens have limitations on their ability to make foreign investments outside China, in part to reduce capital outflow.[32] Countries can impose extraterritorial sanctions on foreign corporations even for doing business with other foreign corporations, which occurred in 2019 with the United States sanctions against Iran; European companies faced with the possibility of losing access to the U.S. market by trading with Iran.[33] International investment agreements also facilitate direct investment between two countries, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and most favored nation status. Legal domicile Raymond Vernon reported in 1977 that of the largest multinationals focused on manufacturing, 250 were headquartered in the United States, 115 in Western Europe, 70 in Japan, and 20 in the rest of the world. The multinationals in banking numbered 20 headquartered in the United States, 13 in Europe, nine in Japan and three in Canada.[34] Today multinationals can select from a variety of jurisdictions for various subsidiaries, but the ultimate parent company can select a single legal domicile; The Economist suggests that the Netherlands has become a popular choice, as its company laws have fewer requirements for meetings, compensation, and audit committees,[35] and Great Britain had advantages due to laws on withholding dividends and a double-taxation treaty with the United States.[35] Corporations can legally engage in tax avoidance through their choice of jurisdiction, but must be careful to avoid illegal tax evasion. Stateless or transnational Main article: Transnational corporation Corporations that are broadly active across the world without a concentration in one area have been called stateless or "transnational" (although "transnational corporation" is also used synonymously with "multinational corporation"[36]), but as of 1992, a corporation must be legally domiciled in a particular country and engage in other countries through foreign direct investment and the creation of foreign subsidiaries.[37]: 115  Geographic diversification can be measured across various domains, including ownership and control, workforce, sales, and regulation and taxation.[37] Regulation and taxation Further information: International taxation and Extraterritorial jurisdiction Multinational corporations may be subject to the laws and regulations of both their domicile and the additional jurisdictions where they are engaged in business.[38] In some cases, the jurisdiction can help to avoid burdensome laws, but regulatory statutes often target the "enterprise" with statutory language around "control".[38] As of 1992, the United States and most OECD countries have the legal authority to tax a domiciled parent corporation on its worldwide revenue, including subsidiaries.[37]: 117  As of 2019, the U.S. applies its corporate taxation "extraterritorially",[39] which has motivated tax inversions to change the home state. By 2019, most OECD nations, with the notable exception of the U.S., had moved to territorial tax in which only revenue inside the border was taxed; however, these nations typically scrutinize foreign income with controlled foreign corporation (CFC) rules to avoid base erosion and profit shifting.[39] In practice, even under an extraterritorial system, taxes may be deferred until remittance, with possible repatriation tax holidays, and subject to foreign tax credits.[37]: 117  Countries generally cannot tax the worldwide revenue of a foreign subsidiary, and taxation is complicated by transfer pricing arrangements with parent corporations.[37]: 117  Alternatives and arrangements For small corporations, registering a foreign subsidiary can be expensive and complex, involving fees, signatures, and forms;[40] a professional employer organization (PEO) is sometimes advertised as a cheaper and simpler alternative,[40] but not all jurisdictions have laws accepting these types of arrangements.[41] Dispute resolution and arbitration Further information: International legal system Disputes between corporations in different nations is often handled through international arbitration. Theoretical background The actions of multinational corporations are strongly supported by economic liberalism and free market system in a globalized international society. According to the economic realist view, individuals act in rational ways to maximize their self-interest and therefore, when individuals act rationally, markets are created and they function best in a free market system where there is little government interference. As a result, international wealth is maximized with free exchange of goods and services.[42] To many economic liberals, multinational corporations are the vanguard of the liberal order.[43] They are the embodiment par excellence of the liberal ideal of an interdependent world economy. They have taken the integration of national economies beyond trade and money to the internationalization of production. For the first time in history, production, marketing, and investment are being organized on a global scale rather than in terms of isolated national economies.[44] International business is also a specialist field of academic research. Economic theories of the multinational corporation include internalization theory and the eclectic paradigm. The latter is also known as the OLI framework. The other theoretical dimension of the role of multinational corporations concerns the relationship between the globalization of economic engagement and the culture of national and local responses. This has a history of self-conscious cultural management going back at least to the 60s. For example: Ernest Dichter, architect, of Exxon's international campaign, writing in the Harvard Business Review in 1963, was fully aware that the means to overcoming cultural resistance depended on an "understanding" of the countries in which a corporation operated. He observed that companies with "foresight to capitalize on international opportunities" must recognize that "cultural anthropology will be an important tool for competitive marketing". However, the projected outcome of this was not the assimilation of international firms into national cultures, but the creation of a "world customer". The idea of a global corporate village entailed the management and reconstitution of parochial attachments to one's nation. It involved not a denial of the naturalness of national attachments, but an internationalization of the way a nation defines itself.[45] Multinational enterprise "Multinational enterprise" (MNE) is the term used by international economist and similarly defined with the multinational corporation (MNC) as an enterprise that controls and manages production establishments, known as plants located in at least two countries.[46] The multinational enterprise (MNE) will engage in foreign direct investment (FDI) as the firm makes direct investments in host country plants for equity ownership and managerial control to avoid some transaction costs.[47] Criticism Main articles: Anti-globalization movement and Anti-corporate activism Sanjaya Lall in 1974 proposed a spectrum of scholarly analysis of multinational corporations, from the political right to the left. He put the business school how-to-do-it writers at the extreme right, followed by the liberal laissez-faire economists, and the neoliberals (they remain right of center but do allow for occasional mistakes of the marketplace such as externalities). Moving to the left side of the line are nationalists, who prioritize national interests over corporate profits, then the "dependencia" school in Latin America that focuses on the evils of imperialism, and on the far left the Marxists. The range is so broad that scholarly consensus is hard to discern.[48] Anti-corporate advocates criticize multinational corporations for being without a basis in a national ethos, being ultimate without a specific nationhood, and that this lack of an ethos appears in their ways of operating as they enter into contracts with countries that have low human rights or environmental standards.[49] In the world economy facilitated by multinational corporations, capital will increasingly be able to play workers, communities, and nations off against one another as they demand tax, regulation and wage concessions while threatening to move. In other words, increased mobility of multinational corporations benefits capital while workers and communities lose. Some negative outcomes generated by multinational corporations include increased inequality, unemployment, and wage stagnation.[50] For the debate from a neo-liberal perspective see Raymond Vernon, Storm over the Multinationals (1977).</ref> The aggressive use of tax avoidance schemes, and multinational tax havens, allows multinational corporations to gain competitive advantages over small and medium-sized enterprises.[51] Organizations such as the Tax Justice Network criticize governments for allowing multinational organizations to escape tax, particularly by using base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) tax tools, since less money can be spent for public services.[52] See also iconBusiness portalWorld portal Financial risk management § Corporate finance Globalization Global workforce List of multinational corporations Transnational Corporations Observatory World economy Multinational tax haven References Roy D. Voorhees; Emerson L. Seim; John I. Coppett (Winter 1992). "Global Logistics and Stateless Corporations". Transportation Practitioners Journal. 59 (2): 144–151. Pitelis, Christos; Roger Sugden (2000). The nature of the transnational firm. Routledge. p. H72. ISBN 0-415-16787-6. "Multinational Corporations". "MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION (MNC) Definition & Meaning". Black's Law Dictionary. 19 October 2012. Retrieved 18 August 2018. Gelderblom, Oscar; Jong, Abe de; Jonker, Joost (December 2013). "The Formative Years of the Modern Corporation: The Dutch East India Company VOC, 1602–1623". The Journal of Economic History. 73 (4): 1050–1076. doi:10.1017/S0022050713000879. hdl:1765/32952. ISSN 0022-0507. S2CID 154592596. Alex Jeffrey, and Joe Painter, "Imperialism and Post colonialism". in Political Geography: An Introduction to Space and Power (London: SAGE, 2009) pp. 174–75. Nick Robins, This Imperious Company: The Corporation That Changed the World How the East India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational (London: Pluto, 2006) pp. 24–25. Stephen A. Royle, Company, Crown and Colony: The Hudson's Bay Company and Territorial Endeavor in Western Canada (London: I.B. Tauris, 2011). Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge, The company: A short history of a revolutionary idea (New York: Modern Library, 2003). Nick Robins, Nick. The Corporation That Changed the World How the East India Company Shaped the Modern Multinational. London: Pluto, 2006. 145. Charles E. Harvey, The Rio Tinto Company: an economic history of a leading international mining concern, 1873-1954. (Alison Hodge, 1981). Francis Wilson, "Minerals and migrants: how the mining industry has shaped South Africa." Daedalus 130.1 (2001): 99–121 online. Robert I. Rotberg, The Founder: Cecil Rhodes and the Pursuit of Power. (Oxford University Press, 1988). Brew, Gregory (23 May 2019). "OPEC, International Oil, and the United States". OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. Brew, Gregory (2019-05-23), "OPEC, International Oil, and the United States", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-719, ISBN 978-0-19-932917-5, retrieved 2024-04-24 Anthony Sampson, The Seven Sisters: The Great Oil Companies and the World They Shaped (1975) online Brew, Gregory (2019-05-23), "OPEC, International Oil, and the United States", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-719, ISBN 978-0-19-932917-5, retrieved 2024-04-24 Brew, Gregory (2019-05-23), "OPEC, International Oil, and the United States", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of American History, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-719, ISBN 978-0-19-932917-5, retrieved 2024-04-24 Allen, David (26 April 2012). "Why Should Bahamas Be In 7% Oil Minority?". The Tribune. Retrieved 23 April 2017. John H. Dunning and Sarianna M. Lundan, Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy (2nd ed. 2008) pp 37–39. Christopher Tugendhat, The Multinationals (1973) p 147. Fagan, GH; Munck, R (2009). "Chapter 22: Transnational Corporation". Globalization and Security: An Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 410–428. ISBN 978-0-275-99693-2. Doob, Christopher M. (2014). Social Inequality and Social Stratification in US Society. Pearson Education Inc. "Role of Multinational Corporations". T. Romana College. Archived from the original on 27 November 2016. Retrieved 3 January 2019. Eun, Cheol S.; Resnick, Bruce G. (2014). International Financial Management,6th Edition. Beijing Chengxin Weiye Printing Inc. Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias. "Transnational Corporations and Public Accountability" (PDF). Gary 2004: 106. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 February 2016. Retrieved 2 February 2016. Krugman, Paul (20 March 1998). "In Praise of Cheap Labor: Bad Jobs at Bad Wages Are Better than No Jobs at All". Slate. Retrieved 2 February 2016.[permanent dead link] Holstein, William J. et al., "The Stateless Corporation", Business Week (May 14, 1991), p. 98. Roy D. Voorhees, Emerson L. Seim, and John I. Coppett, "Global Logistics and Stateless Corporations", Transportation Practitioners Journal 59, 2 (Winter 1993): 144–51. "GlobalInc. An Atlas of The Multinational Corporation" Medard Gabel & Henry Bruner, New York: The New Press, 2004. ISBN 1-56584-727-X". Archived from the original on 2003-12-22. Chen, James. "Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)". Investopedia. Retrieved 2019-05-12. "Investment rules in China". Asialink Business. Retrieved 2019-05-12. Huang, Yukon. "China's Foreign Investment Law and US-China Trade Friction". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved 2019-05-12. "Chinese Restrictions on Foreign Investments – How Will It Impact The US?". Lawyer Monthly | Legal News Magazine. 6 June 2018. Retrieved 2019-05-12. "Trump's Iran sanctions: an explainer on their impact for Europe". ECFR. 12 September 2018. Retrieved 2019-05-12. Raymond Vernon, Storm over the Multinationals (1977) p. 12. "Here, there and everywhere: Why some businesses choose multiple corporate citizenships". The Economist. Retrieved 2018-11-25. Iriye, Akira; Saunier, Pierre-Yves, eds. (2009). "Transnational". The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History. Palgrave Macmillan Transnational History Series. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. p. 1047. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-74030-7. ISBN 978-1-349-74032-1. Hu, Yao-Su (1992-01-01). "Global or Stateless Corporations are National Firms with International Operations". California Management Review. 34 (2): 107–126. doi:10.2307/41166696. ISSN 0008-1256. JSTOR 41166696. S2CID 155113053. Blumberg, Phillip I. (1990). "The Corporate Entity in an Era of Multinational Corporations". Delaware Journal of Corporate Law. 15 (2): 283–375. ISSN 0364-9490. "Designing a Territorial Tax System: A Review of OECD Systems". Tax Foundation. 2017-08-01. Retrieved 2019-06-22. "10 Reasons You Should Not Create a Foreign Subsidiary". Velocity Global. 2015-07-17. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25. "Outsourcing Options for FDI into China - China Briefing News". China Briefing News. 2017-07-12. Archived from the original on 2018-11-25. Retrieved 2018-11-25. Mingst, Karen A. (2014). Essentials of international relations. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 310. ISBN 978-0-393-92195-3. Mingst, Karen A. (2015). Essentials of international relations. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 311. ISBN 978-0-393-92195-3. Gilpin, Robert (1975). Three models of the future. International Organization. p. 39. James, Paul (1984). "Australia in the Corporate Image: A New Nationalism". Arena (63): 68. See also, Richard Barnet and Ronald Muller, Global Reach: The Power of Multinational Corporations, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1975, p. 30. On page 21 Barnet and Muller quote the Chairman of the Unilever Corporation as saying: "The Nation-State will not wither away. A positive role will have to be found for it." Caves, Richard E. (2007). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-521-67753-0. OCLC 272997700. Caves, Richard E. (2007). Multinational enterprise and economic analysis. Cambridge University Press. p. 69. ISBN 978-0-521-67753-0. OCLC 272997700. Charles P. Kindleberger, "Reviews". Business History Review (Dec. 1977). Marc 'Globalization, Power, and Survival: an Anthropological Perspective', pg 484–486. Anthropological Quarterly Vol.79, No. 3. Institute for Ethnographic Research, 2006 Crotty, Epstein & Kelly (1998). Multinational corps in neo-liberal regime. Cambridge University Press. p. 2. Library of the European Parliament Corporate tax avoidance by multinational firms "Taxing corporations: the Politics and Ideology of the Arm's Length Principle". Tax Justice Network. 8 March 2016. Retrieved 23 June 2018. Further reading Cameron, Rondo, V. I. Bovykin, et al. eds. International banking, 1870–1914 (1991) Chandler, Alfred D. and Bruce Mazlish, eds. Leviathans: Multinational Corporations and the New Global History (2005). Chandler, Alfred D. et al. eds. Big Business and the Wealth of Nations (Cambridge University Press, 1999) excerpt Chernow, Ron. The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance (2010) excerpt Davenport-Hines, R. P. T., and Geoffrey Jones, eds. British Business in Asia since 1860 (2003) excerpt Dunning. John H. and Sarianna M. Lundan. Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy (2nd ed. 2008), major textbook 1993 edition online Habib-Mintz, Nazia. "Multinational corporations' role in improving labour standards in developing countries". Journal of International Business and Economy 10.2 (2009): 1–20. online[dead link] Hunt, Michael H. "Americans in the China Market: Economic Opportunities and Economic Nationalism, 1890s–1931". Business History Review 51.3 (1977): 277–307. JSTOR 3113634. Jones, Geoffrey. Multinationals and Global Capitalism: From the Nineteenth to the Twenty-first Century (2005) Jones, Geoffrey. Merchants to multinationals : British trading companies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (2000). Jones, Geoffrey, and Jonathan Zeitlin, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Business History (2008) Jones, Geoffrey, et al. The History of the British Bank of the Middle East: Vol. 2, Banking and Oil (1987) Jones, Geoffrey. The Evolution of International Business (1995). Lumby, Anthony. "Economic history and theories of the multinational corporation". South African journal of economic history 3.2 (1988): 104–124. Martin, Lisa, ed. The Oxford Handbook of the Political Economy of International Trade (2015) excerpt Munjal, Surender, Pawan Budhwar, and Vijay Pereira. "A perspective on multinational enterprise's national identity dilemma". Social Identities 24.5 (2018): 548–563. Stopford, John M. "The origins of British-based multinational manufacturing enterprises". Business History Review 48.3 (1974): 303–335. Tugendhat, Christopher. The multinationals (Penguin, 1973). Vernon, Raymond. Storm over the Multinationals: The Real Issues (Harvard UP, 1977). Wells, Louis T. Third world multinationals: The rise of foreign investments from developing countries (MIT Press, 1983) on companies based in Third World Wilkins, Mira. "The history of multinational enterprise". in The Oxford handbook of international business vol 2 (2009). Wilkins, Mira. The Emergence of Multinational Enterprise: American Business Abroad from the Colonial Era to 1914 (1970) Wilkins, Mira. Maturing of Multinational Enterprise : American Business Abroad from 1914 to 1970 (1974) Wilkins, Mira. American business abroad: Ford on six continents (1964). Corporate histories Further information: Anglo American plc Ciafone, Amanda. Counter-Cola: A Multinational History of the Global Corporation (U of California Press, 2019) on Coca-Cola. Fritz, Martin and Karlsson, Birgit. SKF: A Global Story, 1907–2007 (2006). ISBN 978-91-7736-576-1. Scheiber, Harry N. "World War I as Entrepreneurial Opportunity: Willard Straight and the American International Corporation". Political Science Quarterly 84.3 (1969): 486–511. JSTOR 2147271. Historiography Hernes, Helga. The Multinational Corporation: A Guide to Information Sources (Gale, 1977). online External links Wikiquote has quotations related to Multinational corporation. Data on transnational corporations UNCTAD publications on multinational corporations vte Globalization Journals Outline Studies Aspects Alter-globalization Anti-globalization movement Cultural globalization Deglobalization Democratic globalization Economic globalization Environmental globalization Global citizenship education Global financial system Global governance Global health Global politics Global workforce Globality History of archaic early modern Military globalization Political globalization Trade globalization Issues Global Climate change Climate justice Disease COVID-19 pandemic Digital divide Labor arbitrage Multilingualism Population Tax havens Offshore financial centres Tax inversions Water crisis Other Brain drain reverse Care drain Development aid Economic inequality Endangered languages Fair trade Forced displacement Human rights Illicit financial flows Imperialism academic cultural linguistic media scientific social Invasive species Investor-state disputes McDonaldization New international division of labour North–South divide Offshoring Race to the bottom pollution havens Transnational crime Westernization World war Theories Capital accumulation Dependency Development Earth system Fiscal localism Modernization ecological history of Primitive accumulation Social change World history World-systems Notable scholars Economics David Autor Richard Baldwin Ravi Batra Jagdish Bhagwati Robert Brenner Jayati Ghosh Michael Hudson Branko Milanović Kevin O'Rourke Thomas Piketty Dani Rodrik Jeffrey Sachs Amartya Sen Joseph Stiglitz Political economy Samir Amin Giovanni Arrighi Robert W. Cox Andre Gunder Frank Stephen Gill Peter Gowan David Harvey Ronen Palan Susan Strange Robert Wade Politics / sociology Arjun Appadurai Daniele Archibugi K. Anthony Appiah Ulrich Beck Walden Bello Jean Baudrillard Zygmunt Bauman Manuel Castells Christopher Chase-Dunn Alfred Crosby Nancy Fraser Susan George Anthony Giddens Michael Hardt David Held Paul Hirst L. H. M. Ling Antonio Negri George Ritzer Saskia Sassen John Urry Immanuel Wallerstein Non–academic Noam Chomsky Thomas Friedman Naomi Klein John R. Saul Vandana Shiva Category icon Business portal Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata National Spain France BnF data Germany Israel United States Japan Czech Republic Other Historical Dictionary of Switzerland Categories: International business Multinational companies Transnationalism Economic globalization

https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Fredrick "Chairman Fred" Allen Hampton Sr. (August 30, 1948 – December 4, 1969) was an American activist. He came to prominence in his late teens and very early 20s in Chicago as deputy chairman of the national Black Panther Party and chair of the Illinois chapter. As a progressive African American, he founded the anti-racist, anti-classist Rainbow Coalition,[4] a prominent multicultural political organization that initially included the Black Panthers, Young Patriots (which organized poor whites), and the Young Lords (which organized Hispanics), and an alliance among major Chicago street gangs to help them end infighting and work for social change. A Marxist–Leninist,[5] Hampton considered fascism the greatest threat, saying "nothing is more important than stopping fascism, because fascism will stop us all."[6] In 1967, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identified Hampton as a radical threat. It tried to subvert his activities in Chicago, sowing disinformation among black progressive groups and placing a counterintelligence operative in the local Panthers organization. In December 1969, Hampton was drugged,[7][8] then shot and killed in his bed during a predawn raid at his Chicago apartment by a tactical unit of the Cook County State's Attorney's Office, who received aid from the Chicago Police Department and the FBI leading up to the attack. Law enforcement sprayed more than 100 gunshots throughout the apartment; the occupants fired once.[9] During the raid, Panther Mark Clark was also killed and several others were seriously wounded. In January 1970, the Cook County Coroner held an inquest; the coroner's jury concluded that Hampton's and Clark's deaths were justifiable homicides.[10][11][12][13] A civil lawsuit was later filed on behalf of the survivors and the relatives of Hampton and Clark.[14] It was resolved in 1982 by a settlement of $1.85 million (equivalent to $5.84 million in 2023); the U.S. federal government, Cook County, and the City of Chicago each paid one-third to a group of nine plaintiffs. Given revelations about the illegal COINTELPRO program and documents associated with the killings, many scholars now consider Hampton's death, at age 21, a deliberate murder or an assassination at the FBI's initiative.[1][2][3][15][16] Biography Early life and youth Hampton in a 1966 yearbook Hampton was born on August 30, 1948, in present-day Summit Argo, Illinois (generally shortened to Summit), and moved with his parents to another Chicago suburb, Maywood, at age 10.[17] His parents had come from Louisiana as part of the Great Migration of African Americans in the early 20th century out of the South. They both worked at the Argo Starch Company, a corn starch processor. As a youth, Hampton was gifted both in the classroom and athletically, and hoped to play center field for the New York Yankees.[18] At 10 years old, he started hosting weekend breakfasts for other children from the neighborhood, cooking the meals himself in what could be described as a precursor to the Panthers' free breakfast program.[19] In high school, he led walkouts protesting black students' exclusion from the competition for homecoming queen and calling on officials to hire more black teachers and administrators.[19] Hampton graduated from Proviso East High School with honors and varsity letters, and a Junior Achievement Award, in 1966.[20] In 1966, Fred Hampton turned 18.[21] At that time, he started identifying with the Third World socialist struggles, as well as reading communist revolutionaries Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, and Mao Zedong.[21] Shortly after, Hampton urged not only peace in the Vietnam War, but also North Vietnam's victory.[21] Hampton became active in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and assumed leadership of its West Suburban Branch's Youth Council. In his capacity as an NAACP youth organizer, he demonstrated natural leadership abilities: from a community of 27,000, he was able to muster a youth group of 500 members strong. He worked to get more and better recreational facilities established in the neighborhoods and to improve educational resources for Maywood's impoverished black community. Activity in Chicago We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I'm talking about the white masses, I'm talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too. We've got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don't fight racism with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism. —Fred Hampton on solidarity.[22] In 1968, Hampton was accused of assaulting an ice cream truck driver, stealing $71 worth of ice cream bars, and giving them to kids in the street. He was convicted in May 1969 and served time in prison.[7] In a memoir, Frank B. Wilderson III places this incident in the context of COINTELPRO efforts to disrupt the Black Panthers of Chicago by the "leveling of trumped-up charges".[16] In 1969, Hampton, now deputy chairman of the BPP Illinois chapter, conducted a meeting condemning sexism.[23] After 1969, the party considered sexism counter-revolutionary.[24] In 1970, about 40–70% of party members were women.[25] Over the next year, Hampton and his friends and associates achieved many successes in Chicago. Perhaps the most important was a nonaggression pact among Chicago's most powerful street gangs. Emphasizing that racial and ethnic conflict among gangs would only keep its members entrenched in poverty, Hampton strove to forge an anti-racist, class-conscious, multiracial alliance among the BPP, the Young Patriots Organization, and the Young Lords under the leadership of Jose Cha Cha Jimenez, leading to the Rainbow Coalition.[26] Hampton met the Young Lords in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood the day after they were in the news for occupying a police community workshop at the Chicago 18th District Police Station. He was arrested twice with Jimenez at the Wicker Park Welfare Office, and both were charged with "mob action" at a peaceful picket of the office. Later, the Rainbow Coalition was joined nationwide by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Brown Berets, AIM, and the Red Guard Party.[27][28] In May 1969, Hampton called a press conference to announce that the coalition had formed. What the coalition groups would do was based on common action. Some of their joint issues were poverty, anti-racism, corruption, police brutality, and substandard housing.[29][30] If there was a protest or a demonstration, the groups would attend the event and support each other.[30][31] Jeffrey Haas, who was Hampton's lawyer, has praised some of Hampton's politics and his success in unifying movements.[32] But Haas criticizes the way Hampton and the BPP organized in a pyramidal/vertical structure, contrasting this with the horizontal structure of Black Lives Matter: "They may also have picked up on the vulnerability of a hierarchical movement where you have one leader, which makes the movement very vulnerable if that leader is imprisoned, killed, or otherwise compromised. I think the fact that Black Lives Matter says 'We're leaderfull, not leaderless' perhaps makes them less vulnerable to this kind of government assault."[32] Hampton and Benjamin Spock (right) at a protest rally outside the Everett McKinley Dirksen U.S. Courthouse in Chicago, October 1969 Hampton rose quickly in the Black Panthers based on his organizing skills, oratorical gifts, and charisma. Once he became leader of the Chicago chapter, he organized weekly rallies, participated in strikes, worked closely with the BPP's local People's Clinic, taught political education classes every morning at 6 am, and launched a project for community supervision of the police. Hampton was also instrumental in the BPP's Free Breakfast Program. When Bob Brown left the party with Kwame Ture, in the FBI-fomented SNCC/Panther split, Hampton assumed chairmanship of the Illinois state BPP. This automatically made him a national BPP deputy chairman. As the FBI's COINTELPRO began to decimate the nationwide Panther leadership, Hampton's prominence in the national hierarchy increased rapidly and dramatically. Eventually, he was in line to be appointed to the party's Central Committee Chief of Staff. He would have achieved this position had he not been killed.[27][28] FBI investigation The FBI believed that Hampton's leadership and talent for communication made him a major threat among Black Panther leaders. It began keeping close tabs on his activities. Investigations have shown that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was determined to prevent the formation of a cohesive Black movement in the United States. Hoover believed the Panthers, Young Patriots, Young Lords, and similar radical coalitions that Hampton forged in Chicago were a stepping stone to the rise of a revolution that could cause a radical change in the U.S. government.[33] The FBI opened a file on Hampton in 1967. It tapped Hampton's mother's phone in February 1968 and by May placed Hampton on the bureau's "Agitator Index" as a "key militant leader".[27] In late 1968, the Racial Matters squad of the FBI's Chicago field office recruited William O'Neal to work with it; he had recently been arrested twice for interstate car theft and impersonating a federal officer. In exchange for having his felony charges dropped and receiving a monthly stipend, O'Neal agreed to infiltrate the BPP as a counterintelligence operative.[34] O'Neal joined the party and quickly rose in the organization, becoming Director of Chapter Security and Hampton's bodyguard. In 1969, the FBI Special Agent in Charge (SAC) in San Francisco wrote Hoover that the agent's investigation had found that, in his city at least, the Panthers were primarily feeding breakfast to children. Hoover responded with a memo implying that the agent's career prospects depended on his supplying evidence to support Hoover's view that the BPP was "a violence-prone organization seeking to overthrow the Government by revolutionary means".[35] Using anonymous letters, the FBI sowed distrust and eventually instigated a split between the Panthers and the Blackstone Rangers. O'Neal instigated an armed clash between them on April 2, 1969. The Panthers became effectively isolated from their power base in the Chicago ghetto, so the FBI worked to undermine its ties with other radical organizations. O'Neal was instructed to "create a rift" between the party and Students for a Democratic Society, whose Chicago headquarters was near that of the Panthers. The FBI released a batch of racist cartoons in the Panthers' name,[36] aimed at alienating white activists. It also launched a disinformation program to forestall the formation of the Rainbow Coalition, but the BPP did make an alliance with the Young Patriots and Young Lords. In repeated directives, Hoover demanded that COINTELPRO personnel investigate the Rainbow Coalition, "destroy what the [BPP] stands for", and "eradicate its 'serve the people' programs".[37] Documents secured by Senate investigators in the early 1970s revealed that the FBI actively encouraged violence between the Panthers and other radical groups; this provoked multiple murders in cities throughout the country.[38] On July 16, 1969, an armed confrontation between party members and the Chicago Police Department resulted in one BPP member being mortally wounded, and six others arrested on serious charges. In early October, Hampton and his girlfriend Deborah Johnson (now known as Akua Njeri), who was pregnant with their child (Fred Hampton Jr.), rented a four-and-a-half-room apartment at 2337 West Monroe Street to be closer to BPP headquarters. O'Neal reported to his superiors that much of the Panthers' "provocative" arms stockpile was stored there. He drew them a map of the apartment. In early November, Hampton traveled to California on a speaking engagement with the UCLA Law Students Association. He met with the remaining BPP national hierarchy, who appointed him to the party's central committee. He was soon to take the position of chief of staff and major spokesman.[39] Assassination Prelude On the night of November 13, 1969, while Hampton was in California, Chicago police officers John J. Gilhooly and Frank G. Rappaport were killed in a gun battle with Panthers; one died the next day.[40] A total of nine police officers were shot. Spurgeon Winter Jr, a 19-year-old Panther, was killed by police. Another Panther, Lawrence S. Bell, was charged with murder. In an unsigned editorial headlined "No Quarter for Wild Beasts", the Chicago Tribune urged that Chicago police officers approaching suspected Panthers "should be ordered to be ready to shoot."[41] As part of the larger COINTELPRO operation, the FBI was determined to prevent any improvement in the effectiveness of the BPP leadership.[42] The FBI orchestrated an armed raid with the Chicago police and Cook County State's Attorney on Hampton's Chicago apartment. They had obtained detailed information about the apartment, including a layout of furniture, from O'Neal. An augmented, 14-man team of the SAO (state Special Prosecutions Unit) was organized for a predawn raid; they were armed with a search warrant for illegal weapons.[27][28] On the evening of December 3, Hampton taught a political education course at a local church, which was attended by most Panther members. Afterward, as was typical, he was accompanied to his Monroe Street apartment by Johnson and several Panthers: Blair Anderson, James Grady, Ronald "Doc" Satchell, Harold Bell, Verlina Brewer, Louis Truelock, Brenda Harris and Mark Clark. O'Neal was already there, having prepared a late dinner, which the group ate around midnight. O'Neal had slipped the secobarbital into a drink that Hampton consumed during the dinner to sedate Hampton so he would not awaken during the subsequent raid. O'Neal left after dinner. At about 1:30 am, December 4, Hampton fell asleep mid-sentence while talking to his mother on the telephone.[43][44][45][46] Although Hampton was not known to take drugs, Cook County chemist Eleanor Berman later reported that she had run two tests, each showing evidence of barbiturates in Hampton's blood. An FBI chemist failed to find similar traces, but Berman stood by her findings.[47] Raid Site of Black Panther Party Raid, Fred Hampton's Death The bed and room where Hampton was fatally shot during the raid, showing a large amount of blood on his side of the mattress and numerous bullet holes in the walls. The office of Cook County State's Attorney Edward Hanrahan organized the raid, using officers attached to his office.[48] Hampton had recently strongly criticized Hanrahan, saying that Hanrahan's talk about a "war on gangs" was really rhetoric used to enable him to carry out a "war on black youth".[49] At 4 am, the heavily armed police team arrived at the site, divided into two teams, eight for the front of the building and six for the rear. At 4:45 am, they stormed the apartment. Mark Clark, sitting in the front room of the apartment with a shotgun in his lap, was on security duty. The police shot him in the chest, killing him instantly.[50] An alternative account said that Clark answered the door and police immediately shot him. Either way, Clark's gun discharged once into the ceiling.[51] This single round was fired when he suffered a reflexive death-convulsion after being shot.[52] This was the only shot fired by the Panthers.[28][53][54][39] Hampton, drugged by barbiturates, was sleeping on a mattress in the bedroom with Johnson, who was nine months pregnant with their child.[50][39] Police officers removed her from the room while Hampton lay unconscious in bed.[55] Then the raiding team fired at the head of the south bedroom. Hampton was wounded in the shoulder by the shooting.[39] According to the National Archives and Records Administration, "upon that discovery, an officer shot him twice in his head and killed him".[39] Fellow Black Panther Harold Bell said that he heard the following exchange:[56] "That's Fred Hampton." "Is he dead?... Bring him out." "He's barely alive." "He'll make it." The injured Panthers said they heard two shots. According to Hampton's supporters, the shots were fired point-blank at Hampton's head.[57] According to Johnson, an officer then said: "He's good and dead now."[56] Chicago police removing Hampton's body Hampton's body was dragged into the bedroom doorway and left in a pool of blood. The officers directed their gunfire at the remaining Panthers who had been sleeping in the north bedroom (Satchel, Anderson, Brewer, and Harris).[50] Brewer, Satchel, Anderson, and Harris were seriously wounded,[50] then beaten and dragged into the street. They were arrested on charges of aggravated assault and attempted murder of the officers. They were each held on $100,000 bail.[51] In the early 1990s, Jose "Cha Cha" Jimenez, a former president and co-founder of the Young Lords who had developed close ties to Hampton and the Chicago Black Panther Party during the late 1960s, interviewed Johnson about the raid. She said: I believe Fred Hampton was drugged. The reason why is because when he woke up when the person [Truelock] said, "Chairman, chairman," he was shaking Fred's arm, you know, Fred's arm was folded across the head of the bed. And Fred—he just raised his head up real slow. It was like watching a slow motion. He raised. His eyes were open. He raised his head up real slow, you know, with his eyes toward the entranceway, toward the bedroom and laid his head back down. That was the only movement he made [...][55] The seven Panthers who survived the raid were indicted by a grand jury on charges of attempted murder, armed violence, and other weapons charges. These charges were subsequently dropped. During the trial, the Chicago Police Department claimed that the Panthers were the first to fire shots, but a later investigation found that the Chicago police fired between 90 and 99 shots, while the only Panthers shot was from Clark's dropped shotgun.[51][58] After the raid, the apartment was left unguarded. The Panthers sent some members to investigate, accompanied by videographer Mike Gray and stills photographer Norris McNamara to document the scene. This footage was instrumental in proving the raid was an assassination. The footage was later released as part of the 1971 documentary The Murder of Fred Hampton. After a break-in at an FBI office in Pennsylvania, the existence of COINTELPRO, an illegal counter-intelligence program, was revealed and reported. With this program revealed, many activists and others began to suspect that the police raid and Hampton's killing were conducted under this program. One of the documents released after the break-in was a floor plan of Hampton's apartment. Another document outlined a deal that the FBI brokered with US deputy attorney general Richard Kleindienst to conceal the FBI's role in Hampton's death and the existence of COINTELPRO.[58] Aftermath Mourners passing the bier of Hampton. His funeral in December was attended by over 5,000 people. At a press conference the next day, the police announced the arrest team had been attacked by the "violent" and "extremely vicious" Panthers and defended themselves accordingly.[59] In a second press conference on December 8, the police leadership praised the assault team for their "remarkable restraint", "bravery", and "professional discipline" in not killing all the Panthers present. Photographic evidence was presented of "bullet holes" allegedly made by shots fired by the Panthers, but reporters soon challenged this claim.[60] An internal investigation was undertaken, and the police claimed that their colleagues on the assault team were exonerated of any wrongdoing, concluding that they "used lawful means to overcome the assault".[61] Five thousand people attended Hampton's funeral. He was eulogized by black leaders, including Jesse Jackson and Ralph Abernathy, Martin Luther King Jr.'s successor as head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In his eulogy, Jackson said that "when Fred was shot in Chicago, black people in particular, and decent people in general, bled everywhere."[62] On December 6, members of the Weather Underground destroyed numerous police vehicles in a retaliatory bombing spree at 3600 N. Halsted Street, Chicago.[63] The police called their raid on Hampton's apartment a "shootout". The Black Panthers called it a "shoot-in", because so many shots were fired by police.[64][65] On December 11 and 12, the two competing daily newspapers, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times, published vivid accounts of the events but drew different conclusions. The Tribune has long been considered the politically conservative newspaper, and the Sun-Times the liberal paper.[66] On December 11, the Tribune published a page 1 article titled, "Exclusive – Hanrahan, Police Tell Panther Story." The article included photographs supplied by Hanrahan's office that depicted bullet holes in a thin white curtain and door jamb as evidence that the Panthers fired multiple bullets at the police.[67][68] Jack Challem, editor of the Wright College News, the student newspaper at Wright Junior College in Chicago, had visited the apartment on December 6, when it was still unsecured. He took numerous photographs of the crime scenes. A member of the Black Panthers was allowing visitors to tour the apartment. Challem's photographs did not show the bullet holes reported by the Tribune. On the morning of December 12, after the Tribune article had appeared with the Hanrahan-supplied photos, Challem contacted a reporter at the Sun-Times, showed him his own photographs, and encouraged the other reporter to visit the apartment. That evening, the Sun-Times published a page 1 article with the headline: "Those 'bullet holes' aren't." According to the article, the alleged bullet holes (supposedly the result of the Panthers shooting in the direction of the police) were nail heads.[69] Four weeks after witnessing Hampton's death at the hands of the police, Johnson gave birth to their son, Fred Hampton Jr.[70] Civil rights activists Roy Wilkins and Ramsey Clark, styled as "The Commission of Inquiry into the Black Panthers and the Police", alleged that the Chicago police had killed Hampton without justification or provocation and had violated the Panthers' constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure.[71] "The Commission" further alleged that the Chicago Police Department had imposed a summary punishment on the Panthers.[72] A federal grand jury did not return any indictment against any of the individuals involved with the planning or execution of the raid, including the officers involved in killing Hampton.[73] O'Neal, who had given the FBI the floor plan of the apartment and drugged Hampton, later admitted his involvement in setting up the raid.[74] He committed suicide on January 15, 1990.[47][75] Inquest Shortly after the raid, Cook County Coroner Andrew Toman began forming a special six-member coroner's jury to hold an inquest into the deaths of Hampton and Clark.[76] On December 23, Toman announced four additions to the jury, who included two African-American men: physician Theodore K. Lawless and attorney Julian B. Wilkins, the son of J. Ernest Wilkins Sr.[76] He said the four were selected from a group of candidates submitted to his office by groups and individuals representing both Chicago's black and white communities.[76] Civil rights leaders and spokesmen for the black community were reportedly disappointed with the selection.[77] An official with the Chicago Urban League said, "I would have had more confidence in the jury if one of them had been a black man who has a rapport with the young and the grass roots in the community."[77] Gus Savage said that such a man to whom the community could relate need not be black.[77] The jury eventually included a third black man, who had been a member of the first coroner's jury sworn in on December 4.[11] The blue-ribbon panel convened for the inquest on January 6, 1970. On January 21, they ruled the deaths of Hampton and Clark to be justifiable homicides.[11][10][12][13] The jury qualified their verdict on Hampton's death as "based solely and exclusively on the evidence presented to this inquisition";[11] police and expert witnesses provided the only testimony during the inquest.[78] Jury foreman James T. Hicks stated that they could not consider the charges made by surviving Black Panthers who had been in the apartment; they had told reporters that the police had entered the apartment shooting. The survivors were reported to have refused to testify during the inquest because they faced criminal charges of attempted murder and aggravated assault during the raid.[78] Attorneys for the Hampton and Clark families did not introduce any witnesses during the proceedings but called the inquest "a well-rehearsed theatrical performance designed to vindicate the police officers".[11] Hanrahan said the verdict was recognition "of the truthfulness of our police officers' account of the events".[11] Federal grand jury Released on May 15, 1970, the reports of a federal grand jury criticized the actions of the police, the surviving Black Panthers, and the Chicago news media.[79][80] The grand jury called the police department's raid "ill conceived" and said many errors were committed during the post-raid investigation and reconstruction of the events. It said that the surviving Black Panthers' refusal to cooperate hampered the investigation, and that the press "improperly and grossly exaggerated stories".[79][80] 1970 civil rights lawsuit In 1970, the survivors and relatives of Hampton and Clark filed a civil suit, stating that the civil rights of the Black Panther members were violated by the joint police/FBI raid and seeking $47.7 million in damages.[81] Twenty-eight defendants were named, including Hanrahan as well as the City of Chicago, Cook County, and federal governments.[81] It took years for the case to get to trial, which lasted 18 months. It was reported to have been the longest federal trial up to that time.[81] After its conclusion in 1977, Judge Joseph Sam Perry of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the suit against 21 of the defendants before jury deliberations.[81] After jurors deadlocked on a verdict, Perry dismissed the suit against the remaining defendants.[81] The plaintiffs appealed. In 1979, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago found that the government had withheld relevant documents, thereby obstructing the judicial process.[81] Reinstating the case against 24 of the defendants, the Court of Appeals ordered a new trial.[81] The Supreme Court of the United States heard an appeal by defendants but voted 5–3 in 1980 to remand the case to the District Court for a new trial.[81] In 1982, the City of Chicago, Cook County, and the federal government agreed to a settlement in which each would pay $616,333 (equivalent to $1.95 million per payee in 2023) to a group of nine plaintiffs, including the mothers of Hampton and Clark.[81] The $1.85 million settlement (equivalent to $5.84 million in 2023) was believed to be the largest ever in a civil rights case.[81] G. Flint Taylor, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said, "The settlement is an admission of the conspiracy that existed between the FBI and Hanrahan's men to murder Fred Hampton."[82] Assistant United States Attorney Robert Gruenberg said the settlement was intended to avoid another costly trial and was not an admission of guilt or responsibility by any of the defendants.[82] Controversy Ten days afterward, Bobby Rush, the then deputy minister of defense for the Illinois Black Panther Party, called the raiding party an "execution squad".[83] As is typical in settlements, the three government defendants did not acknowledge claims of responsibility for plaintiffs' allegations. Michael Newton is among the writers who have concluded that Hampton was assassinated.[84] In his 2016 book Unsolved Civil Rights Murder Cases, 1934–1970, Newton writes that Hampton "was murdered in his sleep by Chicago police with FBI collusion."[85] This view is also presented in Jakobi Williams's book From the Bullet to the Ballot: The Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party and Racial Coalition Politics in Chicago.[86] Personal life Hampton was very close with Chicago Black Catholic priest George Clements, who served as his mentor and as a chaplain for the local Panther chapter. Hampton and the Panthers also used Clements's parish, Holy Angels Catholic Church in Chicago (now the parish of Our Lady of Africa[87]), as a refuge in times of particular surveillance or pursuit from the police. They also provided security for several of Clements's "Black Unity Masses", part of his revolutionary activities during the Black Catholic Movement. Clements spoke at Hampton's funeral, and also said a Requiem Mass for him at Holy Angels.[88][89][90] Legacy Legal and political effects According to a 2007 Chicago Tribune report, "The raid ended the promising political career of Cook County State's Atty. Edward V. Hanrahan, who was indicted but cleared with 13 other law-enforcement agents on charges of obstructing justice. Bernard Carey, a Republican, defeated him in the next election, in part because of the support of outraged black voters."[91] The families of Hampton and Clark filed a $47.7 million civil suit against the city, state, and federal governments. The case went to trial before Federal Judge J. Sam Perry. After more than 18 months of testimony and at the close of the plaintiff's case, Perry dismissed the case. The plaintiffs appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, ordering the case to be retried. More than a decade after the case had been filed, the suit was finally settled for $1.85 million.[73] The two families each shared in the settlement.[92] Jeffrey Haas, with his law partners G. Flint Taylor and Dennis Cunningham and attorney James D. Montgomery, were the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the federal suit Hampton v. Hanrahan, conducted additional research and wrote a book about these events. It was published in 2009. He said that Chicago was worse off without Hampton: Of course, there's also the legacy that, without a young leader, I think the West Side of Chicago degenerated a lot into drugs. And without leaders like Fred Hampton, I think the gangs and the drugs became much more prevalent on the West Side. He was an alternative to that. He talked about serving the community, talked about breakfast programs, educating the people, community control of police. So I think that that's unfortunately another legacy of Fred's murder.[65] In 1990, the Chicago City Council unanimously passed a resolution, introduced by then-Alderman Madeline Haithcock, commemorating December 4, 2004, as Fred Hampton Day in Chicago. The resolution read in part: "Fred Hampton, who was only 21 years old, made his mark in Chicago history not so much by his death as by the heroic efforts of his life and by his goals of empowering the most oppressed sector of Chicago's Black community, bringing people into political life through participation in their own freedom fighting organization."[93] Monuments and streets A public pool was named in his honor in his hometown of Maywood, Illinois.[94] On September 7, 2007, a bust of Hampton by sculptor Preston Jackson was erected outside the Fred Hampton Family Aquatic Center in Maywood.[95] In March 2006, supporters of Hampton's charity work proposed the naming of a Chicago street in his honor. Chicago's chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police opposed this effort.[96] On April 19, 2022 the Village Board of Maywood designated Hampton's childhood home as a historical landmark.[97] Weather Underground reaction Two days after the killings of Hampton and Clark, on December 6, 1969, members of the Weathermen destroyed numerous police vehicles in a retaliatory bombing spree at 3600 N. Halsted Street in Chicago.[98] After that, the group became more radical. On May 21, 1970, the group issued a "Declaration of War" against the U.S. government and, for the first time, used its new name, the "Weather Underground Organization". They adopted fake identities and decided to pursue covert activities only. These initially included preparations to bomb a U.S. military non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey, in what Brian Flanagan later said was intended to be "the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory".[99] "We've known that our job is to lead white kids into armed revolution... Kids know the lines are drawn: revolution is touching all of our lives. Tens of thousands have learned that protest and marches don't do it. Revolutionary violence is the only way." —Bernardine Dohrn[100] Media and popular culture In film A 27-minute documentary, Death of a Black Panther: The Fred Hampton Story,[101] was used as evidence in the civil suit.[102] The 2002 documentary The Weather Underground shows in detail how that group was deeply influenced by Hampton and his death—as well as showing that Hampton kept his distance from them for being what he called "adventuristic, masochistic and Custeristic".[103] Much of the first half of Eyes on the Prize episode 12, "A Nation of Law?", chronicles Hampton's leadership and extrajudicial killing. The events of his rise to prominence, Hoover's targeting of him, and Hampton's subsequent death are also recounted with footage in the 2015 documentary The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution. The Murder of Fred Hampton is a documentary shot from within the movement, released in 1971. It has no narration, relying solely on footage shot from within the Black Panther organization and portraying Hampton and his colleagues on their own terms. In the 1999 TV miniseries The 60s, Hampton appears serving free breakfast with the BPP. David Alan Grier plays Hampton.[104] The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) features Kelvin Harrison Jr. as Hampton, in which he advises Bobby Seale as he was denied counsel, with the Chicago Seven.[105][106][107] Judas and the Black Messiah is a 2021 film about O'Neal's betrayal of Hampton. The film stars Daniel Kaluuya as Hampton and was directed by Shaka King. It premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on February 1, 2021. For his performance, Kaluuya won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.[108][109] In literature Jeffrey Haas wrote an account of Hampton's death, The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther (2009).[110] Stephen King refers to Hampton in the novel 11/22/63 (2012), in which a character discusses the ripple effect of traveling back in time to prevent John F. Kennedy's assassination. He postulates that other events would follow that could have prevented Hampton's assassination as well.[111] In music In his song Murder to Excellence, American rapper and entrepreneur Jay-Z referred to being born on the same day Hampton was murdered.[112] Hampton's son condemned Jay-Z for doing so.[113] American rock band Rage Against the Machine referenced Hampton in its 1996 song Down Rodeo, saying, "They ain't gonna send us campin' like they did my man Fred Hampton."[114] Kendrick Lamar refers to Hampton in his song HiiiPoWeR, which also contains references to black civil rights activists Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and Huey Newton.[115] Artists SEIITH and Kiko King referenced Hampton in their 2020 song "Ghost of Fred Hampton".[116] See also List of homicides in Illinois Notes Stubblefield, Anna (May 31, 2018). Ethics Along the Color Line. Cornell University Press. pp. 60–61. ISBN 9781501717703. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved July 4, 2019. Burrough, Bryan (2016). Days of Rage: America's Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence. Penguin Publishing Group. pp. 84–85. ISBN 9780143107972. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved November 11, 2020. Lee, William (December 3, 2019). "In 1969, Charismatic Black Panthers Leader Fred Hampton Was Killed in a Hail of Gunfire. 50 Years Later, the Fight Against Police Brutality Continues". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved December 3, 2019. "From the Bullet to the Ballot | Jakobi Williams". University of North Carolina Press. Haas 2009, p. 4. "Fred Hampton on Revolution – Bay Area Television Archive". Ali, Rasha (February 13, 2021). "Fact-checking 'Judas and the Black Messiah': Was Fred Hampton drugged or arrested over ice cream?". USA Today. Archived from the original on March 22, 2021. Thamm, Natalie (April 7, 2019). "Murder or "Justifiable Homicide"?: The Death of the Revolutionary Fred Hampton". STMU History Media. Archived from the original on March 22, 2021. Retrieved March 22, 2021. Lee, William (December 3, 2019). "In 1969, charismatic Black Panthers leader Fred Hampton was killed in a hail of gunfire. 50 years later, the fight against police brutality continues". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on March 22, 2021. Retrieved March 22, 2021. Haas 2009, p. 111. Dolan, Thomas J. (January 22, 1970). "Panther Inquest Backs Police" (PDF). Chicago Sun-Times. Chicago. p. 3. Archived from the original on May 14, 2016. Retrieved October 15, 2015. Rutberg, Susan (December 6, 2017). "Nothing but a Northern Lynching: The Death of Fred Hampton Revisited". Huffpost. Archived from the original on April 3, 2019. Retrieved October 19, 2019. Thamm, Natalie (April 7, 2019). "Murder or 'Justifiable Homicide'?: The Death of the Revolutionary Fred Hampton". STMU History Media. Archived from the original on October 20, 2019. Retrieved October 19, 2019. Morris, Rose (2019). Chronicle of the Seventh Son Black Panther Mark Clark. United States: Rose Morris. pp. 203–214. ISBN 978-1733581714. Williams, Jakobi (2013). "Law Enforcement Repression and the Assassination of Chairman Fred Hampton". From the Bullet to the Ballot: The Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party and Racial Coalition Politics in Chicago. University of North Carolina Press. pp. 167–190. ISBN 978-0-8078-3816-7. JSTOR 10.5149/9781469608167_williams.10. Wilderson 2015, p. 304. Haas 2009, pp. 15–16. Hannah, Rosa (April 18, 2017). "Fred Hampton: American Activist". University North Carolina. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on December 9, 2020. Retrieved April 10, 2020. Solly, Meilan. "The True History Behind 'Judas and the Black Messiah'". Smithsonian Magazine. Archived from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved February 14, 2021. Gottlieb, Jeff; Cohen, Jeff (December 26, 1976). "Was Fred Hampton Executed?". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved November 14, 2020. Haas 2009, p. 27. Jones, Cornelius (October 23, 2013). Don't Call Me Black, Call Me American. Lulu.com. ISBN 9781105520020. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved June 16, 2020. Lumsden, Linda (2009). "Good Mothers With Guns: Framing Black Womanhood in the Black Panther, 1968–1980". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 86 (4): 900–922. doi:10.1177/107769900908600411. S2CID 145098294. Lumsden, Linda (2009). "Good Mothers With Guns: Framing Black Womanhood in the Black Panther, 1968–1980". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 86 (4): 900–922. doi:10.1177/107769900908600411. S2CID 145098294. Lumsden, Linda (2009). "Good Mothers With Guns: Framing Black Womanhood in the Black Panther, 1968–1980". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 86 (4): 900–922. doi:10.1177/107769900908600411. S2CID 145098294. "A Latino Young Lord remembers Black Panthers leader Fred Hampton: He united the oppressed". NBC News. February 12, 2021. Ward Churchill; Jim Vander Wall (1988). Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. South End Press. p. 66. ISBN 0-89608-293-8. Rod Bush (2000). We Are Not What We Seem: Black Nationalism and Class Struggle in the American Century. NYU Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-0-8147-1318-1. "50 Years After His Death, Fred Hampton's Legacy Looms Large In Chicago". NPR.org. December 5, 2019. Archived from the original on November 10, 2020. Retrieved April 10, 2020. "The Panthers and the Patriots". www.jacobinmag.com. May 25, 2017. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved April 10, 2020. "Fifty Years of Fred Hampton's Rainbow Coalition". southsideweekly.com. August 25, 2016. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved April 10, 2020. "Who Was Fred Hampton – True Story of Black Panther Fred Hampton's Death". Archived from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved March 10, 2021. Gipson, Therlee (2018). "Black Panther Party True History". books.google.com. ISBN 9780359039913. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved April 10, 2020. Iberia HAMPTON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward V. HANRAHAN et al., Defendants-Appellees, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, September 12, 1979, page 1, paragraph 13 Archived January 9, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, Law Resource FBI document, May 27, 1969, "Director FBI to SAC San Francisco", available at the FBI reading room. Feldman, Jay (2012). Manufacturing Hysteria: A History of Scapegoating, Surveillance, and Secrecy in Modern America. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. pp. 275–276. ISBN 9780307388230. Ward Churchill, "To Disrupt, Discredit and Destroy", in Kathleen Cleaver and George Katsiaficas (eds), Liberation, Imagination and the Black Panther Party, p.84 Archived January 31, 2017, at the Wayback Machine and p. 87. Archived January 31, 2017, at the Wayback Machine Michael Newton. Famous Assassinations in World History: An Encyclopedia Archived January 31, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. ABC-CLIO, p. 206. ISBN 1610692853 NARA. "Second Cop in Gun Battle Dies, Wounded Describe Nightmare", Chicago Tribune, November 14, 1969, p. 1. "No Quarter for Wild Beasts", Chicago Tribune, November 15, 1969, p. 10. Democracy Now!, 01 Feb. 2021 "The Assassination of Fred Hampton: New Documents Reveal Involvement of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover" Archived February 3, 2021, at the Wayback Machine Bush, Rod (2000). We Are Not What We Seem: Black Nationalism and Class Struggle in the American Century. NYU Press. p. 216. ISBN 978-0-8147-1318-1. Archived from the original on January 31, 2017. Retrieved February 21, 2016. Berger, Dan (2006). Outlaws of America: the Weather Underground and the politics of solidarity. AK Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-904859-41-3. Archived from the original on January 31, 2017. Retrieved February 21, 2016. Ward Churchill; Jim Vander Wall (2002). The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent. South End Press. p. 358. ISBN 0-89608-648-8. Archived from the original on January 31, 2017. Retrieved February 21, 2016. Peter Dale Scott (1996). Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. Univ. of California Press. p. 308. ISBN 978-0-520-20519-2. Archived from the original on January 31, 2017. Retrieved February 21, 2016. Haas 2009, pp. 92, 299, 353. Napoliatno, Jo. "Edward Hanrahan, Prosecutor Tied to '69 Panthers Raid, Dies at 88" Archived September 21, 2020, at the Wayback Machine, The New York Times, June 11, 2009. Retrieved June 13, 2009. Haas 2009, p. 74. "Hampton v. City Of Chicago, et al". IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS. January 4, 1978. Archived from the original on August 10, 2007. Retrieved July 19, 2007. Nelson, Stuart Jr. (January 23, 2015). The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution (Documentary). Mosley, Dwight (2020). "Towards the De-Miseducation of the African-American". books.google.com. ISBN 9781645444435. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved January 5, 2020. Haas 2009, p. 92. Berger, Dan (2006), Outlaws of America: The Weather Underground and the Politics of Solidarity, AK Press, ISBN 978-1-904859-41-3, pp. 132–133. Interview by Jose "Cha-Cha" Jimenez, c. 1990, File Folder 10, Box 4, The Collection on the Young Lords, DePaul University Special Collections and Archives. Archived January 9, 2021, at the Wayback Machine Ward Churchill; Jim Vander Wall (1988). Agents of Repression: The FBI's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement. South End Press. pp. 71-73. ISBN 0-89608-293-8. Churchill and Vander Wall cited court transcripts of Iberia Hampton, et al. vs. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Edward V. Hanrahan, et al., Defendants-Appellees (Nos. 77–1968, 77–1210 and 77–1370) as the primary source for their account of the police raid. Witnesses Harold Bell and Deborah Johnson testified to the comments by police. Williams, Jakobi (2013). From the Bullet to the Ballot: The Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party and Racial Coalition Politics in Chicago. UNC Press Books. p. 185. ISBN 9780807838167. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved July 4, 2019. Bennett, Hans (2010). "The Black Panthers and the Assassination of Fred Hampton". Journal of Pan African Studies. 3 (6). Alm, David. "'The Murder Of Fred Hampton' Still Has Much To Teach, Watch It Here". Forbes. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved November 14, 2020. Mitchell, Robert (December 4, 2019). "The police raid that killed two Black Panthers, shook Chicago and changed the nation". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on March 26, 2021. Retrieved June 2, 2021. "Justice Dept. plans probe Into shooting of Panthers". Google News. The Bryan Times. December 22, 1969. Retrieved June 2, 2021. Mantler, Gordon Keith (2013). Power to the Poor: Black-Brown Coalition and the Fight for Economic Justice, 1960–1974. UNC Press Books. ISBN 9780807838518. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved November 11, 2020. Weather Underground Anon. Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism. UK, Red Dragon Print Collective, c. 1970. Barbara Reynolds, "Five years later Hampton alive" Archived March 4, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, Chicago Tribune, December 8, 1974. "The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther" Archived December 8, 2009, at the Wayback Machine. Interview with Jeffrey Haas, Democracy Now! December 9, 2009. The Editorial Board (May 27, 2021). "Editorial: When the Tribune and Sun-Times agree on policy ..." chicagotribune.com. Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on June 1, 2021. Retrieved June 2, 2021.(subscription required) ""Exclusive – Hanrahan, Police Tell Panther Story" Archived December 4, 2014, at the Wayback Machine, Chicago Tribune, December 11, 1969. "Panther Battle Scene" Archived February 23, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, Chicago Tribune, December 11, 1969. Joseph Reilly, "At Hampton Apartment" Archived January 9, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, Chicago Sun-Times, December 12, 1969. ""Fred Hampton Jr. Speaks About the Assassination of His Father"". Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved September 29, 2010. Ryan, Yvonne (November 19, 2013). Roy Wilkins: The Quiet Revolutionary and the NAACP. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813143804. Archived from the original on February 28, 2023. Retrieved February 28, 2023. Wilkins, Roy; Clark, Ramsey (1973). Search and Destroy: A Report by the Commission of Inquiry into the Black Panthers and the Police (PDF). Metropolitan Applied Research Center. p. 249. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 30, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2023. "The Black Panthers and the Assassination of Fred Hampton". Archived from the original on June 13, 2010. Retrieved September 29, 2010. "Interview with William O'Neal". digital.wustl.edu. Washington University in St. Louis. April 13, 1989. Archived from the original on March 29, 2021. Retrieved June 2, 2021. Michael Ervin (January 25, 1990). "The Last Hours of William O'Neal". Chicago Reader. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved February 4, 2014. O'Brien, John (December 24, 1969). "For More Selected for Jury to Probe Panther Raid Deaths". Chicago Tribune. Chicago. section 1, p. 4. Archived from the original on December 21, 2016. Retrieved October 15, 2015. Siddon, Arthur (December 24, 1969). "Panther Inquest Jury Selections Questioned". Chicago Tribune. Chicago. section 1, p. 4. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved October 15, 2015. "Illinois jury rules Black Panther deaths 'justifiable homicide'". The Bulletin. Bend, Oregon. United Press International. January 22, 1970. p. 12. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved October 15, 2015. Grossman, Ron (December 4, 2014). "Fatal Black Panther raid in Chicago set off sizable aftershocks". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on September 16, 2017. Retrieved September 15, 2017. Graham, Fred P. (May 16, 1970). "US Jury Assails Police in Chicago on Panther Raid". The New York Times. p. 1. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved September 15, 2017. Franklin, Tim; Crawford, William B Jr. (November 2, 1982). "County OKs Panther Death Settlements". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved July 27, 2015. Sheppard, Nathaniel Jr. (November 14, 1982). "Plaintiffs in Panther Suite 'Knew We Were Right'". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved September 15, 2017. Koziol, Ronald (December 14, 1969). "Panther Slayings Split the City Into 'Name Calling' Factions". Chicago Tribune. section 1, p. 7. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved September 23, 2015. Michael Newton. Famous Assassinations in World History: An Encyclopedia Archived January 13, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. ABC-CLIO, p. 205. ISBN 1610692853 Newton, Michael (2016). Unsolved Civil Rights Murder Cases 1934–1970. McFarland & Company. p. 249. ISBN 978-0786498956. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved November 11, 2020. Williams, Jakobi (February 28, 2013). From the Bullet to the Ballot: The Illinois Chapter of the Black Panther Party and Racial Coalition Politics in Chicago. UNC Press Books. p. 10. ISBN 9781469608167. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved November 11, 2020. "History of Holy Angels". Our Lady of Africa. Retrieved July 20, 2023. "The priest who channeled Black Power into the Catholic Church". Religion News Service. December 2, 2019. Retrieved August 16, 2021. "Chicago Negro Parish Marks Panther Death". The Catholic News Archive. Religion News Service. December 19, 1969. Retrieved August 16, 2021. "Trailblazing Father George Clements Marks 60 Years As A Priest". May 2, 2017. Retrieved August 16, 2021. "The Black Panther Raid and the death of Fred Hampton". Chicago Tribune. December 19, 2007. Archived from the original on February 21, 2014. Retrieved February 4, 2014. Sheppard, Nathaniel Jr. (November 14, 1982). "Plaintiffs in Panther Suit 'Knew We Were Right'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on May 5, 2021. Retrieved June 2, 2021. Monica Moorehead (December 16, 2004). "Chicago: 'Fred Hampton Day' declared". Workers World. Archived from the original on February 21, 2014. Retrieved February 4, 2014. "Village of Maywood Parks and Recreation". Archived from the original on October 5, 2010. Retrieved December 21, 2019. "Maywood street statue honor slain Panther leader Hampton". Itsabouttimebpp.com. September 9, 2007. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved April 12, 2014. "Group Wants Street Named After Black Panther Fred Hampton-Protesters filled City Hall Today – Susan Murphy-Milano". Movingoutmovingon.bloghi.com. Archived from the original on October 4, 2013. Retrieved April 12, 2014. "Fred Hampton childhood home gets historical landmark status". apnews.com. April 20, 2022. Retrieved October 1, 2023. Anonymous (Weather Underground). Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism. UK, Red Dragon Print Collective, 1970. "Ex-Weather Underground Member Kathy Boudin Granted Parole" Archived November 14, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, Democracy Now! August 21, 2003. Weather Underground Declaration of a State of War "Death of a Black Panther: The Fred Hampton Story" – via Internet Archive. "The Death of a Black Panther – The Fred Hampton Story, 1969–70" Archived January 9, 2021, at the Wayback Machine, Inteldocu, July 31, 2011. "The Seeds of Terror". The New York Times. November 22, 1981. p. 4. Archived from the original on January 9, 2021. Retrieved February 8, 2017. The '60s (TV Mini-Series 1999) – IMDb, archived from the original on January 9, 2021, retrieved July 8, 2020 Gross, Terry (November 18, 2020). "Author Says The Chicago 7 Trial Reflected 'All The Conflicts In America'". NPR. Archived from the original on January 11, 2021. Retrieved January 9, 2021. McNary, Dave (December 17, 2020). "'Trial of the Chicago 7' Honored With Inaugural Ensemble Tribute at Gotham Awards". Variety. Archived from the original on December 18, 2020. Retrieved January 9, 2021. Allen, Nick (October 16, 2020). "Who's Who in The Trial of the Chicago 7: A Character Guide". Vulture. Archived from the original on February 13, 2021. Retrieved January 9, 2021. Rubin, Rebecca (December 22, 2020). "'Judas and the Black Messiah' Rescheduled for Early 2021". Variety. Archived from the original on January 16, 2021. Retrieved January 9, 2021. Rubin, Rebecca (January 12, 2021). "Judas and the Black Messiah' to Premiere at Sundance Film Festival". Variety. Archived from the original on January 12, 2021. Retrieved January 12, 2021. Haas 2009. King 2012:62. Harris, LaTesha (March 24, 2021). "Nobody's Savior – Jay-Z Cannot Deliver Us into an Era of Racial Equity". Bitch Media. Archived from the original on June 24, 2021. Retrieved June 21, 2021. "Fred Hampton Jr. Upset About Jay-Z Lyrics On 'Murder To Excellence'". MTV. Retrieved September 24, 2023. "Down Rodeo Lyrics". Genius.com. "Fred Hampton on your campus, you can't resist his / HiiiPoWeR". Genius. Retrieved October 12, 2022. GHOST OF FRED HAMPTON feat. KIKO KING, retrieved April 20, 2023 References Haas, Jeffrey (2009). The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 9781569763650. Wilderson, Frank (2015). Incognegro — A Memoir of Exile and Apartheid. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-5993-7. "Fred Hampton (August 30, 1948 - December 4, 1969)". National Archives and Records Administration. August 25, 2016. Archived from the original on February 11, 2021. External links Wikiquote has quotations related to Fred Hampton. The Marxists Internet Archive: Fred Hampton Archive Transcribed speeches and collected works. "The Assassination of Fred Hampton: How the FBI and the Chicago Police Murdered a Black Panther" – video report by Democracy Now! December 4, 2009. The Murder of Fred Hampton at IMDb Edit this at Wikidata (A 1971 documentary film directed by Howard Alk) FBI files on Fred Hampton From COINTELPRO to the Shadow Government: As Fred Hampton Jr. Is Released From 9 Years of Prison, a Look Back at the Assassination of Fred Hampton Archived April 28, 2005, at the Wayback Machine. 36:48 real audio. Tape: Fred Hampton, Deborah Johnson. Guests: Fred Hampton Jr., Mutulu Olugabala, Rosa Clemente. Interviewer: Amy Goodman. Democracy Now!. Tuesday, March 5, 2002. Retrieved May 12, 2005. "Power Anywhere Where There's People" A Speech By Fred Hampton National Young Lords Archived October 25, 2012, at the Wayback Machine Brief notes on Young Lords origins The short film Death of a Black Panther: The Fred Hampton Story is available for free viewing and download at the Internet Archive. Grand Valley State University Oral History Collection Why the US government murdered Fred Hampton on YouTube Archived 2023-11-23 at the Wayback Machine vte Black Panther Party Founders Huey P. Newton Bobby Seale Leadership Elaine Brown Eldridge Cleaver Kathleen Cleaver Donald Cox Fred Hampton David Hilliard Members West Coast based Richard Aoki Charles Barron William Lee Brent Ed Bullins Bunchy Carter Mark Comfort Aaron Dixon Emory Douglas B. Kwaku Duren Barbara Easley-Cox Kent Ford Reggie Forte Raymond "Masai" Hewitt Elbert "Big Man" Howard John Huggins Ericka Huggins Bobby Hutton George Jackson Joan Tarika Lewis Jalil Muntaqim (Anthony Bottom) Pat Parker Geronimo Pratt Robert Trivers Michael Zinzun East Coast based Mumia Abu-Jamal Sundiata Acoli Ashanti Alston Kuwasi Balagoon Dhoruba bin Wahad Veronza Bowers Jr. Safiya Bukhari W. Paul Coates Marshall "Eddie" Conway Jamal Joseph Chaka Khan Warren Kimbro Abdul Majid Lonnie McLucas Denise Oliver-Velez Larry Pinkney Alex Rackley Nile Rodgers George W. Sams Jr. Afeni Shakur Assata Shakur Russell Maroon Shoatz Michael "Cetewayo" Tabor James Dixon York Southern based H. Rap Brown Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin Mark Essex James Forman Robert Hillary King Pete O'Neal Malik Rahim Herman Wallace Albert Woodfox Chicago based Mark Clark William O'Neal Bobby Rush Marion Stamps Akua Njeri (Deborah Johnson) Others Stokely Carmichael Connie Matthews Influences Black power Deacons for Defense and Justice W. E. B. Du Bois Frantz Fanon Harry Haywood Lowndes County Freedom Organization Malcolm X Robert F. Williams Programs and projects Ten-Point Program Free Breakfast for Children The Black Panther (newspaper) Rainbow Coalition United Front Against Fascism Inspired groups Contemporary American Indian Movement Black Guerrilla Family Black Liberation Army Black Liberators Black Panthers (Israel) British Black Panthers Dalit Panthers George Jackson Brigade Gray Panthers I Wor Kuen Ng� Tamatoa Polynesian Panthers Red Guard Party The Pink Panthers Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi White Panther Party Young Lords Subsequent Assata's Daughters Black Panther Militia Black Riders Liberation Party Black Women's Defense League Huey P. Newton Gun Club New Afrikan Black Panther Party New Black Panther Party New Panther Vanguard Movement Revolutionary Black Panther Party Films and television Black Power, We're Goin' Survive America (1968) Black Panthers: A Report (1968) Black Panthers (1968) Mayday (1969) Interview with Bobby Seale (1969) Eldridge Cleaver, Black Panther (1969) Finally Got the News (1970) The Murder of Fred Hampton (1971) Teach Our Children (1973) In the Event Anyone Disappears (1974) Charles Garry: Streetfighter in the Courtroom (1992) Panther (1995) All Power to the People (1996) Public Enemy (1999) A Huey P. Newton Story (2001) Night Catches Us (2010) The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution (2015) Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) The Big Cigar (2024) Books Soul on Ice (1968) Seize the Time (1970) Blood in My Eye (1972) Revolutionary Suicide (1973) A Taste of Power (1992) Black Against Empire (2013) Related articles 1968 Olympics Black Power salute COINTELPRO Intercommunalism Murder of Betty Van Patter New Haven Black Panther trials Panther 21 Rice–Poindexter case Robert Templeton Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971) "Panther Power" (2000) Black power movement Revolutionary People's Constitutional Convention Category|Black Panther Party Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata International FAST ISNI VIAF WorldCat National Norway France BnF data Israel United States Poland Russia Other NARA SNAC IdRef Categories: 1948 births1969 deathsActivists from ChicagoAfrican-American activistsAfrican-American communistsAmerican anti-capitalistsAmerican MaoistsAmerican MarxistsAmerican revolutionariesAmerican anti-poverty advocatesAnti-revisionistsAssassinated American civil rights activistsAssassinated revolutionariesAfrican-American MarxistsAfrican Americans shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United StatesLeft-wing populism in the United StatesCOINTELPRO targetsDeaths by firearm in IllinoisExtrajudicial killingsJustifiable homicideMembers of the Black Panther PartyPeople from Maywood, IllinoisPeople from Summit, IllinoisPeople murdered in IllinoisPeople murdered by law enforcement officers in the United States

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Surveillance is the monitoring of behavior, many activities, or information for the purpose of information gathering, influencing, managing or directing.[1][2] This can include observation from a distance by means of electronic equipment, such as closed-circuit television (CCTV), or interception of electronically transmitted information like Internet traffic. It can also include simple technical methods, such as human intelligence gathering and postal interception. Surveillance is used by citizens, for instance for protecting their neighborhoods. It is widely used by governments for intelligence gathering, including espionage, prevention of crime, the protection of a process, person, group or object, or the investigation of crime. It is also used by criminal organizations to plan and commit crimes, and by businesses to gather intelligence on criminals, their competitors, suppliers or customers. Religious organizations charged with detecting heresy and heterodoxy may also carry out surveillance.[3] Auditors carry out a form of surveillance.[4] A byproduct of surveillance is that it can unjustifiably violate people's privacy and is often criticized by civil liberties activists.[5] Democracies may have laws that seek to restrict governmental and private use of surveillance, whereas authoritarian governments seldom have any domestic restrictions. Espionage is by definition covert and typically illegal according to the rules of the observed party, whereas most types of surveillance are overt and are considered legal or legitimate by state authorities. International espionage seems to be common among all types of countries.[6][7] Methods Computer Official seal of the Information Awareness Office – a U.S. agency which developed technologies for mass surveillance Main article: Computer surveillance The vast majority of computer surveillance involves the monitoring of data and traffic on the Internet.[8] In the United States for example, under the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act, all phone calls and broadband Internet traffic (emails, web traffic, instant messaging, etc.) are required to be available for unimpeded real-time monitoring by federal law enforcement agencies.[9][10][11] There is far too much data on the Internet for human investigators to manually search through all of it. Therefore, automated Internet surveillance computers sift through the vast amount of intercepted Internet traffic to identify and report to human investigators the traffic that is considered interesting or suspicious. This process is regulated by targeting certain "trigger" words or phrases, visiting certain types of web sites, or communicating via email or online chat with suspicious individuals or groups.[12] Billions of dollars per year are spent by agencies, such as the NSA, the FBI and the now-defunct Information Awareness Office, to develop, purchase, implement, and operate systems such as Carnivore, NarusInsight, and ECHELON to intercept and analyze all of this data to extract only the information which is useful to law enforcement and intelligence agencies.[13] Computers can be a surveillance target because of the personal data stored on them. If someone is able to install software, such as the FBI's Magic Lantern and CIPAV, on a computer system, they can easily gain unauthorized access to this data. Such software could be installed physically or remotely.[14] Another form of computer surveillance, known as van Eck phreaking, involves reading electromagnetic emanations from computing devices in order to extract data from them at distances of hundreds of meters.[15][16] The NSA runs a database known as "Pinwale", which stores and indexes large numbers of emails of both American citizens and foreigners.[17][18] Additionally, the NSA runs a program known as PRISM, which is a data mining system that gives the United States government direct access to information from technology companies. Through accessing this information, the government is able to obtain search history, emails, stored information, live chats, file transfers, and more. This program generated huge controversies in regards to surveillance and privacy, especially from U.S. citizens.[19][20] Telephones Main articles: Phone surveillance and Lawful interception The official and unofficial tapping of telephone lines is widespread. In the United States for instance, the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requires that all telephone and VoIP communications be available for real-time wiretapping by Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.[9][10][11] Two major telecommunications companies in the U.S.—AT&T Inc. and Verizon—have contracts with the FBI, requiring them to keep their phone call records easily searchable and accessible for Federal agencies, in return for $1.8 million per year.[21] Between 2003 and 2005, the FBI sent out more than 140,000 "National Security Letters" ordering phone companies to hand over information about their customers' calling and Internet histories. About half of these letters requested information on U.S. citizens.[22] Human agents are not required to monitor most calls. Speech-to-text software creates machine-readable text from intercepted audio, which is then processed by automated call-analysis programs, such as those developed by agencies such as the Information Awareness Office, or companies such as Verint, and Narus, which search for certain words or phrases, to decide whether to dedicate a human agent to the call.[23] Law enforcement and intelligence services in the United Kingdom and the United States possess technology to activate the microphones in cell phones remotely, by accessing phones' diagnostic or maintenance features in order to listen to conversations that take place near the person who holds the phone.[24][25][26][27][28][29] The StingRay tracker is an example of one of these tools used to monitor cell phone usage in the United States and the United Kingdom. Originally developed for counterterrorism purposes by the military, they work by broadcasting powerful signals that cause nearby cell phones to transmit their IMSI number, just as they would to normal cell phone towers. Once the phone is connected to the device, there is no way for the user to know that they are being tracked. The operator of the stingray is able to extract information such as location, phone calls, and text messages, but it is widely believed that the capabilities of the StingRay extend much further. A lot of controversy surrounds the StingRay because of its powerful capabilities and the secrecy that surrounds it.[30] Mobile phones are also commonly used to collect location data. The geographical location of a mobile phone (and thus the person carrying it) can be determined easily even when the phone is not being used, using a technique known as multilateration to calculate the differences in time for a signal to travel from the cell phone to each of several cell towers near the owner of the phone.[31][32] The legality of such techniques has been questioned in the United States, in particular whether a court warrant is required.[33] Records for one carrier alone (Sprint), showed that in a given year federal law enforcement agencies requested customer location data 8 million times.[34] The headquarters of UK intelligence activities is Government Communications Headquarters, Cheltenham, England (2017) In response to customers' privacy concerns in the post Edward Snowden era,[35] Apple's iPhone 6 has been designed to disrupt investigative wiretapping efforts. The phone encrypts e-mails, contacts, and photos with a code generated by a complex mathematical algorithm that is unique to an individual phone, and is inaccessible to Apple.[36] The encryption feature on the iPhone 6 has drawn criticism from FBI director James B. Comey and other law enforcement officials since even lawful requests to access user content on the iPhone 6 will result in Apple supplying "gibberish" data that requires law enforcement personnel to either break the code themselves or to get the code from the phone's owner.[36] Because the Snowden leaks demonstrated that American agencies can access phones anywhere in the world, privacy concerns in countries with growing markets for smart phones have intensified, providing a strong incentive for companies like Apple to address those concerns in order to secure their position in the global market.[36] Apple has made several moves to emphasize their concern for privacy, in order to appeal to more consumers. In 2011, Apple stopped the use of permanent device identifiers, and in 2019, they banned the ability of third parties to track on children’s apps.[37] Although the CALEA requires telecommunication companies to build into their systems the ability to carry out a lawful wiretap, the law has not been updated to address the issue of smart phones and requests for access to e-mails and metadata.[38] The Snowden leaks show that the NSA has been taking advantage of this ambiguity in the law by collecting metadata on "at least hundreds of millions" of "incidental" targets from around the world.[38] The NSA uses an analytic tool known as CO-TRAVELER in order to track people whose movements intersect and to find any hidden connections with persons of interest.[38] The Snowden leaks have also revealed that the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) can access information collected by the NSA on American citizens. Once the data has been collected, the GCHQ can hold on to it for up to two years. The deadline can be extended with the permission of a "senior UK official".[39][40] Cameras Main article: Closed-circuit television A surveillance camera in Cairns, Queensland Surveillance cameras such as these are installed by the millions in many countries, and are nowadays monitored by automated computer programs instead of humans. Surveillance cameras, or security cameras, are video cameras used for the purpose of observing an area. They are often connected to a recording device or IP network, and may be watched by a security guard or law enforcement officer. Cameras and recording equipment used to be relatively expensive and required human personnel to monitor camera footage, but analysis of footage has been made easier by automated software that organizes digital video footage into a searchable database, and by video analysis software (such as VIRAT and HumanID). The amount of footage is also drastically reduced by motion sensors which record only when motion is detected. With cheaper production techniques, surveillance cameras are simple and inexpensive enough to be used in home security systems, and for everyday surveillance. Video cameras are one of the most common methods of surveillance.[41] As of 2016, there are about 350 million surveillance cameras worldwide. About 65% of these cameras are installed in Asia. The growth of CCTV has been slowing in recent years.[42] In 2018, China was reported to have a huge surveillance network of over 170 million CCTV cameras with 400 million new cameras expected to be installed in the next three years, many of which use facial recognition technology.[43] In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security awards billions of dollars per year in Homeland Security grants for local, state, and federal agencies to install modern video surveillance equipment. For example, the city of Chicago, Illinois, recently used a $5.1 million Homeland Security grant to install an additional 250 surveillance cameras, and connect them to a centralized monitoring center, along with its preexisting network of over 2000 cameras, in a program known as Operation Virtual Shield. Speaking in 2009, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley announced that Chicago would have a surveillance camera on every street corner by 2016.[44][45] New York City received a $350 million grant towards the development of the Domain Awareness System,[46] which is an interconnected system of sensors including 18,000 CCTV cameras used for continual surveillance of the city[47] by both police officers and artificial intelligence systems.[46] In the United Kingdom, the vast majority of video surveillance cameras are not operated by government bodies, but by private individuals or companies, especially to monitor the interiors of shops and businesses. According to 2011 Freedom of Information Act requests, the total number of local government operated CCTV cameras was around 52,000 over the entirety of the UK.[48] The prevalence of video surveillance in the UK is often overstated due to unreliable estimates being requoted;[49][50] for example one report in 2002 extrapolated from a very small sample to estimate the number of cameras in the UK at 4.2 million (of which 500,000 were in Greater London).[51] More reliable estimates put the number of private and local government operated cameras in the United Kingdom at around 1.85 million in 2011.[52] In the Netherlands, one example city where there are cameras is The Hague. There, cameras are placed in city districts in which the most illegal activity is concentrated. Examples are the red-light districts and the train stations.[53] As part of China's Golden Shield Project, several U.S. corporations, including IBM, General Electric, and Honeywell, have been working closely with the Chinese government to install millions of surveillance cameras throughout China, along with advanced video analytics and facial recognition software, which will identify and track individuals everywhere they go. They will be connected to a centralized database and monitoring station, which will, upon completion of the project, contain a picture of the face of every person in China: over 1.3 billion people.[54] Lin Jiang Huai, the head of China's "Information Security Technology" office (which is in charge of the project), credits the surveillance systems in the United States and the U.K. as the inspiration for what he is doing with the Golden Shield Project.[54] A payload surveillance camera manufactured by Controp and distributed to the U.S. government by ADI Technologies The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is funding a research project called Combat Zones That See that will link up cameras across a city to a centralized monitoring station, identify and track individuals and vehicles as they move through the city, and report "suspicious" activity (such as waving arms, looking side-to-side, standing in a group, etc.).[55] At Super Bowl XXXV in January 2001, police in Tampa, Florida, used Identix's facial recognition software, FaceIt, to scan the crowd for potential criminals and terrorists in attendance at the event[56] (it found 19 people with pending arrest warrants).[57] Governments often initially claim that cameras are meant to be used for traffic control, but many of them end up using them for general surveillance.[citation needed] For example, Washington, D.C. had 5,000 "traffic" cameras installed under this premise, and then after they were all in place, networked them all together and then granted access to the Metropolitan Police Department, so they could perform "day-to-day monitoring".[58] The development of centralized networks of CCTV cameras watching public areas – linked to computer databases of people's pictures and identity (biometric data), able to track people's movements throughout the city, and identify whom they have been with – has been argued by some to present a risk to civil liberties.[59] Trapwire is an example of such a network.[60] Social network analysis A graph of the relationships between users on the social networking site Facebook. Social network analysis enables governments to gather detailed information about peoples' friends, family, and other contacts. Since much of this information is voluntarily made public by the users themselves, it is often considered to be a form of open-source intelligence One common form of surveillance is to create maps of social networks based on data from social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter as well as from traffic analysis information from phone call records such as those in the NSA call database,[61] and others. These social network "maps" are then data mined to extract useful information such as personal interests, friendships & affiliations, wants, beliefs, thoughts, and activities.[62][63][64] Many U.S. government agencies such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are investing heavily in research involving social network analysis.[65][66] The intelligence community believes that the biggest threat to U.S. power comes from decentralized, leaderless, geographically dispersed groups of terrorists, subversives, extremists, and dissidents. These types of threats are most easily countered by finding important nodes in the network, and removing them. To do this requires a detailed map of the network.[67][68][69] Jason Ethier of Northeastern University, in his study of modern social network analysis, said the following of the Scalable Social Network Analysis Program developed by the Information Awareness Office: The purpose of the SSNA algorithms program is to extend techniques of social network analysis to assist with distinguishing potential terrorist cells from legitimate groups of people.... In order to be successful SSNA will require information on the social interactions of the majority of people around the globe. Since the Defense Department cannot easily distinguish between peaceful citizens and terrorists, it will be necessary for them to gather data on innocent civilians as well as on potential terrorists. — Jason Ethier[64] AT&T developed a programming language called "Hancock", which is able to sift through enormous databases of phone call and Internet traffic records, such as the NSA call database, and extract "communities of interest"—groups of people who call each other regularly, or groups that regularly visit certain sites on the Internet. AT&T originally built the system to develop "marketing leads",[70] but the FBI has regularly requested such information from phone companies such as AT&T without a warrant,[70] and, after using the data, stores all information received in its own databases, regardless of whether or not the information was ever useful in an investigation.[71] Some people believe that the use of social networking sites is a form of "participatory surveillance", where users of these sites are essentially performing surveillance on themselves, putting detailed personal information on public websites where it can be viewed by corporations and governments.[62] In 2008, about 20% of employers reported using social networking sites to collect personal data on prospective or current employees.[72] Biometric Fingerprints being scanned as part of the US-VISIT program Main article: Biometrics Biometric surveillance is a technology that measures and analyzes human physical and/or behavioral characteristics for authentication, identification, or screening purposes.[73] Examples of physical characteristics include fingerprints, DNA, and facial patterns. Examples of mostly behavioral characteristics include gait (a person's manner of walking) or voice. Facial recognition is the use of the unique configuration of a person's facial features to accurately identify them, usually from surveillance video. Both the Department of Homeland Security and DARPA are heavily funding research into facial recognition systems.[74] The Information Processing Technology Office ran a program known as Human Identification at a Distance which developed technologies that are capable of identifying a person at up to 500 ft (150 m) by their facial features. Another form of behavioral biometrics, based on affective computing, involves computers recognizing a person's emotional state based on an analysis of their facial expressions, how fast they are talking, the tone and pitch of their voice, their posture, and other behavioral traits. This might be used for instance to see if a person's behavior is suspect (looking around furtively, "tense" or "angry" facial expressions, waving arms, etc.).[75] A more recent development is DNA profiling, which looks at some of the major markers in the body's DNA to produce a match. The FBI is spending $1 billion to build a new biometric database, which will store DNA, facial recognition data, iris/retina (eye) data, fingerprints, palm prints, and other biometric data of people living in the United States. The computers running the database are contained in an underground facility about the size of two American football fields.[76][77][78] The Los Angeles Police Department is installing automated facial recognition and license plate recognition devices in its squad cars, and providing handheld face scanners, which officers will use to identify people while on patrol.[79][80][81] Facial thermographs are in development, which allow machines to identify certain emotions in people such as fear or stress, by measuring the temperature generated by blood flow to different parts of the face.[82] Law enforcement officers believe that this has potential for them to identify when a suspect is nervous, which might indicate that they are hiding something, lying, or worried about something.[82] In his paper in Ethics and Information Technology, Avi Marciano maps the harms caused by biometric surveillance, traces their theoretical origins, and brings these harms together in one integrative framework to elucidate their cumulative power. Marciano proposes four types of harms: Unauthorized use of bodily information, denial or limitation of access to physical spaces, bodily social sorting, and symbolic ineligibility through construction of marginality and otherness. Biometrics' social power, according to Marciano, derives from three main features: their complexity as "enigmatic technologies", their objective-scientific image, and their increasing agency, particularly in the context of automatic decision-making. Aerial Further information: Surveillance aircraft and Wide-area motion imagery Micro Air Vehicle with attached surveillance camera Aerial surveillance is the gathering of surveillance, usually visual imagery or video, from an airborne vehicle—such as an unmanned aerial vehicle, helicopter, or spy plane. Military surveillance aircraft use a range of sensors (e.g. radar) to monitor the battlefield. Digital imaging technology, miniaturized computers, and numerous other technological advances over the past decade have contributed to rapid advances in aerial surveillance hardware such as micro-aerial vehicles, forward-looking infrared, and high-resolution imagery capable of identifying objects at extremely long distances. For instance, the MQ-9 Reaper,[83] a U.S. drone plane used for domestic operations by the Department of Homeland Security, carries cameras that are capable of identifying an object the size of a milk carton from altitudes of 30,000 feet (9.1 km), and has forward-looking infrared devices that can detect the heat from a human body at distances of up to 60 kilometers (37 mi).[84] In an earlier instance of commercial aerial surveillance, the Killington Mountain ski resort hired 'eye in the sky' aerial photography of its competitors' parking lots to judge the success of its marketing initiatives as it developed starting in the 1950s.[85] HART program concept drawing from official IPTO (DARPA) official website The United States Department of Homeland Security is in the process of testing UAVs to patrol the skies over the United States for the purposes of critical infrastructure protection, border patrol, "transit monitoring", and general surveillance of the U.S. population.[86] Miami-Dade police department ran tests with a vertical take-off and landing UAV from Honeywell, which is planned to be used in SWAT operations.[87] Houston's police department has been testing fixed-wing UAVs for use in "traffic control".[87] The United Kingdom, as well, is working on plans to build up a fleet of surveillance UAVs ranging from micro-aerial vehicles to full-size drones, to be used by police forces throughout the U.K.[88] In addition to their surveillance capabilities, MAVs are capable of carrying tasers for "crowd control", or weapons for killing enemy combatants.[89] Programs such as the Heterogeneous Aerial Reconnaissance Team program developed by DARPA have automated much of the aerial surveillance process. They have developed systems consisting of large teams drone planes that pilot themselves, automatically decide who is "suspicious" and how to go about monitoring them, coordinate their activities with other drones nearby, and notify human operators if something suspicious is occurring. This greatly increases the amount of area that can be continuously monitored, while reducing the number of human operators required. Thus a swarm of automated, self-directing drones can automatically patrol a city and track suspicious individuals, reporting their activities back to a centralized monitoring station.[90][91][92] In addition, researchers also investigate possibilities of autonomous surveillance by large groups of micro aerial vehicles stabilized by decentralized bio-inspired swarming rules.[93][94] Corporate Main article: Corporate surveillance Corporate surveillance is the monitoring of a person or group's behavior by a corporation. The data collected is most often used for marketing purposes or sold to other corporations, but is also regularly shared with government agencies. It can be used as a form of business intelligence, which enables the corporation to better tailor their products and/or services to be desirable by their customers. Although there is a common belief that monitoring can increase productivity, it can also create consequences such as increasing chances of deviant behavior and creating punishments that are not equitable to their actions. Additionally, monitoring can cause resistance and backlash because it insinuates an employer's suspicion and lack of trust.[95] Data mining and profiling Data mining is the application of statistical techniques and programmatic algorithms to discover previously unnoticed relationships within the data. Data profiling in this context is the process of assembling information about a particular individual or group in order to generate a profile — that is, a picture of their patterns and behavior. Data profiling can be an extremely powerful tool for psychological and social network analysis. A skilled analyst can discover facts about a person that they might not even be consciously aware of themselves.[96] Economic (such as credit card purchases) and social (such as telephone calls and emails) transactions in modern society create large amounts of stored data and records. In the past, this data was documented in paper records, leaving a "paper trail", or was simply not documented at all. Correlation of paper-based records was a laborious process—it required human intelligence operators to manually dig through documents, which was time-consuming and incomplete, at best. But today many of these records are electronic, resulting in an "electronic trail". Every use of a bank machine, payment by credit card, use of a phone card, call from home, checked out library book, rented video, or otherwise complete recorded transaction generates an electronic record. Public records—such as birth, court, tax and other records—are increasingly being digitized and made available online. In addition, due to laws like CALEA, web traffic and online purchases are also available for profiling. Electronic record-keeping makes data easily collectable, storable, and accessible—so that high-volume, efficient aggregation and analysis is possible at significantly lower costs. Information relating to many of these individual transactions is often easily available because it is generally not guarded in isolation, since the information, such as the title of a movie a person has rented, might not seem sensitive. However, when many such transactions are aggregated they can be used to assemble a detailed profile revealing the actions, habits, beliefs, locations frequented, social connections, and preferences of the individual. This profile is then used, by programs such as ADVISE[97] and TALON, to determine whether the person is a military, criminal, or political threat. In addition to its own aggregation and profiling tools, the government is able to access information from third parties — for example, banks, credit companies or employers, etc. — by requesting access informally, by compelling access through the use of subpoenas or other procedures,[98] or by purchasing data from commercial data aggregators or data brokers. The United States has spent $370 million on its 43 planned fusion centers, which are national network of surveillance centers that are located in over 30 states. The centers will collect and analyze vast amounts of data on U.S. citizens. It will get this data by consolidating personal information from sources such as state driver's licensing agencies, hospital records, criminal records, school records, credit bureaus, banks, etc. – and placing this information in a centralized database that can be accessed from all of the centers, as well as other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.[99] Under United States v. Miller (1976), data held by third parties is generally not subject to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements. Human operatives A tail may surreptitiously track and report on the movements and contacts of a person of interest. Such following by one or more people may provide useful in formation in relatively densely populated urban environments.[100] Organizations that have enemies who wish to gather information about the groups' members or activities face the issue of potential infiltration.[101] In addition to operatives' infiltrating an organization, the surveilling party may exert pressure on certain members of the target organization to act as informants (i.e., to disclose the information they hold on the organization and its members).[102][103] Fielding operatives is very expensive, and governments with wide-reaching electronic surveillance tools at their disposal, rather than gathering the sort of information which operatives can provide, may use less problematic forms of surveillance - such as those mentioned above. Nevertheless, the use of human infiltrators remains common. For instance, in 2007 documents surfaced showing that the FBI planned to field a total of 15,000 undercover agents and informants in response to an anti-terrorism directive (issued by President George W. Bush in 2004) that ordered intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to increase their HUMINT capabilities.[104] Satellite imagery Main article: Reconnaissance satellite On May 25, 2007, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell authorized the National Applications Office (NAO) of the Department of Homeland Security to allow local, state, and domestic Federal agencies to access imagery from military intelligence Reconnaissance satellites and Reconnaissance aircraft sensors which can now be used to observe the activities of U.S. citizens. The satellites and aircraft sensors will be able to penetrate cloud cover, detect chemical traces, and identify objects in buildings and "underground bunkers", and will provide real-time video at much higher resolutions than the still-images produced by programs such as Google Earth.[105][106][107][108][109][110] Identification and credentials A card containing an identification number One of the simplest forms of identification is the carrying of credentials. Some nations have an identity card system to aid identification, whilst others are considering it but face public opposition. Other documents, such as passports, driver's licenses, library cards, banking or credit cards are also used to verify identity. If the form of the identity card is "machine-readable", usually using an encoded magnetic stripe or identification number (such as a Social Security number), it corroborates the subject's identifying data. In this case it may create an electronic trail when it is checked and scanned, which can be used in profiling, as mentioned above. Wireless Tracking This section refers to methods that involve the monitoring of tracking devices through the aid of wireless signals. Mobile phones Mobile carrier antennas are also commonly used to collect geolocation data on mobile phones. The geographical location of a powered mobile phone (and thus the person carrying it) can be determined easily (whether it is being used or not), using a technique known as multilateration to calculate the differences in time for a signal to travel from the cell phone to each of several cell towers near the owner of the phone.[31][32] Dr. Victor Kappeler[111] of Eastern Kentucky University indicates that police surveillance is a strong concern, stating the following statistics from 2013: Of the 321,545 law enforcement requests made to Verizon, 54,200 of these requests were for "content" or "location" information—not just cell phone numbers or IP addresses. Content information included the actual text of messages, emails and the wiretapping of voice or messaging content in real-time. A comparatively new off-the-shelf surveillance device is an IMSI-catcher, a telephone eavesdropping device used to intercept mobile phone traffic and track the movement of mobile phone users. Essentially a "fake" mobile tower acting between the target mobile phone and the service provider's real towers, it is considered a man-in-the-middle (MITM) attack. IMSI-catchers are used in some countries by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, but their use has raised significant civil liberty and privacy concerns and is strictly regulated in some countries.[112] In March 2020, British daily The Guardian, based on the claims of a whistleblower, accused the government of Saudi Arabia of exploiting global mobile telecom network weaknesses to spy on its citizens traveling around the United States.[113] The data shared by the whistleblower in support of the claims, showed that a systematic spying campaign was being run by the kingdom exploiting the flaws of SS7, a global messaging system. The data showed that millions of secret tracking commands originated from Saudi in a duration of four-months, starting from November 2019.[114] RFID tagging RFID chip pulled from a new credit card Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tagging is the use of very small electronic devices (called "RFID tags") which are applied to or incorporated into a product, animal, or person for the purpose of identification and tracking using radio waves. The tags can be read from several meters away. They are extremely inexpensive, costing a few cents per piece, so they can be inserted into many types of everyday products without significantly increasing the price, and can be used to track and identify these objects for a variety of purposes. Some companies appear to be "tagging" their workers by incorporating RFID tags in employee ID badges. Workers in U.K. considered strike action in protest of having themselves tagged; they felt that it was dehumanizing to have all of their movements tracked with RFID chips.[115][vague] Some critics have expressed fears that people will soon be tracked and scanned everywhere they go.[116] On the other hand, RFID tags in newborn baby ID bracelets put on by hospitals have foiled kidnappings.[115] In a 2003 editorial, CNET News.com's chief political correspondent, Declan McCullagh, speculated that, soon, every object that is purchased, and perhaps ID cards, will have RFID devices in them, which would respond with information about people as they walk past scanners (what type of phone they have, what type of shoes they have on, which books they are carrying, what credit cards or membership cards they have, etc.). This information could be used for identification, tracking, or targeted marketing. As of 2021, this has largely not come to pass.[117] RFID tagging on humans Main article: Microchip implant (human) Hand with planned insertion point for Verichip device A human microchip implant is an identifying integrated circuit device or RFID transponder encased in silicate glass and implanted in the body of a human being. A subdermal implant typically contains a unique ID number that can be linked to information contained in an external database, such as personal identification, medical history, medications, allergies, and contact information. Several types of microchips have been developed in order to control and monitor certain types of people, such as criminals, political figures and spies,[clarification needed] a "killer" tracking chip patent was filed at the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) around May 2009. Verichip is an RFID device produced by a company called Applied Digital Solutions (ADS). Verichip is slightly larger than a grain of rice, and is injected under the skin. The injection reportedly feels similar to receiving a shot. The chip is encased in glass, and stores a "VeriChip Subscriber Number" which the scanner uses to access their personal information, via the Internet, from Verichip Inc.'s database, the "Global VeriChip Subscriber Registry". Thousands of people have already had them inserted.[116] In Mexico, for example, 160 workers at the Attorney General's office were required to have the chip injected for identity verification and access control purposes.[118][119] Implantable microchips have also been used in healthcare settings, but ethnographic researchers have identified a number of ethical problems with such uses; these problems include unequal treatment, diminished trust, and possible endangerment of patients.[120] Radar This section is an excerpt from Perimeter surveillance radar.[edit] Perimeter surveillance radar (PSR) is a class of radar sensors that monitor activity surrounding or on critical infrastructure areas such as airports,[121] seaports, military installations, national borders, refineries and other critical industry and the like. Such radars are characterized by their ability to detect movement at ground level of targets such as an individual walking or crawling towards a facility. Such radars typically have ranges of several hundred metres to over 10 kilometres.[122] Alternate technologies include laser-based systems. These have the potential for very high target position accuracy, however they are less effective in the presence of fog and other obscurants. Geolocation devices Global Positioning System Diagram of GPS satellites orbiting Earth See also: GPS tracking In the U.S., police have planted hidden GPS tracking devices in people's vehicles to monitor their movements,[123] without a warrant.[124] In early 2009, they were arguing in court that they have the right to do this.[125] Several cities are running pilot projects to require parolees to wear GPS devices to track their movements when they get out of prison.[126] Devices See also: United States v. Spy Factory, Inc. Covert listening devices and video devices, or "bugs", are hidden electronic devices which are used to capture, record, and/or transmit data to a receiving party such as a law enforcement agency. The U.S. has run numerous domestic intelligence operations, such as COINTELPRO, which have bugged the homes, offices, and vehicles of thousands of U.S. citizens, usually political activists, subversives, and criminals.[127] Law enforcement and intelligence services in the U.K. and the United States possess technology to remotely activate the microphones in cell phones, by accessing the phone's diagnostic/maintenance features, in order to listen to conversations that take place nearby the person who holds the phone.[25][26][27] Postal services As more people use faxes and e-mail the significance of surveilling the postal system is decreasing, in favor of Internet and telephone surveillance. But interception of post is still an available option for law enforcement and intelligence agencies, in certain circumstances.[128] This is not a common practice, however, and entities like the US Army require high levels of approval to conduct.[129] The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation have performed twelve separate mail-opening campaigns targeted towards U.S. citizens. In one of these programs, more than 215,000 communications were intercepted, opened, and photographed.[130][131] Stakeout "Stakeout" redirects here. For other uses, see Stakeout (disambiguation). A stakeout is the coordinated surveillance of a location or person. Stakeouts are generally performed covertly and for the purpose of gathering evidence related to criminal activity. The term derives from the practice by land surveyors of using survey stakes to measure out an area before the main building project begins. Internet of things The Internet of Things (IoT) is a term that refers to the future of technology in which data can be collected without human and computer interaction. IoTs can be used for identification, monitoring, location tracking, and health tracking.[132] While IoTs have the benefit of being a time-saving tool that makes activities simpler, they raise the concern of government surveillance and privacy regarding how data will be used.[132] Controversy Graffiti expressing concern about the proliferation of video surveillance Support Supporters of surveillance systems believe that these tools can help protect society from terrorists and criminals. They argue that surveillance can reduce crime by three means: by deterrence, by observation, and by reconstruction. Surveillance can deter by increasing the chance of being caught, and by revealing the modus operandi. This requires a minimal level of invasiveness.[133] Another method on how surveillance can be used to fight criminal activity is by linking the information stream obtained from them to a recognition system (for instance, a camera system that has its feed run through a facial recognition system). This can for instance auto-recognize fugitives and direct police to their location. A distinction here has to be made however on the type of surveillance employed. Some people that support video surveillance in city streets may not support indiscriminate telephone taps and vice versa. Besides the types, the way in which this surveillance is done also matters a lot; i.e. indiscriminate telephone taps are supported by much fewer people than say telephone taps done only to people suspected of engaging in illegal activities. Surveillance can also be used to give human operatives a tactical advantage through improved situational awareness, or through the use of automated processes, i.e. video analytics. Surveillance can help reconstruct an incident and prove guilt through the availability of footage for forensics experts. Surveillance can also influence subjective security if surveillance resources are visible or if the consequences of surveillance can be felt. Some of the surveillance systems (such as the camera system that has its feed run through a facial recognition system mentioned above) can also have other uses besides countering criminal activity. For instance, it can help in retrieving runaway children, abducted or missing adults and mentally disabled people. Other supporters simply believe that there is nothing that can be done about the loss of privacy, and that people must become accustomed to having no privacy. As Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy said: "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it."[134][135] Another common argument is: "If you aren't doing something wrong then you don't have anything to fear." That is, one does not have a right to privacy regarding illegal activities, while those following the law suffer no harm from surveillance and so have no standing to object to it. Beyond the heroically self-serving identification of what is wrong with what is illegal, the ethical fly in this ointment is the tacit premise that the individual has no duty to preserve the health of the state--the antithesis of the principle that only the consent of the governed can adequately serve as the moral foundation of a (just) state and warrant the vast gulf between its power (and agency) and that of the individual. [136] Opposition Surveillance lamppost brought down in Hong Kong by citizens fearing state surveillance An elaborate graffito in Columbus, Ohio, depicting state surveillance of telecommunications With the advent of programs such as the Total Information Awareness program and ADVISE, technologies such as high speed surveillance computers and biometrics software, and laws such as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, governments now possess an unprecedented ability to monitor the activities of their subjects.[137] Many civil rights and privacy groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and American Civil Liberties Union, have expressed concern that by allowing continual increases in government surveillance of citizens we will end up in a mass surveillance society, with extremely limited, or non-existent political and/or personal freedoms. Fears such as this have led to numerous lawsuits such as Hepting v. AT&T.[137][138] Some critics state that the claim made by supporters should be modified to read: "As long as we do what we're told, we have nothing to fear.". For instance, a person who is part of a political group which opposes the policies of the national government, might not want the government to know their names and what they have been reading, so that the government cannot easily subvert their organization, arrest, or kill them. Other critics state that while a person might not have anything to hide right now, the government might later implement policies that they do wish to oppose, and that opposition might then be impossible due to mass surveillance enabling the government to identify and remove political threats. Further, other critics point to the fact that most people do have things to hide. For example, if a person is looking for a new job, they might not want their current employer to know this. Also if an employer wishes total privacy to watch over their own employee and secure their financial information it may become impossible, and they may not wish to hire those under surveillance. In December 2017, the Government of China took steps to oppose widespread surveillance by security-company cameras, webcams, and IP cameras after tens-of-thousands were made accessible for internet viewing by IT company Qihoo[139] Totalitarianism A traffic camera atop a high pole oversees a road in the Canadian city of Toronto Programs such as the Total Information Awareness program, and laws such as the Communications Assistance For Law Enforcement Act have led many groups to fear that society is moving towards a state of mass surveillance with severely limited personal, social, political freedoms, where dissenting individuals or groups will be strategically removed in COINTELPRO-like purges.[137][138] Kate Martin, of the Center For National Security Studies said of the use of military spy satellites being used to monitor the activities of U.S. citizens: "They are laying the bricks one at a time for a police state."[109] Some point to the blurring of lines between public and private places, and the privatization of places traditionally seen as public (such as shopping malls and industrial parks) as illustrating the increasing legality of collecting personal information.[140] Traveling through many public places such as government offices is hardly optional for most people, yet consumers have little choice but to submit to companies' surveillance practices.[141] Surveillance techniques are not created equal; among the many biometric identification technologies, for instance, face recognition requires the least cooperation. Unlike automatic fingerprint reading, which requires an individual to press a finger against a machine, this technique is subtle and requires little to no consent.[141] Psychological/social effects See also: Hawthorne effect Some critics, such as Michel Foucault, believe that in addition to its obvious function of identifying and capturing individuals who are committing undesirable acts, surveillance also functions to create in everyone a feeling of always being watched, so that they become self-policing. This allows the State to control the populace without having to resort to physical force, which is expensive and otherwise problematic.[142] With the development of digital technology, individuals have become increasingly perceptible to one another, as surveillance becomes virtual. Online surveillance is the utilization of the internet to observe one's activity.[143] Corporations, citizens, and governments participate in tracking others' behaviours for motivations that arise out of business relations, to curiosity, to legality. In her book Superconnected, Mary Chayko differentiates between two types of surveillance: vertical and horizontal.[143] Vertical surveillance occurs when there is a dominant force, such as the government that is attempting to control or regulate the actions of a given society. Such powerful authorities often justify their incursions as a means to protect society from threats of violence or terrorism. Some individuals question when this becomes an infringement on civil rights.[143] Horizontal diverges from vertical surveillance as the tracking shifts from an authoritative source to an everyday figure, such as a friend, coworker, or stranger that is interested in one's mundane activities.[143] Individuals leave traces of information when they are online that reveal their interests and desires of which others observe. While this can allow people to become interconnected and develop social connections online, it can also increase potential risk to harm, such as cyberbullying or censoring/stalking by strangers, reducing privacy.[143] In addition, Simone Browne argues that surveillance wields an immense racializing quality such that it operates as "racializing surveillance." Browne uses racializing surveillance to refer to moments when enactments of surveillance are used to reify boundaries, borders, and bodies along racial lines and where the outcome is discriminatory treatment of those who are negatively racialized by such surveillance. Browne argues racializing surveillance pertains to policing what is "in or out of place."[144][145] Privacy Numerous civil rights groups and privacy groups oppose surveillance as a violation of people's right to privacy. Such groups include: Electronic Privacy Information Center, Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union and Privacy International. There have been several lawsuits such as Hepting v. AT&T and EPIC v. Department of Justice by groups or individuals, opposing certain surveillance activities. Legislative proceedings such as those that took place during the Church Committee, which investigated domestic intelligence programs such as COINTELPRO, have also weighed the pros and cons of surveillance. Court cases People vs. Diaz (2011) was a court case in the realm of cell phone privacy, even though the decision was later overturned. In this case, Gregory Diaz was arrested during a sting operation for attempting to sell ecstasy. During his arrest, police searched Diaz's phone and found more incriminating evidence including SMS text messages and photographs depicting illicit activities. During his trial, Diaz attempted to have the information from his cell phone removed from evidence, but the courts deemed it as lawful and Diaz's appeal was denied on the California State Court level and, later, the Supreme Court level. Just three short years after, this decision was overturned in the case Riley vs. California (2014).[146] Riley vs. California (2014) was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which a man was arrested for his involvement in a drive-by shooting. A few days after the shooting the police made an arrest of the suspect (Riley), and, during the arrest, the police searched him. However, this search was not only of Riley's person, but also the police opened and searched his cell phone, finding pictures of other weapons, drugs, and of Riley showing gang signs. In court, the question arose whether searching the phone was lawful or if the search was protected by the 4th amendment of the constitution. The decision held that the search of Riley's cell phone during the arrest was illegal, and that it was protected by the 4th Amendment.[147] Countersurveillance, inverse surveillance, sousveillance Countersurveillance is the practice of avoiding surveillance or making surveillance difficult. Developments in the late twentieth century have caused counter surveillance to dramatically grow in both scope and complexity, such as the Internet, increasing prevalence of electronic security systems, high-altitude (and possibly armed) UAVs, and large corporate and government computer databases.[148] Other examples include encrypted messenger apps such as Signal[149][150] and privacy cryptocurrencies such as Monero[151][152] and ZCash.[153] Inverse surveillance is the practice of the reversal of surveillance on other individuals or groups (e.g., citizens photographing police). Well-known examples include George Holliday's recording of the Rodney King beating and the organization Copwatch, which attempts to monitor police officers to prevent police brutality. Counter-surveillance can be also used in applications to prevent corporate spying, or to track other criminals by certain criminal entities. It can also be used to deter stalking methods used by various entities and organizations. Sousveillance is inverse surveillance, involving the recording by private individuals, rather than government or corporate entities.[154] Popular culture In literature George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four portrays a fictional totalitarian surveillance society with a very simple mass surveillance system consisting of human operatives, informants, and two-way "telescreens" in people's homes. Because of the impact of this book, mass-surveillance technologies are commonly called "Orwellian" when they are considered problematic. The novel mistrust highlights the negative effects from the overuse of surveillance at Reflection House. The central character Kerryn installs secret cameras to monitor her housemates – see also Paranoia. The book The Handmaid's Tale, as well as a film and TV series based on it, portray a totalitarian Christian theocracy where all citizens are kept under constant surveillance. In the book The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Lisbeth Salander uses computers to get information on people, as well as other common surveillance methods, as a freelancer. V for Vendetta, a British graphic novel written by Alan Moore David Egger's novel The Circle exhibits a world where a single company called "The Circle" produces all of the latest and highest quality technologies from computers and smartphones, to surveillance cameras known as "See-Change cameras". This company becomes associated with politics when starting a movement where politicians go "transparent" by wearing See-Change cameras on their body to prevent keeping secrets from the public about their daily work activity. In this society, it becomes mandatory to share personal information and experiences because it is The Circle's belief that everyone should have access to all information freely. However, as Eggers illustrates, this takes a toll on the individuals and creates a disruption of power between the governments and the private company. The Circle presents extreme ideologies surrounding mandatory surveillance. Eamon Bailey, one of the Wise Men, or founders of The Circle, believes that possessing the tools to access information about anything or anyone, should be a human right given to all of the world's citizens.[155] By eliminating all secrets, any behaviour that has been deemed shameful will either become normalized or no longer considered shocking. Negative actions will eventually be eradicated from society altogether, through the fear of being exposed to other citizens[155] This would be achieved in part by everyone going transparent, something that Bailey highly supports, although it is notable that none of the Wise Men ever became transparent themselves. One major goal of The Circle is to have all of the world's information filtered through The Circle, a process they call "Completion".[155] A single, private company would then have full access and control over all information and privacy of individuals and governments. Ty Gospodinov, the first founder of The Circle, has major concerns about the completion of the circle. He warns that this step would give The Circle too much power and control, and would quickly lead to totalitarianism. In music The Dead Kennedys' song "I Am The Owl" is about government surveillance and social engineering of political groups. The Vienna Teng song "Hymn of Acxiom" is about corporate data collection and surveillance. Onscreen Main article: List of films featuring surveillance The film Gattaca portrays a society that uses biometric surveillance to distinguish between people who are genetically engineered "superior" humans and genetically natural "inferior" humans. In the movie Minority Report, the police and government intelligence agencies use micro aerial vehicles in SWAT operations and for surveillance purposes. HBO's crime-drama series The Sopranos regularly portrays the FBI's surveillance of the DiMeo Crime Family. Audio devices they use include "bugs" placed in strategic locations (e.g., in "I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano" and "Mr. Ruggerio's Neighborhood") and hidden microphones worn by operatives (e.g., in "Rat Pack") and informants (e.g., in "Funhouse", "Proshai, Livushka" and "Members Only"). Visual devices include hidden still cameras (e.g., in "Pax Soprana") and video cameras (e.g., in "Long Term Parking"). The movie THX-1138 portrays a society wherein people are drugged with sedatives and antidepressants, and have surveillance cameras watching them everywhere they go. The movie The Lives of Others portrays the monitoring of East Berlin by agents of the Stasi, the GDR's secret police. The movie The Conversation portrays many methods of audio surveillance. The movie V for Vendetta, a 2005 dystopian political thriller film directed by James McTeigue and written by the Wachowskis, is about British government trying to brainwash people by media, obtain their support by fearmongering, monitor them by mass surveillance devices, and suppress or kill any political or social objection. The movie Enemy of the State a 1998 American action-thriller film directed by Tony Scott is about using U.S. citizens' data to search their background and surveillance devices to capture everyone that is identified as "enemy". The British TV series The Capture explores the potential for video surveillance to be manipulated in order to support a conviction to pursue a political agenda. See also Computer and network surveillance Mass surveillance Sousveillance Surveillance art Surveillance capitalism Surveillance system monitor Trapwire Participatory surveillance PRISM (surveillance program) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism Vulkan files leak Surveillance in New Zealand Surveillance in the Ottoman Empire References Lyon, David (2001). Surveillance Society: Monitoring in Everyday Life. Philadelphia: Open University Press. ISBN 978-0-335-20546-2. Monahan, Torin; Murakami Wood, David (2018). Surveillance Studies: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190297824. Greenleaf, Richard E. (2018). "Historiography of the Mexican Inquisition: Evolution of Interpretations and Methodologies". In Perry, Mary Elizabeth; Cruz, Anne J. (eds.). Cultural Encounters: The Impact of the Inquisition in Spain and the New World. Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, UCLA. Vol. 24. Berleley: University of California Press. p. 260. ISBN 9780520301245. Retrieved March 14, 2020. "Studies [...] are based partially on Inquisition surveillance of foreigners and Protestants." Cardwell, Harvey (2005). Principles of Audit Surveillance. R.T. Edwards, Inc. p. 102. ISBN 9781930217133. Retrieved March 14, 2020. "[...] accounts and inventories alike are generally within the area of surveillance of the auditor [...]." Stallman, Richard M. (October 14, 2013). "Stallman: How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand?". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved April 15, 2020. "The Psychology of Espionage" (PDF). The Psychology of Espionage. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 9, 2020. Retrieved October 1, 2022. Radsan, A. John (Spring 2007). "The Unresolved Equation of Espionage and International Law". Michigan Journal of International Law. 28 (3): 595–623. Diffie, Whitfield; Susan Landau (August 2008). "Internet Eavesdropping: A Brave New World of Wiretapping". Scientific American. Retrieved March 13, 2009. "CALEA Archive – Electronic Frontier Foundation". Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). Archived from the original on May 3, 2009. Retrieved March 14, 2009. "CALEA: The Perils of Wiretapping the Internet". Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). Retrieved March 14, 2009. "CALEA: Frequently Asked Questions". Electronic Frontier Foundation (website). September 20, 2007. Retrieved March 14, 2009. Hill, Michael (October 11, 2004). "Government funds chat room surveillance research". USA Today. Associated Press. Retrieved March 19, 2009. McCullagh, Declan (January 30, 2007). "FBI turns to broad new wiretap method". ZDNet News. Retrieved September 26, 2014. "FBI's Secret Spyware Tracks Down Teen Who Made Bomb Threats". Wired Magazine. July 18, 2007. Van Eck, Wim (1985). "Electromagnetic Radiation from Video Display Units: An Eavesdropping Risk?" (PDF). Computers & Security. 4 (4): 269–286. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.35.1695. doi:10.1016/0167-4048(85)90046-X. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022. Kuhn, M.G. (2004). "Electromagnetic Eavesdropping Risks of Flat-Panel Displays" (PDF). 4th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies: 23–25. Risen, James; Lichtblau, Eric (June 16, 2009). "E-Mail Surveillance Renews Concerns in Congress". The New York Times. pp. A1. Retrieved June 30, 2009. Ambinder, Marc (June 16, 2009). "Pinwale And The New NSA Revelations". The Atlantic. Retrieved June 30, 2009. Greenwald; Ewen, Glen; MacAskill (June 6, 2013). "NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others" (PDF). The Guardian. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2022. Retrieved February 1, 2017. Sottek, T.C.; Kopfstein, Janus (July 17, 2013). "Everything you need to know about PRISM". The Verge. Retrieved February 13, 2017. Singel, Ryan (September 10, 2007). "Rogue FBI Letters Hint at Phone Companies' Own Data Mining Programs – Updated". Threat Level. Wired. Retrieved March 19, 2009. Roland, Neil (March 20, 2007). "Mueller Orders Audit of 56 FBI Offices for Secret Subpoenas". Bloomberg News. Retrieved March 19, 2009. Piller, Charles; Eric Lichtblau (July 29, 2002). "FBI Plans to Fight Terror With High-Tech Arsenal". LA Times. Retrieved March 14, 2009. Schneier, Bruce (December 5, 2006). "Remotely Eavesdropping on Cell Phone Microphones". Schneier On Security. Retrieved December 13, 2009. McCullagh, Declan; Anne Broache (December 1, 2006). "FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool". CNet News. Archived from the original on November 10, 2013. Retrieved March 14, 2009. Odell, Mark (August 1, 2005). "Use of mob

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has repeatedly intervened in the internal affairs of Iran, from the Mosaddegh coup of 1953 to the present day. The CIA is said to have collaborated with the last Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Its personnel may have been involved in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s. More recently in 2007-8 CIA operatives were claimed to be supporting the Sunni terrorist group Jundallah against Iran, but these claims were refuted by a later investigation. Mosaddegh coup Main article: 1953 Iranian coup d'état Background In the early 1900s, Iran's Imperial Leader awarded British businesses exclusive property rights to what would eventually become one of the world's greatest oil reserves. British investment established the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, known today as British Petroleum (BP), and in 1913, the British government purchased a majority of the stake in the partnership. By 1920, approximately 1.5 million tons of oil extracted by the Anglo-Persian oil firm yielded tremendous profits for the British, but Iran earned only 16% in royalty fees.[1] For Mohammed Mosaddegh and many Iranian likes, the control of Iran’s oil wealth was becoming intolerable. This was grounded in the sentiment of foreign exploitation of her domestic resources and wealth. In the 1940s, Mossadegh had won the support to champion the course of Iranian “Self Determination.�[2] Soon he was elected to parliament to drive the interest of the Iranian course in 1943. By 1950, 40% of U.S. and 75% of European oil was produced in Iran. In 1951, the drive for control of Iranian Oil wealth intensified with the election of Mosaddegh as the Prime Minister. As a leader of the House, he supervised and participated in the Parliamentary vote that nationalize the Oil industry of Iran to have a reasonable stake in its affairs. This move was inspired by similar oil-producing countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia who earned 50% from their relatively Oil profit.[1] To the West and the CIA in particular, such development was mainly driven form Mosaddeq’s quest for personal power, governed with irresponsible emotional policies: in a manner that had weakened the Shah and the Iranian Army.[3] By the end of the year 1952, it had become clear that the Mosaddeqh government threatened the interest of the Western Countries while gradually lining towards the Soviets. Britain protested Mosaddegh's actions in the UN court but lost their case. To make matters worse for the Mosaddegh regime, the British government imposed heavy economic sanctions and embargoes on Iranian oil while also succeeded in halting trading of Iran with neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia. Despite these hardships, Mosaddegh refused to abandon his stance. So the British turned to the US for help. In 1952, Britain constructed a plan for a Coup and pressed the U.S. to mount a joint operation to remove the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh[4] and install the Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi to rule Iran autocratically. Representatives of British Intelligence met with CIA representatives in Washington in November and December 1952 to discuss a joint war and stay-behind plans in Iran. Although it was not on the previously agreed upon agenda of the meeting, British Intelligence representatives brought up the proposition of a joint political action to remove Prime Minister Mosaddegh. However with Truman as the United States president, it was clear his administration was neither ready to start a conflict nor join the British Intelligence Secrete Services (ISS) to facilitate the removal of Mosaddeqh from office: believing at the time that the democratic Mosaddegh was the best deterrent to communist influence in Iran.[1] With Eisenhower becoming president in January 1953, fearing a possible alliance between Iran and the Soviet Union, such a joint operation between the CIA and ISS seems possible.[5] Plan Y, was an operation that would have consisted of a three-part attack. These three parts would involve an assault on land, air, and sea. Britain attempted to seek aid from the United States under the Truman administration, but the U.S. declined since any armed military aggression could lead to an open conflict with the Soviet Union. In March 1953, the CIA began to draft a plan to overthrow Mosaddegh, called Operation AJAX which later became the TRAJAX. Plotting The Coup On April 4, 1953, the CIA had an approved budget of $1,000,000 to use on the operation. The CIA was instructed to use that money in any way to bring down Mosaddegh.[6] On April 16, 1953, a comprehensive study entitled: "Factors Involved in the Overthrow of Mosaddegh" was completed. The study indicated that an alliance between the Shah and General Zahedi, supported by local CIA assets and financial backing, would have a good chance of overthrowing Mosaddegh because of the possible large mobs and possible garrison refusal to carry out orders from Mosaddegh.[6] It was also partially due to this report, and partially due to the fear of Communist overthrow and spreading in the region due to the increasing influence of the Communist Tudeh party and the Soviet Union.[7] The US also decided to become involved to gain control of a larger share of Iranian oil supplies. The US agreed to the operation dreamed up by the British [8] Brigadier General Norman Schwarzkopf, Sr. , and CIA guru Kermit Roosevelt, Jr. were ordered to begin a covert operation to overthrow Mosaddegh. The resulting operation was inspired by Plan Y and was renamed Operation Ajax. On June 22, CIA Officials George Carroll and Donald Wilber were tasked with leading the two groups that contributed to the operational preparations. Caroll was to organize a study for the military aspect, while Wilber focused on the psychological warfare tactics.[9] Operation Ajax was granted authorization by the Department of State and the British Foreign Office in mid-July 1953.[10] Operation Ajax was conceived and executed by the US Embassy in Tehran. The same location where the 1979 Hostage Crisis would take place years later. Operation Ajax, also known as TPAJAX was aimed to cause the fall of the Mosaddegh government. It also aimed to reestablish the power of the Shah, and replace the Mosaddegh government with one that could govern Iran according to "constructive policies."[11] Operation Ajax had four main parts: First, a massive propaganda campaign to ruin Mosaddegh's name and accuse him of communist affiliations (though he was famously democratic). Second, encourage disturbances within Iran. Third, pressure the Shah into selecting a new prime minister to replace Mosaddegh. Fourth, support Zahedi as a replacement for Mosaddegh.[12] Operation Ajax or the Tudeh party as the front of the CIA operation continued its propaganda so well that the acting director of the CIA Frank G Wisner pushed for accommodations for the radio operators.[13] To gain cooperation with the Shah, CIA and British operatives coordinated with his twin sister Princess Ashraf to "induce the Shah to play his role."[9] This plan was broken up into three stages: First, a British representative would visit the Shah and assure him that he receives both U.S. and U.K.'s support in opposing Mossadeq. Second, General Schwarzkopf would also make a visit and be introduced as a U.S.special representative. In the visit, Schwarzkopf was to communicate how both goverments are "determined to help the Iranians to help themselves to keep their country from falling into the Soviet hands."[9] He needed to stress the financial issues Iran might face without his cooperation and threaten Iran would no longer receive financial aid from the U.S. as long as Mossadeq was in power, as well as how the Shah would be "solely responsible for the collapse of the country and its loss of independence."[9] There also needed to be a mutual agreement that Zahedi is an effective candidate to succeed Mossadeq. Soon after this visit, a British representative was to make an identical trip to reinforce these statements. Lastly, Princess Ashraf needed to visit her brother to acquire his signature on documents that named Zahedi as Chief of Staff and ensured all ranks of officers and military were to "carry out faithfully the orders of the Chief of Staff whom the Shah has named."[9] CIA propaganda in Iran - "Mosaddegh's Spy Service" CIA propaganda in Iran: "Our National Character" The CIA prepared and released propaganda to undermine Mosaddegh's political position. One of these, called "Mosaddeq’s Spy Service", claimed that Mosaddegh had built up an extensive spy service of his own to bolster himself as dictator.[14] Another piece, titled "Our National Character," claimed that Mosaddegh's alliance with the Tudeh Party was "corrupting the character of the Iranian people."[15] Furthermore, an internal CIA memo entitled "Campaign to Install Pro-Western Government In Iran" specifies that one of the CIA's main goals in Iran was to "disenchant the Iranian population with the myth of Mossadeq's patriotism, by exposing his collaboration with the Communists and his manipulation of constitutional authority to serve his own personal ambitions for power."[16] Operation Ajax was put into motion the following year in June, starting with the arrival of key figures, such as Norman Schwarzkopf and Kermit Roosevelt, into Iran. This was a covert operation with the goal of removing Mosaddegh, and then reinstating Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In the leadup to the operation's execution, officials such as Kermit Roosevelt met with the Shah to discuss the plan and prepare propaganda.[17] However, the operation was initially unsuccessful after the soldiers sent to dismiss Mosaddegh on August 15, 1953, were stopped before the operation could move forward. According to Donald Wilber, one of the CIA operatives who planned the coup and wrote the CIA history on the operation, there were conflicting reports on what occurred that day and how the operation was unable to be completed. The statement released by Mosaddegh's group claimed that the soldiers had been arrested by his personal guards.[4] Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of former President Theodore Roosevelt, and head of CIA operations in the Middle East;[18] with the cooperation of the Department of State, had articles planted in the United States but when reproduced in Iran, it had psychological effects in Iran and contributed to the coup. With Mosaddegh resisting British pressure, the United States entered the conflict, lured by the prospect of controlling a greater portion of Iran's oil supplies. Mosaddegh's reputation was damaged by propaganda campaigns that incorrectly associated him with communism and denigrated the Iranian people. An attempt to overthrow the democratically elected leader was set in motion.[19] A notable, effective cause for public unease with Mosaddegh's leadership was the letter that President Eisenhower sent him in response to his call to the U.S. for economic aid, due to not agreeing to the British oil deal. Eisenhower writes "The failure of Iran and of the United Kingdom to reach an agreement with regard to compensation has handicapped the Government of the United States in its efforts to help Iran."[20] According to CIA reports, this succeeded in weakening Mosaddegh's position and turned the media, the Parliament, and the populace against him.[21] The CIA also increased their propaganda campaign to link Mosaddegh to communists, with Kermit Roosevelt paying a group of people to act as a mob supporting the Tudeh party and Mosaddegh, rioting in Tehran. This was done after the first failed coup attempt and used the rising tensions following the aftermath to create unrest to support the second attempt. In an attempt at a second coup, the CIA began to bribe the army and police officials.[22][23] For Zahedi to receive the financial assistance he badly needed, the CIA made 5 million dollars available within two days of Zahedi's assumption of power. After several attempts and over 7 million dollars were spent, operations to overthrow Mosaddegh were completed Zahedi immediately implemented martial law and began executing nationalist leaders. Zahedi had accomplished this by coming out of hiding from the U.S. Embassy[24] and immediately drove to the nearest radio station to publicly announce his takeover. This ensued with the Imperial Guards launching the assault on Mosaddegh's house with tanks, artillery, and bazookas.[24] Mosaddegh again had fled over the back wall of his house, escaping death again.[24] Mosaddegh was spared from execution by serving 3 years in solitary confinement and after he remained on house arrest until his death.[22][25] The Coup in Iran was the CIA's first successful coup operation.[26] Mosaddegh was removed from power and Iran's oil shares were split amongst the British, French, and United States for a 25-year agreement in which Iran would earn 50% of the oil profits.[27] Britain earned 40% of the oil shares, the Dutch Oil Company, Shell received 14%, French CFP received 6%, and the United States received the remaining 40%. Quickly following the removal of Mosaddegh in 1953, the U.S. installed a pro-U.S. dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Over the next decades, the Shah increased the economic strength of Iran but he also repressed political dissent. He accomplished this through the use of a secret police force known as the SAVAK, which was created with the support of the CIA and Mossad. The Shah was accused by many of trying to get rid of Islam, even though the country's population was over 90% Muslim.[26] This eventually led to the rise of political Islam in Iran.[28][29] In a speech on March 17, 2000, before the American Iranian Council on the relaxation of U.S. sanctions against Iran, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said: "In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular prime minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh. As the CIA's first successful coup, Operation Ajax left Iran with a resentment for the U.S. that would lead directly to conflicts such as the Iran hostage crisis. The aftershocks of these events continue to influence Iran's political and cultural landscape today. Overthrow of Premier Mosaddegh of Iran (Memo) Further proof of the United States' involvement was announced on March 19, 2013, the 60th anniversary of the overthrow, when the National Security Service posted recently declassified documents that the CIA had on the coup.[30] Although previous to this the CIA claimed that all the documents about 1953 were destroyed or lost in the 1960s because of lack of storage space.[30] A 200-page report written by Donald Wilbur for the CIA goes into detail regarding the planning, execution, and result of the coup.[4][30] Wilbur's report Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran: November 1952 - August 1953 attempts to outline the need for proper representation of the coup and the necessity to expose the CIA operations in Iran. Released by the New York Times on April 16, 2000, the newspaper utilized Wilbur's writing and reported the facts behind the reason for a coup.[1] He argues that due to the emotional instability of Mosaddegh the Iranian government, military, and Shah were at risk of Soviet takeover and the possibility of communist influence.[2] Thus beginning the aim to crush the communist parties and prevent the 'Reds' from infiltrating the British and American stronghold in Iran. SAVAK In 1973 the CIA moved its Headquarters overseeing the Middle East from Cyprus to Tehran, with the appointment of Richard Helms as U.S. Ambassador to Iran. They also trained over 400 SAVAK officers a year near Mclean, Virginia. They were taught surveillance and intel collection techniques according to John Ghazvinian.[31] Reconnaissance of USSR Through the Cold War in the 1960s and 1970s, the CIA used its alliance with the government of Iran to acquire an advantage over their Soviet counterparts with the Iranian airfields, airspace, and Air Force assets for aggressive, airborne reconnaissance missions along the edge of the Soviet territories and Warsaw Pact countries in Project Dark Gene.[32] The advantage gained over their Soviet counterparts was crucial to the almost daily sorties that were flown near the borders of the USSR and Warsaw Pact countries. Below there is a map of the USSR highlighted in green. You can see the Middle Eastern States that border the far southern Soviet States, which helps us to identify the motives for the U.S. and the American intelligence community's obsession over states such as Iran. By allowing American military and spy forces to stage in northern Iran, it would ensure less likely suicide missions and more friendly airspace. This helped to keep the number of pilots and personnel killed in action to a minimum. During the 1970s, Iran maintained a good relationship with the United States, which allowed the U.S. to install long-range radar technology and establish listening posts enabling the U.S. to monitor activities in the Soviet Union.[32] Information of the KGB USSR to the International Department of the CC CPSU, October 10, 1979. "The Leadership of Iran About the External Security of the Country" "According to KGB information, in August in Teheran a secret meeting was held with the participation of representatives of the Prime Minister, the Ministries of Foreign and Internal Affairs, the Intelligence and Operational Administrations of the General Staff, Gendarme and Police Administrations of the General Staff and the Staff of the "Corps of Defenders of the Revolution," with the goal of studying issues which touch on the security of Iran. It was noted that the USSR and the US, which have their own interests in this region, are worried about the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran.~ presumed that the USA might resort to a direct military threat and realization of a blockade. But if Iran will not take sharp steps which hurt the US, and will obstruct the penetration of the Soviets, this will ease the position of the USA. Evaluating the policy of the USSR in relation to the Iranian regime, the participants in the meeting concluded that insofar as strengthening the Islamic republic will lead to a weakening of the position of the regime in Afghanistan, exert a certain influence on the Muslim republics in the USSR and will be "a brake in the path of penetration of Communism in the region," the Soviet Union "will not turn away from the ideological struggle and efforts to put into power in Iran a leftist government." It was stressed that with the aim of weakening the Islamic regime the USSR might organize "provocative" activity among Iranian Kurds, Azeris, Turkmen, Baluchis, support leftist forces, create economic difficulties, resort to a military threat based on the agreement of 1921. It was noted that Afghanistan is not in any condition to undertake military actions against Iran. However, border conflicts are not excluded. In addition, Afghanistan needs economic assistance from Iran, which might soften its position. The positions of Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia were also analyzed."[33] Based on research notes taken at the Center for the Preservation of Contemporary Documentation (Moscow), Fond 5, Opis 76, File 1355, Pages 17-20. Identification of leftists Following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, which overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty and installed the theocratic regime of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the CIA maintained its interest in the remnants of the Tudeh Party. A 1981 CIA report warned that "since the collapse of the Pahlavi monarchy, the pro-Soviet, Communist Tudeh Party has emerged from years of repression and exile to become a small but influential political force in Iran."[34] According to that same report, the CIA was aware that the hardline Islamist policies of the new Iranian government were likely to alienate the population, thus broadening the appeal of the Tudeh Party, while also noting that the party "also benefits from the continuing decay of the Iranian economy, which alienates more and more Iranians from the mullahs' mismanagement."[34] Anticipating that the Tudeh would "bide its time and prepare for the day—perhaps Khomeini's death—when a challenge to the regime could have some chance of success," the CIA opted to aid the Khomeini government in its suppression of leftists.[34] In 1983, the CIA passed an extensive list of Iranian communists and other leftists secretly working in the Iranian government to Khomeini's administration.[35] A Tower Commission report later observed that the list was utilized to take "measures, including mass executions, that virtually eliminated the pro-Soviet infrastructure in Iran."[35][36] Iran-Contra affair Beginning in August 1984, senior Reagan administration officials, in the Iran-Contra affair, arranged for the indirect transfer of arms to Iran, to circumvent the Boland Amendments. These amendments were intended to prevent the expenditure of US funds to support the Nicaraguan Contras. Since the arms-for-hostages deal struck by the Reagan Administration channeled money to the Contras, the legal interpretation of the time was that the CIA, as an organization, could not participate in Iran-Contra. The relationships, first to avoid the Boland Amendment restriction, but also for operational security, did not directly give or sell U.S. weapons to Iran. Instead, the Reagan Administration authorized Israel to sell munitions to Iran, using contracted Iranian arms broker Manucher Ghorbanifar.[37] The Reagan administration circumvented the law by using Israel and South Africa to send weapons to Iran. To finance the Contras, the United States used the money from the weaponry sales and sent it to the Contras.[38] The proceeds from the sales, less the 41% markup charged by Ghorbanifar and originally at a price not acceptable to Iran, went directly to the Contras. Those proceeds were not interpreted as U.S. funds. The Administration resupplied Israel, which was not illegal, with munitions that replaced those transferred to Iran. While Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) William Casey was deeply involved in Iran-Contra, Casey, a World War II Office of Strategic Services (OSS) clandestine operations officer, ran the Iran operation with people outside the CIA, such as White House/National Security Council employees such as John Poindexter and Oliver North, as well as retired special operations personnel such as John K. Singlaub and Richard Secord.[39] The scandal was ultimately compounded by a failure of the US to hide its delivery of weapons to the Iranians.The principal objective of North's clandestine mission was to deliver eight hundred antiquated missiles on an EL Al 747 to Lisbon, where they would then be transferred to a Nicaraguan plane secured by General Richard Secord. Secord's role in the mission was to then take the missiles to Tehran. CIA officials, most notably Duane Clarridge, worked around the clock to secure a better way of delivery. In late November 1985, a CIA 707 was secured from Frankfurt to deliver eighteen HAWK missiles to the Iranians on Monday, November 25. The plan required proof of presidential backing, which, due to the timing of the events, required a retroactive signature authorizing, "the provision of assistance by the Central Intelligence Agency to private parties in their attempt to obtain the release of Americans held hostage in the Middle East."[40] The document was signed by Reagan on December 5, 1985. The United States was convicted of violating international law by the International Court of Justice in the 1986 case of Nicaragua v. United States. The US had been caught illegal funding the Contras, contributing to Nicaraguan Contras, supporting a campaign of international force, or "state-sponsored international terrorism."[41] The US ignored the ruling and refused to participate or pay the reparations that had been ordered by the court.[42] Intelligence Analysis The Islamic Republic of Iran, or more commonly known by its shorthand name Iran, was described as a problem area in the February 2005 report by Porter Goss, then CIA Director, to the Senate Intelligence Committee.[43] "In early February, the spokesman of Iran's Supreme Council for National Security publicly announced that Iran would never scrap its nuclear program. This came amid negotiations with EU-3 members (Britain, Germany, and France) seeking objective guarantees from Tehran that it will not use nuclear technology for nuclear weapons. This is unsurprising given the political instability that has gripped the nation since the US and British intervention in 1953, and the shaky economic conditions that have gripped the nation for decades. Iran's economy is almost completely dependent on foreign oil exports, and its government is racked with blatant and open corruption.[44] "Previous comments by Iranian officials, including Iran's Supreme Leader and its Foreign Minister, indicated that Iran would not give up its ability to enrich uranium. Certainly, they can use it to produce fuel for power reactors. We are more concerned about the dual-use nature of the technology that could also be used to achieve a nuclear weapon. "In parallel, Iran continues its pursuit of long-range ballistic missiles, such as an improved version of its 1,300 km range Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM), to add to the hundreds of short-range SCUD missiles it already has. "Even since 9/11, Tehran continues to support terrorist groups in the region, such as Hizballah, and could encourage increased attacks in Israel and the Palestinian Territories to derail progress toward peace. Iran reportedly is supporting some anti-Coalition activities in Iraq and seeking to influence the future character of the Iraqi state. Iran continues to retain in secret important members of Al-Qai'ida-the Management Council—causing further uncertainty about Iran's commitment to bring them to justice. "Conservatives are likely to consolidate their power in Iran's June 2005 presidential elections, further marginalizing the reform movement last year." Alleged support for terrorist groups During 2007–2008, there were allegations that the CIA was supporting the Sunni terrorist group Jundallah, but these claims were debunked by a subsequent investigation showing that the CIA "had barred even the most incidental contact with Jundallah." The rumors originated in an Israeli Mossad "false flag" operation; Mossad agents posing as CIA officers met with and recruited members of Jundullah in cities such as London to carry out attacks against Iran. President George W. Bush "went absolutely ballistic" when he learned of Israel's actions, but the situation was not resolved until President Barack Obama's administration "drastically scaled back joint U.S.-Israel intelligence programs targeting Iran" and ultimately designated Jundallah a terrorist organization in November 2010.[45] Although the CIA cut all ties with Jundallah after the 2007 Zahedan bombings, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and United States Department of Defense continued to gather intelligence on Jundallah through assets cultivated by "FBI counterterrorism task force officer" Thomas McHale; the CIA co-authorized a 2008 trip McHale made to meet his informants in Afghanistan. According to The New York Times: "Current and former officials say the American government never directed or approved any Jundallah operations. And they say there was never a case when the United States was told the timing and target of a terrorist attack yet took no action to prevent it."[46] Operation Merlin Operation Merlin was a United States covert operation under the Clinton Administration to provide Iran with a flawed design for a component of a nuclear weapon ostensibly in order to delay the alleged Iranian nuclear weapons program or to frame Iran.[47] In his book State of War, author and intelligence correspondent for The New York Times James Risen relates that the CIA chose a defected Russian nuclear scientist to provide deliberately flawed nuclear warhead blueprints to Iranian officials in February 2000.[48] Risen wrote in his book that President Clinton had approved the operation and that the Bush administration later endorsed the plan.[48][49] Earlier publication of details on Operation Merlin by the New York Times in 2003 was prevented by the intervention of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice with the NYT's Executive Editor Howell Raines.[50] Operation Merlin backfired when the CIA's Russian contact/messenger noticed flaws in the schematics and told the Iranian nuclear scientists.[51] Instead of crippling Iran's nuclear program, the book alleges, Operation Merlin may have accelerated it by providing useful information: once the flaws were identified, the plans could be compared with other sources, such as those presumed to have been provided to the Iranians by A. Q. Khan.[51] Sabotage of Iran's nuclear program Operation Olympic Games Operation Olympic Games was a covert and still unacknowledged campaign of sabotage by means of cyber disruption, directed at Iranian nuclear facilities by the United States and likely Israel. As reported, it is one of the first known uses of offensive cyber weapons.[52] Starting under the administration of George W. Bush in 2006, the Olympic Games were accelerated under President Obama, who heeded Bush's advice to continue cyber attacks on the Iranian nuclear facility at Natanz.[52] Bush believed that the strategy was the only way to prevent an Israeli conventional strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.[52] During Bush's second term, General James Cartwright along with other intelligence officials presented Bush with a sophisticated code that would act as an offensive cyber weapon. "The goal was to gain access to the Natanz plant's industrial computer controls ... the computer code would invade the specialized computers that command the centrifuges."[52] Collaboration happened with Israel's SIGINT intelligence service, Unit 8200. Israel's involvement was important to the Americans because the former had "deep intelligence about operations at Natanz that would be vital to making the cyber attack a success."[52] Additionally, American officials wanted to "dissuade the Israelis from carrying out their own preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities."[52] To prevent a conventional strike, Israel had to be deeply involved in Operation Olympic Games. The computer virus created by the two countries became known as "the bug," and Stuxnet by the IT community once it became public. The malicious software temporarily halted approximately 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges from spinning at Natanz. A programming error in "the bug" caused it to spread to computers outside of Natanz. When an engineer "left Natanz and connected [his] computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed."[52] The code replicated on the Internet and was subsequently exposed for public dissemination. IT security firms Symantec and Kaspersky Lab have since examined Stuxnet. It is unclear whether the Americans or Israelis introduced the programming error. According to the Atlantic Monthly, Operation Olympic Games is "probably the most significant covert manipulation of the electromagnetic spectrum since World War II.[53] The New Yorker claims Operation Olympic Games is "the first formal offensive act of pure cyber sabotage by the United States against another country if you do not count electronic penetrations that have preceded conventional military attacks, such as that of Iraq's military computers before the invasion of 2003."[54] The Washington Post reported that Flame malware was also part of the Olympic Games.[55] Leak investigation In June 2013, it was reported that Cartwright was the target of a year-long investigation by the US Department of Justice into the leak of classified information about the operation to the US media.[56] In March 2015, it was reported that the investigation had stalled amid concerns that necessary evidence for prosecution was too sensitive to reveal in court.[57] Stuxnet Main article: Stuxnet Stuxnet is a malicious computer worm believed to be a jointly built American-Israeli cyber weapon.[58] Although neither state has confirmed this openly,[59] anonymous US officials speaking to The Washington Post claimed the worm was developed during the Obama administration to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program with what would seem like a long series of unfortunate accidents.[60] Stuxnet is typically introduced to the target environment via an infected USB flash drive. The worm then propagates across the network, scanning for Siemens Step7 software on computers controlling a PLC. In the absence of either criterion, Stuxnet becomes dormant inside the computer. If both conditions are fulfilled, Stuxnet introduces the infected rootkit onto the PLC and Step7 software, modifying the codes and giving unexpected commands to the PLC while returning a loop of normal operations system values feedback to the users.[61][62] The worm initially spreads indiscriminately but includes a highly specialized malware payload that is designed to target only Siemens supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems that are configured to control and monitor specific industrial processes.[63][64] Stuxnet infects PLCs by subverting the Step-7 software application that is used to reprogram these devices.[65][66] Different variants of Stuxnet targeted five Iranian organizations,[67] with the probable target widely suspected to be uranium enrichment infrastructure in Iran;[66][68][69] Symantec noted in August 2010 that 60% of the infected computers worldwide were in Iran.[70] Siemens stated that the worm has not caused any damage to its customers,[71] but the Iran nuclear program, which uses embargoed Siemens equipment procured secretly, has been damaged by Stuxnet.[72][73] Kaspersky Lab concluded that the sophisticated attack could only have been conducted "with nation-state support".[74] This was further supported by the F-Secure's chief researcher Mikko Hyppönen who commented in a Stuxnet FAQ, "That's what it would look like, yes".[75] On 1 June 2012, an article in The New York Times said that Stuxnet is part of a US and Israeli intelligence operation called "Operation Olympic Games", started under President George W. Bush and expanded under President Barack Obama.[76] On 24 July 2012, an article by Chris Matyszczyk from CNET[77] reported how the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran e-mailed F-Secure's chief research officer Mikko Hyppönen to report a new instance of malware. On 25 December 2012, an Iranian semi-official news agency announced there was a cyberattack by Stuxnet, this time on the industries in the southern area of the country. The virus targeted a power plant and some other industries in Hormozgan province in recent months.[78] A study of the spread of Stuxnet by Symantec showed that the main affected countries in the early days of the infection were Iran, Indonesia and India:[79] Country Share of infected computers Iran 58.85% Indonesia 18.22% India 8.31% Azerbaijan 2.57% United States 1.56% Pakistan 1.28% Other countries 9.2% Iran was reported to have "beefed up" its cyber-war capabilities following the Stuxnet attack and has been suspected of retaliatory attacks against US banks.[80] In a March 2012 interview with CBS News' "60 Minutes", retired USAF General Michael Hayden – who served as director of both the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency – while denying knowledge of who created Stuxnet said that he believed it had been "a good idea" but that it carried a downside in that it had legitimized the use of sophisticated cyberweapons designed to cause physical damage. Hayden said, "There are those out there who can take a look at this... and maybe even attempt to turn it to their own purposes". In the same report, Sean McGurk, a former cybersecurity official at the Department of Homeland Security noted that the Stuxnet source code could now be downloaded online and modified to be directed at new target systems. Speaking of the Stuxnet creators, he said, "They opened the box. They demonstrated the capability... It's not something that can be put back."[81] A Wired magazine article about US General Keith B. Alexander stated: "And he and his cyberwarriors have already launched their first attack. The cyberweapon that came to be known as Stuxnet was created and built by the NSA in partnership with the CIA and Israeli intelligence in the mid-2000s."[82] Duqu Main article: Duqu On 1 September 2011, a new worm was found, thought to be related to Stuxnet. The Laboratory of Cryptography and System Security (CrySyS) of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics analyzed the malware, naming the threat "Duqu".[83][84] Symantec, based on this report, continued the analysis of the threat, calling it "nearly identical to Stuxnet, but with a completely different purpose", and published a detailed technical paper.[85] The main component used in Duqu is designed to capture information[86] such as keystrokes and system information. The exfiltrated data may be used to enable a future Stuxnet-like attack. On 28 December 2011, Kaspersky Lab's director of global research and analysis spoke to Reuters about recent research results showing that the platforms Stuxnet and Duqu both originated in 2007, and are being referred to as Tilded due to the ~d at the beginning of the file names. Also uncovered in this research was the possibility of three more variants based on the Tilded platform.[87] Flam Main article: Flame (malware) In May 2012, the new malware "Flame" was found, thought to be related to Stuxnet.[88] Researchers named the program "Flame" after the name of one of its modules.[88] After analyzing the code of Flame, Kaspersky Lab said that there is a strong relationship between Flame and Stuxnet. An early version of Stuxnet contained code to propagate infections via USB drives that are nearly identical to a Flame module that exploits the same vulnerability.[89] Stars Main article: Stars virus The Stars virus is a computer virus that infects computers running Microsoft Windows. It was named and discovered by Iranian authorities in April 2011. Iran claimed it was used as a tool to commit espionage.[90][91] Western researchers came to believe it is probably the same thing as the Duqu virus, part of the Stuxnet attack on Iran. Abandoned spies In September 2022, Reuters reported that the United States had employed websites disguised as fan pages focused on subjects such as Iranian soccer (Iraniangoals.com) or Johnny Carson to communicate with spies.[92] These sites used fake search bars, which upon the entry of a password, would convert to a page upon which the spy could communicate with the CIA.[92] These sites were poorly built, and their secretive functions were not well-disguised.[92] Reuters reported that this led to the imprisonment of spies such as Gholamreza Hosseini, an engineer.[92] Hosseini was jailed for almost a decade, and did not hear from the CIA after release.[92] See also Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare The CIA Insider's Guide to the Iran Crisis References Operation Ajax | TAKEN HOSTAGE | AMERICAN EXPERIENCE | PBS, retrieved 2024-01-20 "Operation Ajax | TAKEN HOSTAGE | AMERICAN EXPERIENCE | PBS". Retrieved 2024-01-20. "CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup". nsarchive2.gwu.edu. Retrieved 2024-01-20. Wilber, Donald N.; Emmanuel Andrew Maldonado (April 16, 2000). Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran (PDF). The New York Times. Johnson, Anthony. "Operation Ajax: Iran and the CIA Coup in 1953 Pt. 1/2". Youtube. Retrieved 2016-06-17. PDF "Anti-Tudeh Activities of Zahedi Government" (PDF). Retrieved 17 June 2016. CIA. "CAMPAIGN TO INSTALL PRO-WESTERN GOVERNMENT IN IRAN" (PDF). Retrieved 17 June 2016. Wilber, Dr. Donald (March 1954). "CIA, Clandestine Services History, Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran: November 1952-August 1953" (PDF). CIA Records – via The National Security Archive. "Summary" (PDF). nsarchive.gwu.edu. Retrieved 17 June 2016. Summary Johnson, Anthony. "Operation Ajax: Iran and the CIA Coup in 1953". YouTube. Retrieved 17 June 2016. 20communicators "CIA Propaganda in Iran - Mossadeq's Spy Service". Abrahamian, Ervand (2021). Oil Crisis in Iran: From Nationalism to Coup d'Etat. Cambridge University Press. p. 129. ISBN 9781108837491. "Campaign to Install Pro-Western Government In Iran" (PDF). National Security Archive. 1954. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 4, 2023. Retrieved January 19, 2024. History of U.S. Intervention in Iran - 1953 Until Present, retrieved 2024-01-20 Roosevelt, Kermit. "Memo" (PDF). History of U.S. Intervention in Iran - 1953 Until Present, retrieved 2024-01-20 "Exchange of Messages Between the President and Prime Minister Mossadegh on the Oil Situation and the Problem of Aid to Iran July 9, 1953". Archived from the original on November 14, 2021. Retrieved June 17, 2016. http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/docs/Doc%205%20-%201953-07-14%20Re%20impact%20Eisenhower%20letter.pdf [bare URL PDF] Capuchin (21 September 2008). "U.S. and Them: Operation Ajax - Iran and the CIA coup (2/2)". Retrieved 18 September 2016 – via YouTube. "Summary" (PDF). U.S. and Them: Operation Ajax - Iran and the CIA coup (2/2), retrieved 2024-01-19 "Prepared statement for after coup" (PDF). US Government. "History of U.S. Intervention in Iran - 1953 Until Present". Youtube. Retrieved 17 June 2016. Johnson, Anthony. "U.S. and Them: Operation Ajax - Iran and the CIA coup". Youtube. Retrieved 17 June 2016. The Crisis of Secular Politics and the Rise of Political Islam in Iran by Ali Mirsepassi-Ashtiani Social Text No. 38 (Spring, 1994), pp. 51-84 Published by: Duke University Press "Religion and Politics in Iran". Archived from the original on 2021-11-14. Retrieved 2016-06-17. "CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup". Retrieved 18 September 2016. Ghazvinian, J. H. (2021). The Final Emperor. In America and Iran: A history, 1720 to the present. essay, Vintage Books, a division of Penguin Random House LLC. pp. 258–258. "Project Ibex and Project Dark Gene". www.spyflight.co.uk. Retrieved 2016-06-17. "The Leadership of Iran About the External Security of the Country" (PDF). nsarchive. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 14, 2021. Retrieved June 6, 2016. "Iran: The Tudeh Party Since the Revolution--An Intelligence Assessment" (PDF). CIA.gov. January 9, 1981. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 January 2024. Retrieved 20 January 2024. Beinin, Joel & Joe Stork (1997). "On the Modernity, Historical Specificity, and International Context of Political Islam". In Joel Beinin & Joe Stork (Eds.), Political Islam: Essays from the Middle East Report. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-520-20448-5. cf. Tower, John; Muskie, Edmund; Scowcroft, Brent (1987). Report of the President's Special Review Board. Bantam Books. p. 104. ISBN 9780553269680. "In 1983, the U.S. helped bring to the attention of Tehran the threat inherent in the extensive infiltration of the government by the communist Tudeh Party and Soviet or pro-Soviet cadres in the country. Using this information, the Khomeini government took measures, including mass executions, that virtually eliminated the pro-Soviet infrastructure in Iran." Available online here. Walsh, Lawrence (1993-08-04). "Vol. I: Investigations and prosecutions". Final report of the independent counsel for Iran/Contra matters. Independent Counsel appointed by the United States Department of Justice. History of U.S. Intervention in Iran - 1953 Until Present, retrieved 2024-01-21 Woodward, Bob (1987). VEIL: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981-1987. New York: Simon and Schuster. Weiner, Tim (2008). Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. New York: Anchor Books. pages 466-467. History of U.S. Intervention in Iran - 1953 Until Present, retrieved 2024-01-21 "International Court of Justice". Archived from the original on 2015-03-01. Retrieved 2016-06-17. Goss, Porter (16 February 2005). "Global Intelligence Challenges 2005". Archived from the original on 2 December 2008. Retrieved 28 April 2008. "Iran". The World Fact Book. US State Department. Archived from the original on 30 May 2016. Retrieved 17 June 2016. Perry, Mark (2012-01-13). "False Flag". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2016-10-16. Risen, James; Apuzzo, Matt (2014-11-08). "Getting Close to Terror, but Not to Stop It". The New York Times. Retrieved 2016-10-16. "USA v. Sterling 10 CIA Exhibits on Merlin Ruse" (PDF). Central Intelligence Agency. 2015-01-14. Retrieved 2015-01-17. Risen, James (2006-01-03). State of War : The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-7432-7066-3. Borger, Julian (2006-01-05). "US blunder aided Iran's atomic aims, book claims". London: Guardian Unlimited. Archived from the original on 2012-10-25. Retrieved 2010-05-20. Harlow, William R. (2015-01-16). "USA v. Sterling Exhibits 105-108 Risen-CIA Logs" (PDF). Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved 2015-01-17. Risen, James (2006-01-05). "George Bush insists that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. So why, six years ago, did the CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb?". London: Guardian Unlimited. Archived from the original on 2014-04-01. Retrieved 2010-05-20. Sanger, David (1 June 2012). "Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran". The New York Times. Retrieved 19 October 2012. President Barack Obama “secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyber weapons� Ambinder, Marc (5 June 2012). "Did America's Cyber Attack on Iran Make Us More Vulnerable". The Atlantic. Retrieved 19 October 2012. Coll, Steve (7 June 2012). "The Rewards (and Risks) of Cyber War". The New Yorker. Retrieved 19 October 2012. Nakashima, Ellen (June 19, 2012). "U.S., Israel developed Flame computer virus to slow Iranian nuclear efforts, officials say". The Washington Post. Retrieved June 20, 2012. Pete Yost (June 28, 2013). "Reports: Retired general target of leaks probe". Associated Press. Archived from the original on February 16, 2015. Retrieved June 28, 2013. Ellen Nakashima and Adam Goldman (March 10, 2015). "Leak investigation stalls amid fears of confirming U.S.-Israel operation". Associated Press. Retrieved April 21, 2016. "Confirmed: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it". Ars Technica. June 2012. Razvan, Bogdan. "Win32.Worm.Stuxnet.A". Retrieved 28 March 2014. Ellen Nakashima (2 June 2012). "Stuxnet was work of U.S. and Israeli experts, officials say". The Washington Post. "A Declaration of Cyber-War". Vanity Fair. April 2011. "Exploring Stuxnet's PLC Infection Process". Symantec. 23 Jan 2014. Nicolas Falliere (6 August 2010). "Stuxnet Introduces the First Known Rootkit for Industrial Control Systems". Symantec. Archived from the original on August 20, 2010. "Iran's Nuclear Agency Trying to Stop Computer Worm". Tehran. Associated Press. 25 September 2010. Archived from the original on 25 September 2010. Retrieved 25 September 2010. Gregg Keizer (16 September 2010). "Is Stuxnet the 'best' malware ever?". InfoWorld. Retrieved 16 September 2010. Steven Cherry; with Ralph Langner (13 October 2010). "How Stuxnet Is Rewriting the Cyberterrorism Playbook". IEEE Spectrum. "Stuxnet Virus Targets and Spread Revealed". BBC News. 15 February 2011. Retrieved 17 February 2011. "Iran Country Profile". BBC News. 16 August 2011. Retrieved 8 August 2012. Beaumont, Claudine (23 September 2010). "Stuxnet virus: worm 'could be aimed at high-profile Iranian targets'". London: The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 28 September 2010. MacLean, William (24 September 2010). "UPDATE 2-Cyber attack appears to target Iran-tech firms". Reuters. ComputerWorld (14 September 2010). "Siemens: Stuxnet worm hit industrial systems". Computerworld. Retrieved 3 October 2010. "Iran Confirms Stuxnet Worm Halted Centrifuges". CBS News. 29 November 2010. Ethan Bronner; William J. Broad (29 September 2010). "In a Computer Worm, a Possible Biblical Clue". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 October 2010."Software smart bomb fired at Iranian nuclear plant: Experts". Economictimes.indiatimes.com. 24 September 2010. Retrieved 28 September 2010. "Kaspersky Lab provides its insights on Stuxnet worm". Kaspersky. Russia. 24 September 2010. "Stuxnet Questions and Answers – F-Secure Weblog". F-Secure. Finland. 1 October 2010. Sanger, David E. (1 June 2012). "Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran". The New York Times. Retrieved 1 June 2012. Matyszczyk, Chris (24 July 2012). "Thunderstruck! A tale of malware, AC/DC, and Iran's nukes". CNET. Retrieved 8 July 2013. "Iran 'fends off new Stuxnet cyber attack'". BBC News. 25 December 2012. Retrieved 28 May 2015. "W32.Stuxnet". Symantec. 17 September 2010. Archived from the original on August 21, 2010. Retrieved 2 March 2011. "Iran denies hacking into American banks Archived 2015-09-24 at the Wayback Machine" Reuters, 23 September 2012 Kroft, Steve (4 March 2012). "Stuxnet: Computer worm opens new era of warfare". 60 Minutes (CBS News). Retrieved 9 March 2012. James Balford (12 June 2013). "THE SECRET WAR". Wired. Retrieved 2 June 2014. "Duqu: A Stuxnet-like malware found in the wild, technical report" (PDF). Laboratory of Cryptography of Systems Security (CrySyS). 14 October 2011. "Statement on Duqu's initial analysis". Laboratory of Cryptography of Systems Security (CrySyS). 21 October 2011. Archived from the original on 4 October 2012. Retrieved 25 October 2011. "W32.Duqu – The precursor to the next Stuxnet (Version 1.2)" (PDF). Symantec. 20 October 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 13, 2011. Retrieved 25 October 2011. Steven Cherry; with Larry Constantine (14 December 2011). "Sons of Stuxnet". IEEE Spectrum. Jim Finkle (28 December 2011). "Stuxnet weapon has at least 4 cousins: researchers". Reuters. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 28 June 2016. Zetter, Kim (28 May 2012). "Meet 'Flame,' The Massive Spy Malware Infiltrating Iranian Computers". Wired. Archived from the original on 30 May 2012. Retrieved 29 May 2012. "Resource 207: Kaspersky Lab Research Proves that Stuxnet and Flame Developers are Connected". Kaspersky Lab. 11 June 2012. Military.com. "Military Daily News - Military.com". Retrieved 18 September 2016. Iran target of new cyber attack Schectman, Joel; Sharafedin, Bozorgmehr (29 September 2022). "How the CIA failed Iranian spies in its secret war with Tehran". Reuters. Retrieved 30 September 2022. vte CIA activities in Asia Afghanistan Cambodia China India Indonesia Iran Iraq Japan Laos Myanmar North Korea Pakistan Philippines Syria Turkey Vietnam Yemen vte Central Intelligence Agency United States Intelligence Community (CIA Headquarters: George Bush Center for Intelligence, Langley, Virginia) Organization History Directorate of Analysis Directorate of Science & Technology Directorate of Operations (Special Activities Center, National Resources Division) Directorate of Support Operations Support Branch Geographic activities Americas Russia and Europe Africa Asia Transnational activities Alleged drug trafficking (Involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking) Arms control, WMD, and proliferation Black sites Controversies Counterterrorism Crime and illicit drug trade Health and economy Human rights violations Influence on public opinion Directors William J. Donovan (OSS) Sidney Souers Hoyt Vandenberg Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter Walter Bedell Smith Allen Dulles John A. McCone William Raborn Richard Helms James R. Schlesinger William Colby George H. W. Bush Stansfield Turner William J. Casey William H. Webster Robert Gates R. James Woolsey Jr. John M. Deutch George Tenet Porter Goss Michael Hayden Leon Panetta David Petraeus John Brennan Mike Pompeo Gina Haspel William J. Burns Major international operations Operation Ajax Operation PBSuccess Secret War 1960 U-2 incident Congo Crisis Bay of Pigs Invasion Operation Mongoose Phoenix Program Operation Rubicon United States intervention in Chile Operation Cyclone Iran–Contra affair Drone strikes in Pakistan Operation Neptune Spear Timber Sycamore Notable works The Invisible Government (1964) All the Shah's Men (2003) Ghost Wars (2004) Overthrow (2006) Legacy of Ashes (2007) The Unexpected Spy (2019) CIA activities by country Afghanistan Angola Brazil Cambodia Canada Chad Chile China Colombia Cuba DRC France Guatemala Honduras Hungary India Indonesia Iran Iraq Italy Japan Laos Libya Myanmar Nicaragua North Korea Pakistan Peru Philippines Somalia Soviet Union Sudan Syria Turkey United Kingdom USA Vietnam Yemen Official reports by the U.S. Government on the CIA Project MKUltra vte Iran Iran–United States relations United States Diplomatic posts Embassy of Iran, Washington, D.C. Ambassadors of Iran to the United States Embassy of the United States, Tehran Ambassadors of the United States to Iran Interests Section of Iran in the United States Consulate-General of the United States, Tabriz Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Iran–United States Claims Tribunal Iranian Directorate Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group Diplomacy Persian Corridor Persian Gulf Command Nationalization of the Iranian oil industry 1953 Iranian coup d'état Abadan Crisis Timeline Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights Exercise Delawar Project Dark Gene Safari Club Island of Stability Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to George W. Bush Correspondence between Barack Obama and Ali Khamenei Phone conversation between Barack Obama and Hassan Rouhani Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Negotiations Joint Plan of Action Framework Reactions Criticism Aftermath U.S. withdrawal Conflicts Iran–Iraq War United States support for Iraq Bridgeton incident Iran Air Flight 655 Iran Ajr Iran–Contra affair Operation Staunch Operation Eager Glacier Operation Earnest Will Operation Prime Chance Operation Nimble Archer Operation Praying Mantis Syrian civil war Yemeni Civil War Arab–Israeli alliance against Iran Abraham Accords February 2019 Warsaw Conference Iran–Israel proxy conflict Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition International Maritime Security Construct Assassination of Qasem Soleimani reactions Thirteen revenge scenarios Donald Trump's threat for the destruction of Iranian cultural sites Operation Martyr Soleimani 2020 Camp Taji attacks Incidents after 1979 Assassination of Paul R. Shaffer and John H. Turner Iranian Revolution Iran hostage crisis Timeline Guadeloupe Conference Operation Credible Sport Operation Eagle Claw Canadian Caper Jimmy Carter's engagement with Ruhollah Khomeini 1980 October Surprise theory Negotiations Algiers Accords America can't do a damn thing against us Beirut barracks bombings Khobar Towers bombing Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal Disappearance of Robert Levinson United States kill or capture strategy in Iraq United States raid on the Iranian Liaison Office in Erbil Kidnapping of Jalal Sharafi 2008 Naval dispute Filipino Monkey Project Cassandra Detention of American hikers United States diplomatic cables leak 2011 alleged Iran assassination plot Strait of Hormuz dispute RQ-170 incident MV Maersk Tigris 2016 Naval incident Nuclear program of Iran Timeline P5+1 Operation Merlin Charming Kitten Stuxnet Kidnapping of Hossein Alikhani Arrest of Meng Wanzhou Deportation of Iranian students at US airports May 2019 Gulf of Oman incident June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident 2019 Iranian shoot-down of American drone 2019 K-1 Air Base attack December 2019 United States airstrikes in Iraq and Syria Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad 2020 Iran explosions 2021 Erbil rocket attacks 2021 Natanz incident February 2021 United States airstrike in Syria Leaked Mohammad Javad Zarif audiotape June 2021 United States airstrike in Syria July 2021 Gulf of Oman incident August 2021 Gulf of Oman incident 2021 U.S.–Iran naval incident 2022 Erbil missile attacks 2023 Northeastern Syria clashes Seizure of Suez Rajan and St Nikolas Attacks on U.S. bases in Iraq, Jordan, and Syria (2023–present) 2024 Erbil attack Tower 22 drone attack Legislation United States sanctions against Iran Maximum pressure campaign Executive Order 12170 Executive Order 12172 Executive Order 13769 reactions Trump travel ban Executive Order 13780 Executive Order 13876 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act Iran Nonproliferation Act Iran, North Korea, Syria Nonproliferation Act Iran Freedom and Support Act Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act Kyl–Lieberman Amendment Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act Public Law 113-100 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act Dames & Moore v. Regan United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran Oil Platforms case United States v. Banki Bank Markazi v. Peterson Certain Iranian Assets Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran Alleged violations of Treaty of Amity Groups and individuals Iran Action Group Iran–America Society Iranian Students Association in the United States National Iranian American Council Organization of Iranian American Communities Public Affairs Alliance of Iranian Americans United Against Nuclear Iran Farashgard Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Jundallah Kingdom Assembly of Iran National Council of Iran National Council of Resistance of Iran People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran Elliott Abrams Howard Baskerville William J. Fallon Brian Hook Joseph Macmanus Robert Malley Stephen D. Mull Jon Pattis Erwin David Rabhan Jason Rezaian Scott Ritter Craig Wadsworth Michael R. White Roxana Saberi Saeed Abedini Saeid Aboutaleb Shahram Amiri Sirous Asgari Mahmoud Reza Banki Haleh Esfandiari Amir Mirza Hekmati Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil Shahrzad Mirgholikhan Mohammad Hosseini Esha Momeni Mohammad Mosaddegh Baquer Namazi Siamak Namazi Sahar Nowrouzzadeh Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran Noor Pahlavi Trita Parsi Maryam Rajavi Abdolreza Shahlaei Ali Shakeri Masoud Soleimani Morad Tahbaz Kian Tajbakhsh Karan Vafadari Xiyue Wang Nizar Zakka Iranian Guantanamo Bay detainees Abdul Majid Muhammed Related 1998 FIFA World Cup match Academic relations between Iran and the United States American Islam Anti-American sentiment in Iran Axis of evil CIA activities in Iran Copyright relations Death to America Dual containment Great Satan International Conference on Hollywoodism Iran and state-sponsored terrorism Iranian frozen assets Opposition to military action against Iran State Sponsor of Terrorism United States involvement in regime change United States and state-sponsored terrorism 650 Fifth Avenue Alavi Foundation Alborz High School American Institute of Iranian Studies American School of Isfahan Community School, Tehran Damavand College Iran Bethel School Iranzamin School Saint Peter Church, Tehran Tehran American School "Bomb Iran" Overthrow Not for the Faint of Heart Category Categories: Iranian Revolution Politics of Iran CIA activities in Iran Iran–United States relations SAVAK Ministry of Intelligence (Iran)

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ John Henry Faulk (August 21, 1913 – April 9, 1990) was an American storyteller and radio show host. His successful lawsuit against the entertainment industry helped to bring an end to the Hollywood blacklist. Early life John Henry Faulk was born in Austin, Texas, to Methodist parents Henry Faulk and his wife Martha Miner Faulk. John Henry had four siblings.[1][2] Faulk spent his childhood years in Austin in the noted Victorian house Green Pastures. A journalist acquaintance from Austin has written that the two of them came from "extremely similar family backgrounds – the old Southern wealth with rich heritage and families dedicated to civil rights long before it was hip to fight racism."[3] Education and military service Faulk enrolled at the University of Texas in Austin in 1932. He became a protégé of J. Frank Dobie, Walter Prescott Webb, Roy Bedichek, and Mody C. Boatright, enabling Faulk to hone his skills as a folklorist. He earned a master's degree in folklore with his thesis "Ten Negro Sermons". He further began to craft his oratory style as a part-time English teacher at the university 1940–1942, relating Texas folk tales peppered with his gift of character impersonations.[2][4] He was initially unfit for service with the United States Army because of an eye problem. Instead, Faulk joined the Merchant Marine in 1942 for a one-year stint,[3] spending 1943 in Cairo, Egypt, serving the American Red Cross. World War II had caused the United States Army to relax its enlistment standards, and Faulk finally enlisted in 1944. He served as a medic at Camp Swift, Texas.[2] During this period, Faulk also joined the American Civil Liberties Union.[4] Career While a soldier at Camp Swift, Faulk began writing his own radio scripts. An acquaintance facilitated an interview for him at WCBS in New York City. The network executives were sufficiently impressed to offer him his own radio show. Upon his 1946 discharge from the Army, Faulk began his Johnny's Front Porch radio show for WCBS. The show featured Faulk's characterizations that he had been developing since his university years.[4][5] Faulk eventually went to another radio station, but returned to WCBS for a four-hour morning talk show. The John Henry Faulk Show ran for six years.[6] His radio successes provided opportunity for him to appear as himself on television, in shows including the 1951 Mark Goodson and William Todman game show It's News to Me, hosted by John Charles Daly.[7][8] He also appeared on Leave It to the Girls in 1953 and The Name's the Same in 1955.[9] Cactus Pryor met Faulk in the studios of KLBJ (then KTBC) where Faulk stopped by to thank Pryor for letting his mother hear his New York show. Pryor had been "accidentally" broadcasting Faulk's radio show in Texas where Faulk was not otherwise heard. Although the broadcast happened repeatedly, Pryor always claimed he just hit the wrong button in the studio. Pryor visited Faulk at a Manhattan apartment he shared with Alan Lomax and became introduced to the movers and shakers of the East Coast celebrity scene of that era. When Pryor stood by Faulk during the blacklisting and tried to find him work, Pryor's children were harassed, a prominent Austin physician circulated a letter questioning Pryor's patriotism, and an Austin attorney tried to convince Lyndon B. Johnson to discharge Pryor from the airwaves. The Pryor family and the Faulk family remained close and supportive of each other for the rest of Faulk's life.[10][11] In December 1955, Faulk was elected second vice president of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). Orson Bean was the first vice president and Charles Collingwood was the president of the union.[12] Collingwood, Bean, and Faulk were part of a middle-of-the-road slate of non-communist, anti-AWARE organization candidates that Faulk had helped draft. Twenty-seven of thirty-five vacant seats on the board went to the middle-of-the-road slate.[13] Faulk's public position during the campaign had been that the union should be focused on jobs and security, not blacklisting of members.[3][14] In the 1970s in Austin, he was also befriended by the young co-editor of the Texas Observer, Molly Ivins, and became an early supporter of hers.[15] Blacklist controversy Faulk's radio career at CBS[3] ended in 1957, a victim of the Cold War and the blacklisting of the 1950s. AWARE, Inc., a for-profit corporation inspired by Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, offered a "clearance" service to major media advertisers and radio and television networks; for a fee, AWARE would investigate the backgrounds of entertainers for signs of Communist sympathy or affiliation. In 1955, Faulk earned the ill will of the blacklisting organization when other members and he wrested control of their union, the AFTRA, from officers backed by AWARE. In reprisal, AWARE labeled Faulk a communist.[16] When he discovered that AWARE was actively keeping radio stations from offering him employment, Faulk sought compensation. Several prominent radio personalities along with CBS News vice president Edward R. Murrow supported Faulk's attempt to put an end to blacklisting. With financial backing from Murrow, Faulk engaged New York attorney Louis Nizer. Attorneys for AWARE, including McCarthy-committee counsel Roy Cohn, managed to stall the suit, originally filed in 1957, for five years. When the trial finally concluded in a New York courtroom, the jury had determined that Faulk should receive more compensation than he sought in his original petition. On June 28, 1962, the jury awarded him the largest libel judgment in history to that date — $3.5 million.[16] An appeals court lowered the amount to $500,000. Legal fees and accumulated debts erased most of the balance of the award.[16] He netted some $75,000.[17] Faulk's book, Fear on Trial, published in 1963, tells the story of the experience. The book was remade into an Emmy Award-winning TV movie in 1975 by CBS Television with William Devane portraying Faulk and George C. Scott playing Faulk's lawyer, Louis Nizer. Other supporters in the blacklist struggle included radio pioneer and Wimberley, Texas, native Parks Johnson, and reporter and CBS television news anchor Walter Cronkite.[3] Personal life and death In 1940, John Henry Faulk and Harriet Elizabeth ("Hally") Wood, a music student at the University of Texas Fine Arts School, were married, six weeks after they met.[4] The marriage ended in divorce in 1947; the couple had one daughter, Cynthia Tannehill. In 1948, Faulk and New Yorker Lynne Smith were married some six weeks after they met. That marriage also ended in divorce because of fallout from the blacklisting upheaval. Faulk and Smith had two daughters, Johanna and Evelyn, and one son, Frank Dobie Faulk.[18] In 1965, Faulk and Elizabeth Peake were married; they had one son, John Henry Faulk III.[2] John Henry Faulk died in Austin of cancer on April 9, 1990, and is interred there at Oakwood Cemetery. Austin restaurateur Mary Faulk Koock (1910–1996) was Faulk's sister.[19] Awards and tributes (1980) "The Ballad of John Henry Faulk", by artist Phil Ochs, is on his album The Broadside Tapes 1, Folkways Records.[20] (1983) Faulk was the recipient of a Paul Robeson Award, which recognizes exemplification of principles by which Paul Robeson lived his life.[21] (1995) John Henry Faulk Public Library, the main branch of the Austin Public Library, originally named Central Library when constructed in 1979, was renamed to honor Faulk.[22] The John Henry Faulk Award, Tejas Storytelling Association, is presented annually in Denton, Texas, to the individual who has made a significant contribution to the art of storytelling in the Southwest.[23] Film and television credits Film All the Way Home (1963) – Walter Starr The Best Man (1964) – Governor T.T. Claypoole Lovin' Molly (1974) – Mr. Grinsom The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) – Storyteller Leadbelly (1976) – Governor Neff Trespasses (1986) – Doctor Silver (final film role) Television It's News to Me (1951–1954) – Self Leave It to the Girls (Oct 3, 1953) – Self The Name's the Same (Feb 21, 1955) – Self For the People (1965) – Reynolds Fear on Trial (1975) – Writer, biographical film of John Henry Faulk Hee Haw (1975–1982) – Self Adam (1983) – Strom Thurmond Cronkite Remembers (1997) – Uncredited archive footage Discography John Henry Faulk, recordings of Negro religious services. Part 1 [sound recording] (July 1941) 47 sound discs : analog, 33 1/3 and 78 rpm; 12 in. John Henry Faulk recordings of Negro religious services. Part 2 [sound recording] (Aug–Sept 1941) 42 sound discs : analog, 33 1/3 rpm; 12 in. John Henry Faulk Texas recordings collection [sound recording] (Oct–Nov 1941) 33 sound discs : analog, 33 1/3 rpm; 12 in. John Henry Faulk collection of Texas prison songs [sound recording] (1942) 10 sound discs : analog, 78 rpm; 12 in. + documentation. John Henry Faulk and others, "Man-on-the-Street" interviews collection [sound recording] (1941) 6 sound discs : analog; 16 in.; 15 sound discs : analog; 12 in. American people speak on the war [sound recording] (1941) 1 sound disc (ca. 15 min.) : analog, 33 1/3 rpm; 16 in. The people speak to the president, or, Dear, Mr. President [sound recording] (1942) 1 sound disc : analog, 33 1/3 rpm; 16 in. CBS news with Stuart Metz.[sound recording]. (May 13, 1957) 1 sound tape reel (5 min.) : analog, 7 1/2 ips, full track, mono.; 7 in John Henry Faulk show (May 13, 1957) 1 sound tape reel (25 min.) : analog, 7 1/2 ips, full track, mono.; 7 in Blacklist: a failure in political imagination [Sound recording] (1960) reel. 7 in. 3 3/4 ips. 1/2 track. cassette. 2 1/2 × 4 in Help unsell the war. American report [sound recording] (1972) 1 sound disc : analog, 33 1/3 rpm; 12 in Selected radio programs from The Larry King show [sound recording] (1982–1985) 116 sound cassettes : analog African-American Slave Audio Recordings (2008) Radio appearances and speeches Faulk recorded his "Christmas Story" in 1974 for the NPR program Voices in the Wind. Faulk made speeches on the First Amendment and civil rights for many colleges and universities. Bibliography Faulk, John Henry (1940). Quickened by De Spurit; Ten Negro Sermons. Faulk, John Henry (1983) [1964]. Fear on Trial. Reprint. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-72442-6. Faulk, John Henry (1983). The Uncensored John Henry Faulk. Texas Monthly Press. ISBN 978-0-87719-013-4. Faulk, John Henry (1987). To Secure the Blessings of Liberty. Univ of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-78095-8. Plays Deep in the Heart (one-man play) Pear Orchard, Texas (one-man play) Further reading "John Henry Faulk Papers". Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved October 30, 2013. Gerard, Jeremy (April 10, 1990). "John Henry Faulk, 76, Dies; Humorist Who Challenged Blacklist". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2011. Nizer, Louis (1966). The Jury Returns. Doubleday & Company Inc. Burton, Michael C. John Henry Faulk: The Making of a Liberated Mind: A Biography. Austin: Eakin Press, 1993. ISBN 0-89015-923-8 Moyers, Bill (1990). A World of Ideas II. Main Street Books. ISBN 978-0-385-41665-8. Drake, Chris (2007). You Gotta Stand Up: The Life and High Times of John Henry Faulk. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84718-164-0. Biography portalRadio portaliconTelevision portaliconComedy portalflagTexas portal References "Texana Faulk Conn". 4 Hearing Loss. Archived from the original on July 7, 2011. Retrieved January 31, 2011. Foshee, Page S. "John Henry Faulk". Handbook of Texas Online. Texas State Historical Association. Retrieved January 31, 2011. "As Faulk learned, Cronkite was giving behind the scenes" by Charles McClure, Lake Travis [TX] View, July 29, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2009. McClure writes that his own father shared the same professors with Faulk at UT. Lief, Caldwell (2004) p.122 Lief, Caldwell (2004) p.109 Lief, Caldwell (2004) p.123 McDermott, Mark. "Mark Goodson and Bill Todman". The Museum of Broadcast Communications. Archived from the original on May 14, 2013. Retrieved February 1, 2011. Grace, Roger M (February 23, 2003). "TV Anchors Host Game Shows". Metropolitan News Company. Retrieved February 1, 2011. Timberg, Erler (2002) p.232 Pryor, Cactus (March 1992). "He Called Me Puddin'". Texas Monthly: 101, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137. Biffle (1993) p.227 Sterling (2003) p.270 Foerstel (1997) p.77 Smith, Ostroff, Wright (1998) p.60 "Troublemaker" Book review by Lloyd Grove, The New York Times Book Review, December 24, 2009 (December 27, 2009, p. BR17 of NY ed.). Book reviewed: Molly Ivins: A Rebel Life by Bill Minutaglio and W. Michael Smith, illustrated, 335 pp. PublicAffairs. Ivins, Molly (July–August 1990). "Johnny's Fight". Mother Jones: 8, 9. "Humorist will address United Way volunteers", Minden Press-Herald, Minden, Louisiana, September 19, 1984, p. 2B Gerard, Jeremy (April 10, 1990). "John Henry Faulk, 76, Dies; Humorist Who Challenged Blacklist". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2011. Koock, Mary Faulk (2001). The Texas Cookbook: From Barbecue to Banquet-an Informal View of Dining and Entertaining the Texas Way. University of North Texas Press. p. Back cover. ISBN 978-1-57441-136-2. "The Broadside Tapes 1". Phil Ochs discography. Discogs. Retrieved January 31, 2011. "Paul Robeson Award". Actor's Equity Association. Archived from the original on December 12, 2010. Retrieved January 31, 2011. "John Henry Faulk Public Library". City of Austin. Archived from the original on April 24, 2011. Retrieved January 31, 2011. "Tejas-John Henry Faulk Award". Tejas Storytelling Association. Archived from the original on March 16, 2011. Retrieved February 2, 2011. Additional sourcing Berman, Phillip L (1993). The Search for Meaning: Americans Talk About What They Believe and Why. Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0-345-37777-7. Biffle, Kent (1993). A Month of Sundays. University of North Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-929398-56-3. Foerstel, Herbert N (1997). Free Expression and Censorship in America: An Encyclopedia. Greenwood. ISBN 978-0-313-29231-6. Smith, F. Leslie; Ostroff, David H; Wright, John W II (1998). Perspectives on Radio and Television: Telecommunication in the United States. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-8058-2092-8. Timberg, Bernard; Erler, Bob (2002). Television Talk: A History of the TV Talk Show. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-78176-4. Sterling, Christopher H (2003). Encyclopedia of Radio. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-57958-249-4. Lief, Michael S; Caldwell, Harry M (2004). And the Walls Came Tumbling Down: Greatest Closing Arguments Protecting Civil Liberties. Scribner. ISBN 978-0-7432-4666-8. External links John Henry Faulk: The Making of a Liberated Mind, Eakin Press NPR John Henry Faulk's 'Christmas Story' John Henry Faulk at IMDb The Ballad of John Henry Faulk – lyrics by Phil Ochs Tejas Story Telling John Henry Faulk Award Archived March 16, 2011, at the Wayback Machine Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata International FAST ISNI VIAF National Germany Israel United States Netherlands Other SNAC IdRef Categories: 1913 births1990 deaths20th-century American male actorsFree speech activistsHollywood blacklistWriters from Austin, TexasBurials at Oakwood Cemetery (Austin, Texas) McCarthyism, also known as the Second Red Scare, was the political repression and persecution of left-wing individuals and a campaign spreading fear of alleged communist and Soviet influence on American institutions and of Soviet espionage in the United States during the late 1940s through the 1950s.[1] After the mid-1950s, U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy, who had spearheaded the campaign, gradually lost his public popularity and credibility after several of his accusations were found to be false.[2][3] The U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren made a series of rulings on civil and political rights that overturned several key laws and legislative directives, and helped bring an end to the Second Red Scare.[4][5][6] Historians have suggested since the 1980s that as McCarthy's involvement was less central than that of others, a different and more accurate term should be used instead that more accurately conveys the breadth of the phenomenon, and that the term McCarthyism is, in the modern day, outdated. Ellen Schrecker has suggested that Hooverism, after FBI Head J. Edgar Hoover, is more appropriate.[7] What became known as the McCarthy era began before McCarthy's rise to national fame. Following the breakdown of the wartime East-West alliance with the Soviet Union, and with many remembering the First Red Scare, President Harry S. Truman signed an executive order in 1947 to screen federal employees for possible association with organizations deemed "totalitarian, fascist, communist, or subversive", or advocating "to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means." The following year, the Czechoslovak coup by the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia heightened concern in the West about Communist parties seizing power and the possibility of subversion. In 1949, a high-level State Department official was convicted of perjury in a case of espionage, and the Soviet Union tested a nuclear bomb. The Korean War started the next year, significantly raising tensions and fears of impending communist upheavals in the United States. In a speech in February 1950, McCarthy claimed to have a list of members of the Communist Party USA working in the State Department, which attracted substantial press attention, and the term McCarthyism was published for the first time in late March of that year in The Christian Science Monitor, along with a political cartoon by Herblock in The Washington Post. The term has since taken on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts to crack down on alleged "subversive" elements. In the early 21st century, the term is used more generally to describe reckless and unsubstantiated accusations of treason and far-left extremism, along with demagogic personal attacks on the character and patriotism of political adversaries. The primary targets for persecution were government employees, prominent figures in the entertainment industry, academics, left-wing politicians, and labor union activists. Suspicions were often given credence despite inconclusive and questionable evidence, and the level of threat posed by a person's real or supposed leftist associations and beliefs were often exaggerated. Many people suffered loss of employment and the destruction of their careers and livelihoods as a result of the crackdowns on suspected communists, and some were outright imprisoned. Most of these reprisals were initiated by trial verdicts that were later overturned,[8] laws that were later struck down as unconstitutional,[9] dismissals for reasons later declared illegal[10] or actionable,[11] and extra-judiciary procedures, such as informal blacklists by employers and public institutions, that would come into general disrepute, though by then many lives had been ruined. The most notable examples of McCarthyism include the investigations of alleged communists that were conducted by Senator McCarthy, and the hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Following the end of the Cold War, unearthed documents revealed substantial Soviet spy activity in the United States, though many of the agents were never properly identified by Senator McCarthy.[12] Origins See also: US Strike wave of 1945–1946 One of the earliest uses of the term McCarthyism was in a cartoon by Herbert Block ("Herblock"), published in The Washington Post, March 29, 1950. President Harry S. Truman's Executive Order 9835 of March 21, 1947, required that all federal civil-service employees be screened for "loyalty". The order said that one basis for determining disloyalty would be a finding of "membership in, affiliation with or sympathetic association" with any organization determined by the attorney general to be "totalitarian, fascist, communist or subversive" or advocating or approving the forceful denial of constitutional rights to other persons or seeking "to alter the form of Government of the United States by unconstitutional means".[13] The historical period that came to be known as the McCarthy era began well before Joseph McCarthy's own involvement in it. Many factors contributed to McCarthyism, some of them with roots in the First Red Scare (1917–20), inspired by communism's emergence as a recognized political force and widespread social disruption in the United States related to unionizing and anarchist activities. Owing in part to its success in organizing labor unions and its early opposition to fascism, and offering an alternative to the ills of capitalism during the Great Depression, the Communist Party of the United States increased its membership through the 1930s, reaching a peak of about 75,000 members in 1940–41.[14] While the United States was engaged in World War II and allied with the Soviet Union, the issue of anti-communism was largely muted. With the end of World War II, the Cold War began almost immediately, as the Soviet Union installed communist puppet régimes in areas it had occupied across Central and Eastern Europe. In a March 1947 address to Congress, Truman enunciated a new foreign policy doctrine that committed the United States to opposing Soviet geopolitical expansion. This doctrine came to be known as the Truman Doctrine, and it guided United States support for anti-communist forces in Greece and later in China and elsewhere.[15] Although the Igor Gouzenko and Elizabeth Bentley affairs had raised the issue of Soviet espionage in 1945, events in 1949 and 1950 sharply increased the sense of threat in the United States related to communism. The Soviet Union tested an atomic bomb in 1949, earlier than many analysts had expected, raising the stakes in the Cold War. That same year, Mao Zedong's communist army gained control of mainland China despite heavy American financial support of the opposing Kuomintang. In 1950, the Korean War began, pitting U.S., U.N., and South Korean forces against communists from North Korea and China. During the following year, evidence of increased sophistication in Soviet Cold War espionage activities was found in the West. In January 1950, Alger Hiss, a high-level State Department official, was convicted of perjury. Hiss was in effect found guilty of espionage; the statute of limitations had run out for that crime, but he was convicted of having perjured himself when he denied that charge in earlier testimony before the HUAC. In Britain, Klaus Fuchs confessed to committing espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union while working on the Manhattan Project at Los Alamos National Laboratory during the War. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were arrested in 1950 in the United States on charges of stealing atomic-bomb secrets for the Soviets, and were executed in 1953. Other forces encouraged the rise of McCarthyism. The more conservative politicians in the United States had historically referred to progressive reforms, such as child labor laws and women's suffrage, as "communist" or "Red plots", trying to raise fears against such changes.[16] They used similar terms during the 1930s and the Great Depression when opposing the New Deal policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Many conservatives equated the New Deal with socialism or Communism, and thought the policies were evidence of too much influence by allegedly communist policy makers in the Roosevelt administration.[17] In general, the vaguely defined danger of "Communist influence" was a more common theme in the rhetoric of anti-communist politicians than was espionage or any other specific activity. Senator Joseph McCarthy McCarthy's involvement in these issues began publicly with a speech he made on Lincoln Day, February 9, 1950, to the Republican Women's Club of Wheeling, West Virginia. He brandished a piece of paper, which he claimed contained a list of known communists working for the State Department. McCarthy is usually quoted as saying: "I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department."[18] This speech resulted in a flood of press attention to McCarthy and helped establish his path to becoming one of the most recognized politicians in the United States. The first recorded use of the term "McCarthyism" was in the Christian Science Monitor on March 28, 1950 ("Their little spree with McCarthyism is no aid to consultation").[19] The paper became one of the earliest and most consistent critics of the Senator.[20] The next recorded use happened on the following day, in a political cartoon by Washington Post editorial cartoonist Herbert Block (Herblock). The cartoon depicts four leading Republicans trying to push an elephant (the traditional symbol of the Republican Party) to stand on a platform atop a teetering stack of ten tar buckets, the topmost of which is labeled "McCarthyism". Block later wrote: "Nothing [was] particularly ingenious about the term, which is simply used to represent a national affliction that can hardly be described in any other way. If anyone has a prior claim on it, he's welcome to the word and to the junior senator from Wisconsin along with it. I will also throw in a set of free dishes and a case of soap."[21] Institutions A number of anti-communist committees, panels, and "loyalty review boards" in federal, state, and local governments, as well as many private agencies, carried out investigations for small and large companies concerned about possible Communists in their work forces. In Congress, the primary bodies that investigated Communist activities were the HUAC, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Between 1949 and 1954, a total of 109 investigations were carried out by these and other committees of Congress.[22] On December 2, 1954, the United States Senate voted 67 to 22[23] to condemn McCarthy for "conduct that tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute". Executive branch Loyalty-security reviews Executive Order 9835, signed by President Truman in 1947 In the federal government, President Truman's Executive Order 9835 initiated a program of loyalty reviews for federal employees in 1947. It called for dismissal if there were "reasonable grounds ... for belief that the person involved is disloyal to the Government of the United States."[24] Truman, a Democrat, was probably reacting in part to the Republican sweep in the 1946 Congressional election and felt a need to counter growing criticism from conservatives and anti-communists.[25] When President Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1953, he strengthened and extended Truman's loyalty review program, while decreasing the avenues of appeal available to dismissed employees. Hiram Bingham, chairman of the Civil Service Commission Loyalty Review Board, referred to the new rules he was obliged to enforce as "just not the American way of doing things."[26] The following year, J. Robert Oppenheimer, scientific director of the Manhattan Project that built the first atomic bomb, then working as a consultant to the Atomic Energy Commission, was stripped of his security clearance after a four-week hearing. Oppenheimer had received a top-secret clearance in 1947, but was denied clearance in the harsher climate of 1954. Similar loyalty reviews were established in many state and local government offices and some private industries across the nation. In 1958, an estimated one of every five employees in the United States was required to pass some sort of loyalty review.[27] Once a person lost a job due to an unfavorable loyalty review, finding other employment could be very difficult. "A man is ruined everywhere and forever," in the words of the chairman of President Truman's Loyalty Review Board. "No responsible employer would be likely to take a chance in giving him a job."[28] The Department of Justice started keeping a list of organizations that it deemed subversive beginning in 1942. This list was first made public in 1948, when it included 78 groups. At its longest, it comprised 154 organizations, 110 of them identified as Communist. In the context of a loyalty review, membership in a listed organization was meant to raise a question, but not to be considered proof of disloyalty. One of the most common causes of suspicion was membership in the Washington Bookshop Association, a left-leaning organization that offered lectures on literature, classical music concerts, and discounts on books.[29] J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI J. Edgar Hoover in 1961 FBI director J. Edgar Hoover designed President Truman's loyalty-security program, and its background investigations of employees were carried out by FBI agents. This was a major assignment that led to the number of agents in the bureau being increased from 3,559 in 1946 to 7,029 in 1952. Hoover's sense of the communist threat and the standards of evidence applied by his bureau resulted in thousands of government workers losing their jobs. Due to Hoover's insistence upon keeping the identity of his informers secret, most subjects of loyalty-security reviews were not allowed to cross-examine or know the identities of those who accused them. In many cases, they were not even told of what they were accused.[30] Hoover's influence extended beyond federal government employees and beyond the loyalty-security programs. The records of loyalty review hearings and investigations were supposed to be confidential, but Hoover routinely gave evidence from them to congressional committees such as HUAC.[31] From 1951 to 1955, the FBI operated a secret "Responsibilities Program" that distributed anonymous documents with evidence from FBI files of communist affiliations on the part of teachers, lawyers, and others. Many people accused in these "blind memoranda" were fired without any further process.[32] The FBI engaged in a number of illegal practices in its pursuit of information on communists, including burglaries, opening mail, and illegal wiretaps.[33] The members of the left-wing National Lawyers Guild (NLG) were among the few attorneys who were willing to defend clients in communist-related cases, and this made the NLG a particular target of Hoover's; the office of the NLG was burgled by the FBI at least 14 times between 1947 and 1951.[34] Among other purposes, the FBI used its illegally obtained information to alert prosecuting attorneys about the planned legal strategies of NLG defense lawyers.[35][36] The FBI also used illegal undercover operations to disrupt communist and other dissident political groups. In 1956, Hoover was becoming increasingly frustrated by Supreme Court decisions that limited the Justice Department's ability to prosecute communists. At this time, he formalized a covert "dirty tricks" program under the name COINTELPRO.[33] COINTELPRO actions included planting forged documents to create the suspicion that a key person was an FBI informer, spreading rumors through anonymous letters, leaking information to the press, calling for IRS audits, and the like. The COINTELPRO program remained in operation until 1971. Historian Ellen Schrecker calls the FBI "the single most important component of the anti-communist crusade" and writes: "Had observers known in the 1950s what they have learned since the 1970s, when the Freedom of Information Act opened the Bureau's files, 'McCarthyism' would probably be called 'Hooverism'."[37] Allen Dulles and the CIA In March 1950, McCarthy had initiated a series of investigations into potential infiltration of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) by communist agents and came up with a list of security risks that matched one previously compiled by the Agency itself. At the request of CIA director Allen Dulles, President Eisenhower demanded that McCarthy discontinue issuing subpoenas against the CIA. Documents made public in 2004 revealed that the CIA, under Dulles' orders, had broken into McCarthy's Senate office and fed disinformation to him in order to discredit him and stop his investigation from proceeding any further.[38] Congress House Committee on Un-American Activities Main article: House Un-American Activities Committee The House Committee on Un-American Activities (commonly referred to as the HUAC) was the most prominent and active government committee involved in anti-communist investigations. Formed in 1938 and known as the Dies Committee, named for Rep. Martin Dies, who chaired it until 1944, HUAC investigated a variety of "activities", including those of German-American Nazis during World War II. The committee soon focused on communism, beginning with an investigation into communists in the Federal Theatre Project in 1938. A significant step for HUAC was its investigation of the charges of espionage brought against Alger Hiss in 1948. This investigation ultimately resulted in Hiss's trial and conviction for perjury, and convinced many of the usefulness of congressional committees for uncovering communist subversion. HUAC achieved its greatest fame and notoriety with its investigation into the Hollywood film industry. In October 1947, the committee began to subpoena screenwriters, directors, and other movie-industry professionals to testify about their known or suspected membership in the Communist Party, association with its members, or support of its beliefs. At these testimonies, this question was asked: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?"[39][40][better source needed] Among the first film industry witnesses subpoenaed by the committee were ten who decided not to cooperate. These men, who became known as the "Hollywood Ten", cited the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and free assembly, which they believed legally protected them from being required to answer the committee's questions. This tactic failed, and the ten were sentenced to prison for contempt of Congress. Two of them were sentenced to six months, the rest to a year. In the future, witnesses (in the entertainment industries and otherwise) who were determined not to cooperate with the committee would claim their Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. William Grooper and Rockwell Kent, the only two visual artists to be questioned by McCarthy, both took this approach, and emerged relatively unscathed by the experience.[41] However, while this usually protected witnesses from a contempt-of-Congress citation, it was considered grounds for dismissal by many government and private-industry employers. The legal requirements for Fifth Amendment protection were such that a person could not testify about his own association with the Communist Party and then refuse to "name names" of colleagues with communist affiliations.[42] Thus, many faced a choice between "crawl[ing] through the mud to be an informer," as actor Larry Parks put it, or becoming known as a "Fifth Amendment Communist"—an epithet often used by Senator McCarthy.[43] Senate committees In the Senate, the primary committee for investigating communists was the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee (SISS), formed in 1950 and charged with ensuring the enforcement of laws relating to "espionage, sabotage, and the protection of the internal security of the United States". The SISS was headed by Democrat Pat McCarran and gained a reputation for careful and extensive investigations. This committee spent a year investigating Owen Lattimore and other members of the Institute of Pacific Relations. As had been done numerous times before, the collection of scholars and diplomats associated with Lattimore (the so-called China Hands) were accused of "losing China", and while some evidence of pro-communist attitudes was found, nothing supported McCarran's accusation that Lattimore was "a conscious and articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy". Lattimore was charged with perjuring himself before the SISS in 1952. After many of the charges were rejected by a federal judge and one of the witnesses confessed to perjury, the case was dropped in 1955.[44] McCarthy headed the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations in 1953 and 1954, and during that time, used it for a number of his communist-hunting investigations. McCarthy first examined allegations of communist influence in the Voice of America, and then turned to the overseas library program of the State Department. Card catalogs of these libraries were searched for works by authors McCarthy deemed inappropriate. McCarthy then recited the list of supposedly pro-communist authors before his subcommittee and the press. Yielding to the pressure, the State Department ordered its overseas librarians to remove from their shelves "material by any controversial persons, Communists, fellow travelers, etc." Some libraries actually burned the newly forbidden books.[45] Though he did not block the State Department from carrying out this order, President Eisenhower publicly criticized the initiative as well, telling the graduating class of Dartmouth College President in 1953: "Don't join the book burners! … Don't be afraid to go to the library and read every book so long as that document does not offend our own ideas of decency—that should be the only censorship."[46] The president then settled for a compromise by retaining the ban on Communist books written by Communists, while also allowing the libraries to keep books on Communism written by anti-Communists.[47] McCarthy's committee then began an investigation into the United States Army. This began at the Army Signal Corps laboratory at Fort Monmouth. McCarthy garnered some headlines with stories of a dangerous spy ring among the Army researchers, but ultimately nothing came of this investigation.[48] McCarthy next turned his attention to the case of a U.S. Army dentist who had been promoted to the rank of major despite having refused to answer questions on an Army loyalty review form. McCarthy's handling of this investigation, including a series of insults directed at a brigadier general, led to the Army–McCarthy hearings, with the Army and McCarthy trading charges and counter-charges for 36 days before a nationwide television audience. While the official outcome of the hearings was inconclusive, this exposure of McCarthy to the American public resulted in a sharp decline in his popularity.[49] In less than a year, McCarthy was censured by the Senate, and his position as a prominent force in anti-communism was essentially ended.[50] Blacklists Main article: Hollywood blacklist On November 25, 1947, the day after the House of Representatives approved citations of contempt for the Hollywood Ten, Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association of America, issued a press release on behalf of the heads of the major studios that came to be referred to as the Waldorf Statement. This statement announced the firing of the Hollywood Ten and stated: "We will not knowingly employ a Communist or a member of any party or group which advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States..." This marked the beginning of the Hollywood blacklist. In spite of the fact that hundreds were denied employment, the studios, producers, and other employers did not publicly admit that a blacklist existed. At this time, private loyalty review boards and anti-communist investigators began to appear to fill a growing demand among certain industries to certify that their employees were above reproach. Companies that were concerned about the sensitivity of their business, or which, like the entertainment industry, felt particularly vulnerable to public opinion, made use of these private services. For a fee, these teams investigated employees and questioned them about their politics and affiliations. At such hearings, the subject usually did not have a right to the presence of an attorney, and as with HUAC, the interviewee might be asked to defend himself against accusations without being allowed to cross-examine the accuser. These agencies kept cross-referenced lists of leftist organizations, publications, rallies, charities, and the like, as well as lists of individuals who were known or suspected communists. Books such as Red Channels and newsletters such as Counterattack and Confidential Information were published to keep track of communist and leftist organizations and individuals.[51] Insofar as the various blacklists of McCarthyism were actual physical lists, they were created and maintained by these private organizations.[citation needed][further explanation needed] Laws and arrests See also: Smith Act trials of communist party leaders Efforts to protect the United States from the perceived threat of communist subversion were particularly enabled by several federal laws. The Hatch Act of 1939 banned membership in subversive organizations, which was interpreted as being anti-labor legislation.[52] The Hatch Act would allow for the reduction of influence of the Workers' Alliance, which was claimed to have been created by the Soviet Union based on a model of their unemployed councils.[52] The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act of 1940 made the act of "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the ... desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association" a criminal offense. Hundreds of communists and others were prosecuted under this law between 1941 and 1957. Eleven leaders of the Communist Party were convicted under the Smith Act in 1949 in the Foley Square trial. Ten defendants were given sentences of five years and the eleventh was sentenced to three years. The defense attorneys were cited for contempt of court and given prison sentences.[53] In 1951, 23 other leaders of the party were indicted, including Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Many were convicted on the basis of testimony that was later admitted to be false.[54] By 1957, 140 leaders and members of the Communist Party had been charged under the law, of whom 93 were convicted.[55] The McCarran Internal Security Act, which became law in 1950, has been described by scholar Ellen Schrecker as "the McCarthy era's only important piece of legislation"[56] (the Smith Act technically antedated McCarthyism). However, the McCarran Act had no real effect beyond legal harassment. It required the registration of Communist organizations with the U.S. Attorney General and established the Subversive Activities Control Board to investigate possible communist-action and communist-front organizations so they could be required to register. Due to numerous hearings, delays, and appeals, the act was never enforced, even with regard to the Communist Party of the United States itself, and the major provisions of the act were found to be unconstitutional in 1965 and 1967.[57] In 1952, the Immigration and Nationality, or McCarran–Walter, Act was passed. This law allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also to bar suspected subversives from entering the country. The Communist Control Act of 1954 was passed with overwhelming support in both houses of Congress after very little debate. Jointly drafted by Republican John Marshall Butler and Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the law was an extension of the Internal Security Act of 1950, and sought to outlaw the Communist Party by declaring that the party, as well as "Communist-Infiltrated Organizations" were "not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies." While the Communist Control Act had an odd mix of liberals and conservatives among its supporters, it never had any significant effect. The act was successfully applied only twice. In 1954 it was used to prevent Communist Party members from appearing on the New Jersey state ballot, and in 1960, it was cited to deny the CPUSA recognition as an employer under New York state's unemployment compensation system. The New York Post called the act "a monstrosity", "a wretched repudiation of democratic principles," while The Nation accused Democratic liberals of a "neurotic, election-year anxiety to escape the charge of being 'soft on Communism' even at the expense of sacrificing constitutional rights."[58] Repression in the individual states In addition to the federal laws and responding to the worries of the local opinion, several states enacted anti-communist statutes. By 1952, several states had enacted statutes against criminal anarchy, criminal syndicalism, and sedition; banned communists and "subversives" from public employment, or even from receiving public aid; demanded on loyalty oaths from public servants; and severely restricted or banned the Communist Party. In addition, six states had equivalents to the HUAC.[59] The California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities[60] and the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee were established by their respective legislatures. Some of these states had very severe, or even extreme, laws against communism. In 1950, Michigan enacted life imprisonment for subversive propaganda; the following year, Tennessee enacted the death penalty for advocating the violent overthrow of the government.[59] The death penalty for membership in the Communist Party was discussed in Texas by Governor Allan Shivers, who described it as "worse than murder."[61][62] Municipalities and counties also enacted anti-communist ordinances: Los Angeles banned any communist or "Muscovite model of police-state dictatorship" from owning arms, while Birmingham, Alabama and Jacksonville, Florida banned any communist from being within the city's limits.[59] Popular support Flier issued in May 1955 by the Keep America Committee urging readers to "fight communistic world government" by opposing public health programs McCarthyism was supported by a variety of groups, including the American Legion and various other anti-communist organizations. One core element of support was a variety of militantly anti-communist women's groups such as the American Public Relations Forum and the Minute Women of the U.S.A. These organized tens of thousands of housewives into study groups, letter-writing networks, and patriotic clubs that coordinated efforts to identify and eradicate what they saw as subversion.[63] Although right-wing radicals were the bedrock of support for McCarthyism, they were not alone. A broad "coalition of the aggrieved" found McCarthyism attractive, or at least politically useful. Common themes uniting the coalition were opposition to internationalism, particularly the United Nations; opposition to social welfare provisions, particularly the various programs established by the New Deal; and opposition to efforts to reduce inequalities in the social structure of the United States.[64] One focus of popular McCarthyism concerned the provision of public health services, particularly vaccination, mental health care services, and fluoridation, all of which were denounced by some to be communist plots to poison or brainwash the American people. Such viewpoints led to collisions between McCarthyite radicals and supporters of public-health programs, most notably in the case of the Alaska Mental Health Bill controversy of 1956.[65] William F. Buckley Jr., the founder of the influential conservative political magazine National Review, wrote a defense of McCarthy, McCarthy and his Enemies, in which he asserted that "McCarthyism ... is a movement around which men of good will and stern morality can close ranks."[66] In addition, as Richard Rovere points out, many ordinary Americans became convinced that there must be "no smoke without fire" and lent their support to McCarthyism. The Gallup poll found that at his peak in January 1954, 50% of the American public supported McCarthy, while 29% had an unfavorable opinion. His support fell to 34% in June 1954.[67] Republicans tended to like what McCarthy was doing and Democrats did not, though McCarthy had significant support from traditional Democratic ethnic groups, especially Catholics, as well as many unskilled workers and small-business owners. (McCarthy himself was a Catholic.) He had very little support among union members and Jews.[68] Portrayals of communists Those who sought to justify McCarthyism did so largely through their characterization of communism, and American communists in particular. Proponents of McCarthyism claimed that the CPUSA was so completely under Moscow's control that any American communist was a puppet of the Soviet intelligence services. This view, if restricted to the Communist Party's leadership[69] is supported by recent documentation from the archives of the KGB[70] as well as post-war decodes of wartime Soviet radio traffic from the Venona project,[71] showing that Moscow provided financial support to the CPUSA and had significant influence on CPUSA policies. J. Edgar Hoover commented in a 1950 speech, "Communist members, body and soul, are the property of the Party." According to historian Richard G. Powers, McCarthy added "bogus specificity" to "sweeping accusation[s]", gaining support among "countersubversive anticommunists" on one hand, who sought to find and punish perceived communists. On the other hand, "liberal anticommunists" believed that the Communist Party was "despicable and annoying" but ultimately politically irrelevant.[72] President Harry Truman, who pursued the anti-Soviet Truman Doctrine, called McCarthy "the greatest asset the Kremlin has" by "torpedo[ing] the bipartisan foreign policy of the United States."[73] Historian Landon R. Y. Storrs writes that the CPUSA's "secretiveness, its authoritarian internal structure, and the loyalty of its leaders to the Kremlin were fundamental flaws that help explain why and how it was demonized. On the other hand, most American Communists were idealists attracted by the party's militance against various forms of social injustice." Furthermore, based on later declassified evidence, "The paradoxical lesson from several decades of scholarship is that the same organization that inspired democratic idealists in the pursuit of social justice also was secretive, authoritarian, and morally compromised by ties to the Stalin regime."[74] In the mid 20th century, this attitude was not confined to arch-conservatives. In 1940, the American Civil Liberties Union ejected founding member Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, saying that her membership in the Communist Party was enough to disqualify her as a civil libertarian. In the government's prosecutions of Communist Party members under the Smith Act (see above), the prosecution case was based not on specific actions or statements by the defendants, but on the premise that a commitment to violent overthrow of the government was inherent in the doctrines of Marxism–Leninism. Passages of the CPUSA constitution that specifically rejected revolutionary violence were dismissed as deliberate deception.[75] In addition, it was often claimed that the party didn't allow members to resign; thus someone who had been a member for a short time decades previously could be thought a current member. Many of the hearings and trials of McCarthyism featured testimony by former Communist Party members such as Elizabeth Bentley, Louis Budenz, and Whittaker Chambers, speaking as expert witnesses.[76][77] Various historians and pundits have discussed alleged Soviet-directed infiltration of the U.S. government and the possible collaboration of high U.S. government officials.[78][79][80][81] Victims of McCarthyism This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (January 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) See also: List of films by the Hollywood Ten, Hollywood blacklist, and Lavender scare Estimating the number of victims of McCarthy is difficult. The number imprisoned is in the hundreds, and some ten or twelve thousand lost their jobs.[82] In many cases, simply being subpoenaed by HUAC or one of the other committees was sufficient cause to be fired.[83] For the vast majority, both the potential for them to do harm to the nation and the nature of their communist affiliation were tenuous.[84] After the extremely damaging "Cambridge Five" spy scandal (Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt and John Cairncross), suspected homosexuality was also a common cause for being targeted by McCarthyism. The hunt for "sexual perverts", who were presumed to be subversive by nature, resulted in over 5,000 federal workers being fired, and thousands were harassed and denied employment.[85][86] Many have termed this aspect of McCarthyism the "lavender scare".[87][88] Homosexuality was classified as a psychiatric disorder in the 1950s.[89] However, in the context of the highly politicized Cold War environment, homosexuality became framed as a dangerous, contagious social disease that posed a potential threat to state security.[89] As the family was believed to be the cornerstone of American strength and integrity,[90] the description of homosexuals as "sexual perverts" meant that they were both unable to function within a family unit and presented the potential to poison the social body.[91] This era also witnessed the establishment of widely spread FBI surveillance intended to identify homosexual government employees.[92] The McCarthy hearings and according "sexual pervert" investigations can be seen to have been driven by a desire to identify individuals whose ability to function as loyal citizens had been compromised.[91] McCarthy began his campaign by drawing upon the ways in which he embodied traditional American values to become the self-appointed vanguard of social morality.[93] Dalton Trumbo and his wife, Cleo, at the HUAC in 1947 In the film industry, more than 300 actors, authors, and directors were denied work in the U.S. through the unofficial Hollywood blacklist. Blacklists were at work throughout the entertainment industry, in universities and schools at all levels, in the legal profession, and in many other fields. A port-security program initiated by the Coast Guard shortly after the start of the Korean War required a review of every maritime worker who loaded or worked aboard any American ship, regardless of cargo or destination. As with other loyalty-security reviews of McCarthyism, the identities of any accusers and even the nature of any accusations were typically kept secret from the accused. Nearly 3,000 seamen and longshoremen lost their jobs due to this program alone.[94] Some of the notable people who were blacklisted or suffered some other persecution during McCarthyism include: Larry Adler, musician Nelson Algren, writer[95] Lucille Ball, actress, model, and film studio executive.[96] Robert N. Bellah, sociologist Walter Bernstein, screenwriter Alvah Bessie, Abraham Lincoln Brigade, writer, journalist, screenwriter, Hollywood Ten Elmer Bernstein, composer and conductor[97] Leonard Bernstein, conductor, pianist, composer[98] David Bohm, physicist and philosopher[99] Bertolt Brecht, poet, playwright, screenwriter Archie Brown, Abraham Lincoln Brigade, veteran of World War II, union leader, imprisoned. Successfully challenged Landrum–Griffin Act provision[100] Esther Brunauer, forced from the U.S. State Department[101] Luis Buñuel, film director, producer[102] Charlie Chaplin, actor and director[103] Aaron Copland, composer[104] Bartley Crum, attorney[105] Howard Da Silva, actor[106] Jules Dassin, director[107] Chandler Davis, mathematician Natalie Zemon Davis, historian Dolores del Río, actress[108] Edward Dmytryk, director, Hollywood Ten W.E.B. Du Bois, civil rights activist and author[109] George A. Eddy, pre-Keynesian Harvard economist, US Treasury monetary policy specialist[110] Albert Einstein, Nobel Prize-winning physicist, philosopher, mathematician, activist[111] Hanns Eisler, composer[112] Howard Fast, writer[113] Lion Feuchtwanger, novelist and playwright[114] Carl Foreman, writer of High Noon John Garfield, actor[104] C.H. Garrigues, journalist[115] Jack Gilford, actor[106] Ruth Gordon, actress[106] Lee Grant, actress[116] Dashiell Hammett, author[104] Hananiah Harari, American painter and illustrator Elizabeth Hawes, clothing designer, author, equal rights activist[117] Lillian Hellman, playwright[104] Dorothy Healey, union organizer, CPUSA official[118] Lena Horne, singer[106] Langston Hughes, writer, poet, playwright[104] Marsha Hunt, actress Sam Jaffe, actor[104] Theodore Kaghan, diplomat[119] Garson Kanin, writer and director[104] Ernst Kantorowicz, historian Danny Kaye, comedian, singer[120][full citation needed] Benjamin Keen, historian[121] Otto Klemperer, conductor and composer[122] Gypsy Rose Lee, actress and stripper[104] Harold Lewis, physicist Cornelius Lanczos, mathematician and physicist[123] Ring Lardner Jr., screenwriter, Hollywood Ten Arthur Laurents, playwright[106] Philip Loeb, actor[124] Jacob Loewenberg, philosopher Joseph Losey, director[104] Albert Maltz, screenwriter, Hollywood Ten Heinrich Mann, novelist[125] Klaus Mann, writer[125] Thomas Mann, Nobel Prize winning novelist and essayist[125] Thomas McGrath, poet Burgess Meredith, actor[104] Arthur Miller, playwright and essayist[104] Jessica Mitford, author, muckraker. Refused to testify to HUAC. Dimitri Mitropoulos, conductor, pianist, composer[126] Zero Mostel, actor[104] Charles Muscatine, literary scholar Joseph Needham, biochemist, sinologist, historian of science J. Robert Oppenheimer, theoretical physicist, director of the Manhattan Project Dorothy Parker, writer, humorist[104] Linus Pauling, chemist, Nobel prizes for Chemistry and Peace[127] Samuel Reber, diplomat[128] Al Richmond, union organizer, editor[129] Martin Ritt, actor and director[130] Paul Robeson, actor, athlete, singer, writer, political activist[131] Edward G. Robinson, actor[104] Waldo Salt, screenwriter[132] David S. Saxon, physicist Jean Seberg, actress[133] Pete Seeger, folk singer, songwriter[104] Robert Serber, physicist Artie Shaw, jazz musician, bandleader, author[104] Irwin Shaw, writer[106] William L. Shirer, journalist, author[134] Lionel Stander, actor[135] Jack Steinberger, physicist Dirk Jan Struik, mathematician, historian of maths[136] Paul Sweezy, economist and founder-editor of Monthly Review[137] Charles W. Thayer, diplomat[138] Edward C. Tolman, psychologist Dalton Trumbo, screenwriter, Hollywood Ten Tsien Hsue-shen, physicist[139] Sam Wanamaker, actor, director, responsible for recreating Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London, England. Gene Weltfish, anthropologist fired from Columbia University[140] Gian Carlo Wick, physicist In 1953, Robert K. Murray, a young professor of history at Pennsylvania State University who had served as an intelligence officer in World War II, was revising his dissertation on the Red Scare of 1919–20 for publication until Little, Brown and Company decided that "under the circumstances ... it wasn't wise for them to bring this book out." He learned that investigators were questioning his colleagues and relatives. The University of Minnesota press published his volume, Red Scare: A Study in National Hysteria, 1919–1920, in 1955.[141] Critical reactions The nation was by no means united behind the policies and activities that have come to be associated with McCarthyism. The critics of various aspects of McCarthyism included many figures not generally noted for their liberalism. In his overridden veto of the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950, President Truman wrote, "In a free country, we punish men for the crimes they commit, but never for the opinions they have."[142] Truman also unsuccessfully vetoed the Taft–Hartley Act, which among other provisions denied trade unions National Labor Relations Board protection unless union leaders signed affidavits swearing they were not and had never been Communists. In 1953, after he left office, Truman criticized the current Eisenhower administration: It is now evident that the present Administration has fully embraced, for political advantage, McCarthyism. I am not referring to the Senator from Wisconsin. He is only important in that his name has taken on the dictionary meaning of the word. It is the corruption of truth, the abandonment of the due process law. It is the use of the big lie and the unfounded accusation against any citizen in the name of Americanism or security. It is the rise to power of the demagogue who lives on untruth; it is the spreading of fear and the destruction of faith in every level of society.[143] On June 1, 1950, Senator Margaret Chase Smith, a Maine Republican, delivered a speech to the Senate she called a "Declaration of Conscience". In a clear attack upon McCarthyism, she called for an end to "character assassinations" and named "some of the basic principles of Americanism: The right to criticize; the right to hold unpopular beliefs; the right to protest; the right of independent thought". She said "freedom of speech is not what it used to be in America", and decried "cancerous tentacles of 'know nothing, suspect everything' attitudes".[144] Six other Republican senators—Wayne Morse, Irving M. Ives, Charles W. Tobey, Edward John Thye, George Aiken, and Robert C. Hendrickson—joined Smith in condemning the tactics of McCarthyism. Joseph N. Welch (left) and Senator McCarthy, June 9, 1954 Elmer Davis, one of the most highly respected news reporters and commentators of the 1940s and 1950s, often spoke out against what he saw as the excesses of McCarthyism. On one occasion he warned that many local anti-communist movements constituted a "general attack not only on schools and colleges and libraries, on teachers and textbooks, but on all people who think and write ... in short, on the freedom of the mind".[145] In 1952, the Supreme Court upheld a lower-court decision in Adler v. Board of Education, thus approving a law that allowed state loyalty review boards to fire teachers deemed "subversive". In his dissenting opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote: "The present law proceeds on a principle repugnant to our society—guilt by association.... What happens under this law is typical of what happens in a police state. Teachers are under constant surveillance; their pasts are combed for signs of disloyalty; their utterances are watched for clues to dangerous thoughts."[146] Broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow One of the most influential opponents of McCarthyism was the famed CBS newscaster and analyst Edward R. Murrow.

This film delves into the intricate realm of nuclear policy and propaganda, unveiling the unsettling reality of how language and messaging have shaped public perception of nuclear warfare. Through the lens of investigative journalism, the film exposes the deliberate use of reassuring rhetoric by politicians and institutions, creating an illusory sense of security regarding the existence and use of nuclear weapons. This controversial documentary encountered unprecedented opposition from regulatory bodies, reflecting the discomfort it provoked among authorities. It meticulously dissects the narrative constructed around nuclear deterrence, contrasting official narratives with hidden truths and presenting a compelling argument that challenges the prevailing perceptions of peace and security. The film confronts historical events like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, unearthing suppressed accounts of the devastating aftermath and shedding light on the discrepancy between the "official truth" and the harsh realities experienced by victims. It navigates through geopolitical complexities, revealing discrepancies in the West's portrayal of nuclear capabilities compared to actual numbers and shedding light on the secrecy surrounding military bases and weapon deployment. The narrative stance emphasizes the responsibility of democratic societies in confronting the realities of nuclear warfare, advocating for a critical reevaluation of established beliefs. The documentary challenges the notion of inevitability surrounding nuclear armament, urging viewers to question the prevailing narratives and take proactive steps toward disarmament. The film's contentious nature led to its withdrawal from broadcast, sparking debates about censorship and the boundaries of media representation. Its counterpart, "The War About Peace," presented a contrasting view supportive of nuclear deterrence, demonstrating the polarized perspectives surrounding this critical global issue. It remains a thought-provoking and contentious exploration of the intricate relationship between propaganda, government narratives, and the realities of nuclear warfare, challenging viewers to reassess their understanding of security and peace in the shadow of nuclear weapons. Nuclear warfare, also known as atomic warfare, is a military conflict or prepared political strategy that deploys nuclear weaponry. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction; in contrast to conventional warfare, nuclear warfare can produce destruction in a much shorter time and can have a long-lasting radiological result. A major nuclear exchange would likely have long-term effects, primarily from the fallout released, and could also lead to secondary effects, such as "nuclear winter",[1][2][3][4][5][6] nuclear famine, and societal collapse.[7][8][9] A global thermonuclear war with Cold War-era stockpiles, or even with the current smaller stockpiles, may lead to various scenarios including the extinction of the human species.[10] To date, the only use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict occurred in 1945 with the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On August 6, 1945, a uranium gun-type device (code name "Little Boy") was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Three days later, on August 9, a plutonium implosion-type device (code name "Fat Man") was detonated over the Japanese city of Nagasaki. Together, these two bombings resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 people and contributed to the surrender of Japan, which occurred before any further nuclear weapons could be produced. After World War II, nuclear weapons were also developed by the Soviet Union (1949), the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and the People's Republic of China (1964), which contributed to the state of conflict and extreme tension that became known as the Cold War. In 1974, India, and in 1998, Pakistan, two countries that were openly hostile toward each other, developed nuclear weapons. Israel (1960s) and North Korea (2006) are also thought to have developed stocks of nuclear weapons, though it is not known how many. The Israeli government has never admitted nor denied having nuclear weapons, although it is known to have constructed the reactor and reprocessing plant necessary for building nuclear weapons.[11] South Africa also manufactured several complete nuclear weapons in the 1980s, but subsequently became the first country to voluntarily destroy their domestically made weapons stocks and abandon further production (1990s).[12][13] Nuclear weapons have been detonated on over 2,000 occasions for testing purposes and demonstrations.[14][15] After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the resultant end of the Cold War, the threat of a major nuclear war between the two nuclear superpowers was generally thought to have declined.[16] Since then, concern over nuclear weapons has shifted to the prevention of localized nuclear conflicts resulting from nuclear proliferation, and the threat of nuclear terrorism. However, the threat of nuclear war is considered to have resurged after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, particularly with regard to Russian threats to use nuclear weapons during the invasion.[17][18] Since 1947, the Doomsday Clock of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has visualized how close the world is to a nuclear war. The Doomsday Clock reached high points in 1953, when the Clock was set to two minutes until midnight after the U.S. and the Soviet Union began testing hydrogen bombs, and in 2018, following the failure of world leaders to address tensions relating to nuclear weapons and climate change issues.[19] Since 2023, the Clock has been set at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been.[20] The most recent advance of the Clock's time setting was largely attributed to the risk of nuclear escalation that arose from the Russian invasion of Ukraine.[21] Types of nuclear warfare The possibility of using nuclear weapons in war is usually divided into two subgroups, each with different effects and potentially fought with different types of nuclear armaments. The first, a limited nuclear war[22] (sometimes attack or exchange), refers to the controlled use of nuclear weapons, whereby the implicit threat exists that a nation can still escalate their use of nuclear weapons. For example, using a small number of nuclear weapons against strictly military targets could be escalated through increasing the number of weapons used, or escalated through the selection of different targets. Limited attacks are thought to be a more credible response against attacks that do not justify all-out retaliation, such as an enemy's limited use of nuclear weapons.[23] The second, a full-scale nuclear war, could consist of large numbers of nuclear weapons used in an attack aimed at an entire country, including military, economic, and civilian targets. Such an attack would almost certainly destroy the entire economic, social, and military infrastructure of the target nation, and would likely have a devastating effect on Earth's biosphere.[7][24] Some Cold War strategists such as Henry Kissinger[25] argued that a limited nuclear war could be possible between two heavily armed superpowers (such as the United States and the Soviet Union). Some predict, however, that a limited war could potentially "escalate" into a full-scale nuclear war. Others[who?] have called limited nuclear war "global nuclear holocaust in slow motion", arguing that—once such a war took place—others would be sure to follow over a period of decades, effectively rendering the planet uninhabitable in the same way that a "full-scale nuclear war" between superpowers would, only taking a much longer (and arguably more agonizing) path to the same result. Even the most optimistic predictions[by whom?] of the effects of a major nuclear exchange foresee the death of many millions of victims within a very short period of time. Such predictions usually include the breakdown of institutions, government, professional and commercial, vital to the continuation of civilization. The resulting loss of vital affordances (food, water and electricity production and distribution, medical and information services, etc.) would account for millions more deaths. More pessimistic predictions argue that a full-scale nuclear war could potentially bring about the extinction of the human race, or at least its near extinction, with only a relatively small number of survivors (mainly in remote areas) and a reduced quality of life and life expectancy for centuries afterward. However, such predictions, assuming total war with nuclear arsenals at Cold War highs, have not been without criticism.[4] Such a horrific catastrophe as global nuclear warfare would almost certainly cause permanent damage to most complex life on the planet, its ecosystems, and the global climate.[5] A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 asserted that even a small-scale regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario in which two opposing nations in the subtropics each used 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (c. 15 kiloton each) on major population centers, the researchers predicted fatalities ranging from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. The authors of the study estimated that as much as five million tons of soot could be released, producing a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia (including most of the grain-growing regions). The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic", according to the researchers.[26] Either a limited or full-scale nuclear exchange could occur during an accidental nuclear war, in which the use of nuclear weapons is triggered unintentionally. Postulated triggers for this scenario have included malfunctioning early warning devices and/or targeting computers, deliberate malfeasance by rogue military commanders, consequences of an accidental straying of warplanes into enemy airspace, reactions to unannounced missile tests during tense diplomatic periods, reactions to military exercises, mistranslated or miscommunicated messages, and others. A number of these scenarios actually occurred during the Cold War, though none resulted in the use of nuclear weapons.[27] Many such scenarios have been depicted in popular culture, such as in the 1959 film On the Beach, the 1962 novel Fail-Safe (released as a film in 1964); and the film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, also released in 1964; the film WarGames, released in 1983. History Main articles: History of nuclear weapons and Timeline of nuclear weapons development 1940s Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Main article: Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Mushroom cloud from the atomic explosion over Nagasaki rising 18,000 m (59,000 ft) into the air on the morning of August 9, 1945. During the final stages of World War II in 1945, the United States conducted atomic raids on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first on August 6, 1945, and the second on August 9, 1945. These two events were the only times nuclear weapons have been used in combat.[28] For six months before the atomic bombings, the U.S. 20th Air Force under General Curtis LeMay executed low-level incendiary raids against Japanese cities. The most destructive air raid to occur during the process was not the nuclear attacks, but the Operation Meetinghouse raid on Tokyo. On the night of March 9–10, 1945, Operation Meetinghouse commenced and 334 Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers took off to raid, with 279 of them dropping 1,665 tons of incendiaries and explosives on Tokyo. The bombing was meant to burn wooden buildings and indeed the bombing caused fire that created a 50 m/s wind, which is comparable to tornadoes. Each bomber carried 6 tons of bombs. A total of 381,300 bombs, which amount to 1,783 tons of bombs, were used in the bombing. Within a few hours of the raid, it had killed an estimated 100,000 people and destroyed 41 km2 (16 sq mi) of the city and 267,000 buildings in a single night — the deadliest bombing raid in military aviation history other than the atomic raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[29][30][31][32] By early August 1945, an estimated 450,000 people had died as the U.S. had intensely firebombed a total of 67 Japanese cities. In late June 1945, as the U.S. wrapped up the two-and-a-half-month Battle of Okinawa (which cost the lives of 260,000 people, including 150,000 civilians),[33][34] it was faced with the prospect of invading the Japanese home islands in an operation codenamed Operation Downfall. Based on the U.S. casualties from the preceding island-hopping campaigns, American commanders estimated that between 50,000 and 500,000 U.S. troops would die and at least 600,000–1,000,000 others would be injured while invading the Japanese home islands. The U.S. manufacture of 500,000 Purple Hearts from the anticipated high level of casualties during the U.S. invasion of Japan gave a demonstration of how deadly and costly it would be. President Harry S. Truman realized he could not afford such a horrendous casualty rate, especially since over 400,000 American combatants had already died fighting in both the European and the Pacific theaters of the war.[35] On July 26, 1945, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of China issued a Potsdam Declaration that called for the unconditional surrender of Japan. It stated that if Japan did not surrender, it would face "prompt and utter destruction".[36][37] The Japanese government ignored this ultimatum, sending a message that they were not going to surrender. In response to the rejection, President Truman authorized the dropping of the atomic bombs. At the time of its use, there were only two atomic bombs available, and despite the fact that more were in production back in mainland U.S., the third bomb wouldn't be available for combat until September.[38][39] A photograph of Sumiteru Taniguchi's back injuries taken in January 1946 by a U.S. Marine photographer Hypocenter of Atomic bomb in Nagasaki On August 6, 1945, the uranium-type nuclear weapon codenamed "Little Boy" was detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima with an energy of about 15 kilotons of TNT (63,000 gigajoules), destroying nearly 50,000 buildings (including the headquarters of the 2nd General Army and Fifth Division) and killing approximately 70,000 people, including 20,000 Japanese combatants and 20,000 Korean slave laborers.[40][41] Three days later, on August 9, a plutonium-type nuclear weapon codenamed "Fat Man" was used against the Japanese city of Nagasaki, with the explosion equivalent to about 20 kilotons of TNT (84,000 gigajoules), destroying 60% of the city and killing approximately 35,000 people, including 23,200–28,200 Japanese munitions workers, 2,000 Korean slave laborers, and 150 Japanese combatants.[42] The industrial damage in Nagasaki was high, partly owing to the inadvertent targeting of the industrial zone, leaving 68–80 percent of the non-dock industrial production destroyed.[43] Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers on August 15, 1945, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, 1945, officially ending the Pacific War and, therefore, World War II, as Germany had already signed its Instrument of Surrender on May 8, 1945, ending the war in Europe. The two atomic bombings led, in part, to post-war Japan's adopting of the Three Non-Nuclear Principles, which forbade the nation from developing nuclear armaments.[44] Immediately after the Japan bombings After the successful Trinity nuclear test July 16, 1945, which was the very first nuclear detonation, the Manhattan project lead manager J. Robert Oppenheimer recalled: We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, and most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multiarmed form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all thought that one way or another. — J. Robert Oppenheimer, The Decision To Drop The Bomb[45] J. Robert Oppenheimer. Immediately after the atomic bombings of Japan, the status of atomic weapons in international and military relations was unclear. Presumably, the United States hoped atomic weapons could offset the Soviet Union's larger conventional ground forces in Eastern Europe, and possibly be used to pressure Soviet leader Joseph Stalin into making concessions. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union pursued its own atomic capabilities through a combination of scientific research and espionage directed against the American program. The Soviets believed that the Americans, with their limited nuclear arsenal, were unlikely to engage in any new world wars, while the Americans were not confident they could prevent a Soviet takeover of Europe, despite their atomic advantage. Within the United States, the authority to produce and develop nuclear weapons was removed from military control and put instead under the civilian control of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. This decision reflected an understanding that nuclear weapons had unique risks and benefits that were separate from other military technology known at the time. Convair B-36 bomber. For several years after World War II, the United States developed and maintained a strategic force based on the Convair B-36 bomber that would be able to attack any potential enemy from bomber bases in the United States. It deployed atomic bombs around the world for potential use in conflicts. Over a period of a few years, many in the American defense community became increasingly convinced of the invincibility of the United States to a nuclear attack. Indeed, it became generally believed that the threat of nuclear war would deter any strike against the United States. Many proposals were suggested to put all American nuclear weapons under international control (by the newly formed United Nations, for example) as an effort to deter both their usage and an arms race. However, no terms could be arrived at that would be agreed upon by both the United States and the Soviet Union.[citation needed] American and Soviet/Russian nuclear stockpiles. On August 29, 1949, the Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon at Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan (see also Soviet atomic bomb project). Scientists in the United States from the Manhattan Project had warned that, in time, the Soviet Union would certainly develop nuclear capabilities of its own. Nevertheless, the effect upon military thinking and planning in the United States was dramatic, primarily because American military strategists had not anticipated the Soviets would "catch up" so soon. However, at this time, they had not discovered that the Soviets had conducted significant nuclear espionage of the project from spies at Los Alamos National Laboratory, the most significant of which was done by the theoretical physicist Klaus Fuchs.[citation needed] The first Soviet bomb was more or less a deliberate copy of the Fat Man plutonium device. In the same year the first US-Soviet nuclear war plan was penned in the US with Operation Dropshot. With the monopoly over nuclear technology broken, worldwide nuclear proliferation accelerated. The United Kingdom tested its first independent atomic bomb in 1952, followed by France developing its first atomic bomb in 1960 and then China developing its first atomic bomb in 1964. While much smaller than the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union, Western Europe's nuclear reserves were nevertheless a significant factor in strategic planning during the Cold War. A top-secret White paper, compiled by the Royal Air Force and produced for the British Government in 1959, estimated that British V bombers carrying nuclear weapons were capable of destroying key cities and military targets in the Soviet Union, with an estimated 16 million deaths in the Soviet Union (half of whom were estimated to be killed on impact and the rest fatally injured) before bomber aircraft from the U.S. Strategic Air Command reached their targets. 1950s Although the Soviet Union had nuclear weapon capabilities at the beginning of the Cold War, the United States still had an advantage in terms of bombers and weapons. In any exchange of hostilities, the United States would have been capable of bombing the Soviet Union, whereas the Soviet Union would have more difficulty carrying out the reverse mission. The widespread introduction of jet-powered interceptor aircraft upset this imbalance somewhat by reducing the effectiveness of the American bomber fleet. In 1949 Curtis LeMay was placed in command of the Strategic Air Command and instituted a program to update the bomber fleet to one that was all-jet. During the early 1950s the B-47 Stratojet and B-52 Stratofortress were introduced, providing the ability to bomb the Soviet Union more easily. Before the development of a capable strategic missile force in the Soviet Union, much of the war-fighting doctrine held by western nations revolved around using a large number of smaller nuclear weapons in a tactical role. It is debatable whether such use could be considered "limited" however because it was believed that the United States would use its own strategic weapons (mainly bombers at the time) should the Soviet Union deploy any kind of nuclear weapon against civilian targets. Douglas MacArthur, an American general, was fired by President Harry Truman, partially because he persistently requested permission to use his own discretion in deciding whether to utilize atomic weapons on the People's Republic of China in 1951 during the Korean War.[46] Mao Zedong, China's communist leader, gave the impression that he would welcome a nuclear war with the capitalists because it would annihilate what he viewed as their imperialist system.[47][48] Let us imagine how many people would die if war breaks out. There are 2.7 billion people in the world, and a third could be lost. If it is a little higher it could be half ... I say that if the worst came to the worst and one-half dies, there will still be one-half left, but imperialism would be razed to the ground and the whole world would become socialist. After a few years there would be 2.7 billion people again. — Mao Zedong, 1957[49] The U.S. and USSR conducted hundreds of nuclear tests, including the Desert Rock exercises at the Nevada Test Site, USA, pictured above during the Korean War to familiarize their soldiers with conducting operations and counter-measures around nuclear detonations, as the Korean War threatened to expand. The concept of a "Fortress North America" emerged during the Second World War and persisted into the Cold War to refer to the option of defending Canada and the United States against their enemies if the rest of the world were lost to them. This option was rejected with the formation of NATO and the decision to permanently station troops in Europe. In the summer of 1951, Project Vista started, in which project analysts such as Robert F. Christy looked at how to defend Western Europe from a Soviet invasion. The emerging development of tactical nuclear weapons was looked upon as a means to give Western forces a qualitative advantage over the Soviet numerical supremacy in conventional weapons.[50] Several scares about the increasing ability of the Soviet Union's strategic bomber forces surfaced during the 1950s. The defensive response by the United States was to deploy a fairly strong "layered defense" consisting of interceptor aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles, like the Nike, and guns, like the M51 Skysweeper, near larger cities. However, this was a small response compared to the construction of a huge fleet of nuclear bombers. The principal nuclear strategy was to massively penetrate the Soviet Union. Because such a large area could not be defended against this overwhelming attack in any credible way, the Soviet Union would lose any exchange. This logic became ingrained in American nuclear doctrine and persisted for much of the duration of the Cold War. As long as the strategic American nuclear forces could overwhelm their Soviet counterparts, a Soviet pre-emptive strike could be averted. Moreover, the Soviet Union could not afford to build any reasonable counterforce, as the economic output of the United States was far larger than that of the Soviets, and they would be unable to achieve "nuclear parity". Soviet nuclear doctrine, however, did not match American nuclear doctrine.[51][52] Soviet military planners assumed they could win a nuclear war.[51][53][54] Therefore, they expected a large-scale nuclear exchange, followed by a "conventional war" which itself would involve heavy use of tactical nuclear weapons. American doctrine rather assumed that Soviet doctrine was similar, with the mutual in mutually assured destruction necessarily requiring that the other side see things in much the same way, rather than believing—as the Soviets did—that they could fight a large-scale, "combined nuclear and conventional" war. In accordance with their doctrine, the Soviet Union conducted large-scale military exercises to explore the possibility of defensive and offensive warfare during a nuclear war. The exercise, under the code name of "Snowball", involved the detonation of a nuclear bomb about twice as powerful as that which fell on Nagasaki and an army of approximately 45,000 soldiers on maneuvers through the hypocenter immediately after the blast.[55] The exercise was conducted on September 14, 1954, under command of Marshal Georgy Zhukov to the north of Totskoye village in Orenburg Oblast, Russia. A revolution in nuclear strategic thought occurred with the introduction of the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which the Soviet Union first successfully tested in August 1957. In order to deliver a warhead to a target, a missile was much faster and more cost-effective than a bomber, and enjoyed a higher survivability due to the enormous difficulty of interception of the ICBMs (due to their high altitude and extreme speed). The Soviet Union could now afford to achieve nuclear parity with the United States in raw numbers, although for a time, they appeared to have chosen not to. Photos of Soviet missile sites set off a wave of panic in the U.S. military, something the launch of Sputnik would do for the American public a few months later. Politicians, notably then-U.S. Senator John F. Kennedy suggested that a "missile gap" existed between the Soviet Union and the United States. The US military gave missile development programs the highest national priority, and several spy aircraft and reconnaissance satellites were designed and deployed to observe Soviet progress. Early ICBMs and bombers were relatively inaccurate, which led to the concept of countervalue strikes — attacks directly on the enemy population, which would theoretically lead to a collapse of the enemy's will to fight. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union invested in extensive protected civilian infrastructure, such as large "nuclear-proof" bunkers and non-perishable food stores. By comparison, smaller scale civil defense programs were instituted in the United States starting in the 1950s, where schools and other public buildings had basements stocked with non-perishable food supplies, canned water, first aid, and dosimeter and Geiger counter radiation-measuring devices. Many of the locations were given "fallout shelter" designation signs. CONELRAD radio information systems were adopted, whereby the commercial radio sector (later supplemented by the National Emergency Alarm Repeaters) would broadcast on two AM radio frequencies in the event of a Civil Defense (CD) emergency. These two frequencies, 640 and 1240 kHz, were marked with small CD triangles on the tuning dial of radios of the period, as can still be seen on 1950s-vintage radios on online auction sites and museums. A few backyard fallout shelters were built by private individuals. Henry Kissinger's view on tactical nuclear war in his controversial 1957 book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy was that any nuclear weapon exploded in air burst mode that was below 500 kilotons in yield and thus averting serious fallout, may be more decisive and less costly in human lives than a protracted conventional war. A list of targets made by the United States was released sometime during December 2015 by the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. The language used to describe targets is "designated ground zeros". The list was released after a request was made during 2006 by William Burr who belongs to a research group at George Washington University, and belongs to a previously top-secret 800-page document. The list is entitled "Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959" and was produced by U.S. Strategic Air Command during the year 1956.[56] 1960s More than 100 US-built missiles having the capability to strike Moscow with nuclear warheads were deployed in Italy and Turkey in 1961 RF-101 Voodoo reconnaissance photograph of the MRBM launch site in San Cristóbal, Cuba (1962) In 1960, the United States developed its first Single Integrated Operational Plan, a range of targeting options, and described launch procedures and target sets against which nuclear weapons would be launched, variants of which were in use from 1961 to 2003. That year also saw the start of the Missile Defense Alarm System, an American system of 12 early-warning satellites that provided limited notice of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile launches between 1960 and 1966. The Ballistic Missile Early Warning System was completed in 1964. The most powerful atomic bomb ever made, the Tsar Bomba, was tested by the Soviets on October 30, 1961. It was 50 megatons, or equal to 50 million tons of regular explosives.[57] A complex and worrisome situation developed in 1962, in what is called the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Soviet Union placed medium-range ballistic missiles 90 miles (140 km) from the United States, possibly as a direct response to American Jupiter missiles placed in Turkey. After intense negotiations, the Soviets ended up removing the missiles from Cuba and decided to institute a massive weapons-building program of their own. In exchange, the United States dismantled its launch sites in Turkey, although this was done secretly and not publicly revealed for over two decades. First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev did not even reveal this part of the agreement when he came under fire by political opponents for mishandling the crisis. Communication delays during the crisis led to the establishment of the Moscow–Washington hotline to allow reliable, direct communications between the two nuclear powers. By the late 1960s, the number of ICBMs and warheads was so high on both sides that it was believed that both the United States and the Soviet Union were capable of completely destroying the infrastructure and a large proportion of the population of the other country. Thus, by some western game theorists, a balance of power system known as mutually assured destruction (or MAD) came into being. It was thought that no full-scale exchange between the powers would result in an outright winner, with at best one side emerging the pyrrhic victor. Thus both sides were deterred from risking the initiation of a direct confrontation, instead being forced to engage in lower-intensity proxy wars. During this decade the People's Republic of China began to build subterranean infrastructure such as the Underground Project 131 following the Sino-Soviet split. One drawback of the MAD doctrine was the possibility of a nuclear war occurring without either side intentionally striking first. Early Warning Systems (EWS) were notoriously error-prone. For example, on 78 occasions in 1979 alone, a "missile display conference" was called to evaluate detections that were "potentially threatening to the North American continent". Some of these were trivial errors and were spotted quickly, but several went to more serious levels. On September 26, 1983, Stanislav Petrov received convincing indications of an American first strike launch against the Soviet Union, but positively identified the warning as a false alarm. Though it is unclear what role Petrov's actions played in preventing a nuclear war during this incident, he has been honored by the United Nations for his actions. Similar incidents happened many times in the United States, due to failed computer chips,[58] misidentifications of large flights of geese, test programs, and bureaucratic failures to notify early warning military personnel of legitimate launches of test or weather missiles. For many years, the U.S. Air Force's strategic bombers were kept airborne on a daily rotating basis "around the clock" (see Operation Chrome Dome), until the number and severity of accidents, the 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash in particular,[59] persuaded policymakers it was not worthwhile. 1970s Israel responded to the Arab Yom Kippur War attack on 6 October 1973 by assembling 13 nuclear weapons in a tunnel under the Negev desert when Syrian tanks were sweeping in across the Golan Heights. On 8 October 1973, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir authorized Defense Minister Moshe Dayan to activate the 13 Israeli nuclear warheads and distribute them to Israeli air force units, with the intent that they be used if Israel began to be overrun.[60] On 24 October 1973, as US President Richard Nixon was preoccupied with the Watergate scandal, Henry Kissinger ordered a DEFCON-3 alert[dubious – discuss] preparing American B-52 nuclear bombers for war. Intelligence reports indicated that the USSR was preparing to defend Egypt in its Yom Kippur War with Israel. It had become apparent that if Israel had dropped nuclear weapons on Egypt or Syria, as it prepared to do, then the USSR would have retaliated against Israel, with the US then committed to providing Israeli assistance, possibly escalating to a general nuclear war.[61] By the late 1970s, people in both the United States and the Soviet Union, along with the rest of the world, had been living with the concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD) for about a decade, and it became deeply ingrained into the psyche and popular culture of those countries.[citation needed] On May 18, 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test in the Pokhran test range. The name of the operation was Smiling Buddha, and India termed the test as a "peaceful nuclear explosion." The Soviet Duga early warning over-the-horizon radar system was made operational in 1976. The extremely powerful radio transmissions needed for such a system led to much disruption of civilian shortwave broadcasts, earning it the nickname "Russian Woodpecker". The idea that any nuclear conflict would eventually escalate was a challenge for military strategists. This challenge was particularly severe for the United States and its NATO allies. It was believed (until the 1970s) that a Soviet tank offensive into Western Europe would quickly overwhelm NATO conventional forces, leading to the necessity of the West escalating to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, one of which was the W-70. This strategy had one major (and possibly critical) flaw, which was soon realized by military analysts but highly underplayed by the U.S. military: conventional NATO forces in the European theatre of war were far outnumbered by similar Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces, and it was assumed that in case of a major Soviet attack (commonly envisioned as the "Red tanks rolling towards the North Sea" scenario) that NATO—in the face of quick conventional defeat—would soon have no other choice but to resort to tactical nuclear strikes against these forces. Most analysts agreed that once the first nuclear exchange had occurred, escalation to global nuclear war would likely become inevitable. The Warsaw Pact's vision of an atomic war between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces was simulated in the top-secret exercise Seven Days to the River Rhine in 1979. The British government exercised their vision of a Soviet nuclear attack with Square Leg in early 1980. Large hardened nuclear weapon storage areas were built across European countries in anticipation of local US and European forces falling back as the conventional NATO defense from the Soviet Union, named REFORGER, was believed to only be capable of stalling the Soviets for a short time. 1980s Montage of the launch of a Trident C4 SLBM and the paths of its reentry vehicles. FEMA-estimated primary counterforce targets for Soviet ICBMs in 1990. The resulting fall-out is indicated with the darkest considered as lethal to lesser fall-out yellow zones.[62][failed verification] In the late 1970s and, particularly, during the early 1980s under U.S. President Ronald Reagan, the United States renewed its commitment to a more powerful military, which required a large increase in spending on U.S. military programs. These programs, which were originally part of the defense budget of U.S. President Jimmy Carter, included spending on conventional and nuclear weapons systems. Under Reagan, defensive systems like the Strategic Defense Initiative were emphasized as well. Another major shift in nuclear doctrine was the development and the improvement of the submarine-launched, nuclear-armed, ballistic missile, or SLBM. It was hailed by many military theorists as a weapon that would make nuclear war less likely. SLBMs—which can move with "stealth" (greatly lessened detectability) virtually anywhere in the world—give a nation a "second strike" capability (i.e., after absorbing a "first strike"). Before the advent of the SLBM, thinkers feared that a nation might be tempted to initiate a first strike if it felt confident that such a strike would incapacitate the nuclear arsenal of its enemy, making retaliation impossible. With the advent of SLBMs, no nation could be certain that a first strike would incapacitate its enemy's entire nuclear arsenal. To the contrary, it would have to fear a near-certain retaliatory second strike from SLBMs. Thus, a first strike was a much less feasible (or desirable) option, and a deliberately initiated nuclear war was thought to be less likely to start. However, it was soon realized that submarines could approach enemy coastlines undetected and decrease the warning time (the time between detection of the missile launch and the impact of the missile) from as much as half an hour to possibly under three minutes. This effect was especially significant to the United States, Britain and China, whose capitals of Washington D.C., London, and Beijing all lay within 100 miles (160 km) of their coasts. Moscow was much more secure from this type of threat, due to its considerable distance from the sea. This greatly increased the credibility of a "surprise first strike" by one faction and (theoretically) made it possible to knock out or disrupt the chain of command of a target nation before any counterstrike could be ordered (known as a "decapitation strike"). It strengthened the notion that a nuclear war could possibly be "won", resulting not only in greatly increased tensions and increasing calls for fail-deadly control systems, but also in a dramatic increase in military spending. The submarines and their missile systems were very expensive, and one fully equipped nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed missile submarine could cost more than the entire GNP of a developing country.[63] It was also calculated, however, that the greatest cost came in the development of both sea- and land-based anti-submarine defenses and in improving and strengthening the "chain of command", and as a result, military spending skyrocketed. South Africa developed a nuclear weapon capability during the 1970s and early 1980s. It was operational for a brief period before being dismantled in the early 1990s.[64] According to the 1980 United Nations report General and Complete Disarmament: Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons: Report of the Secretary-General, it was estimated that there were a total of about 40,000 nuclear warheads in existence at that time, with a potential combined explosive yield of approximately 13,000 megatons. By comparison, the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history when the volcano Mount Tambora erupted in 1815—turning 1816 into the Year Without A Summer due to the levels of global dimming sulfate aerosols and ash expelled—it exploded with a force of roughly 33 billion tons of TNT or 33,000 megatons of TNT this is about 2.2 million Hiroshima Bombs,[65] and ejected 175 km3 (42 cu mi) of mostly rock/tephra,[66] that included 120 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide as an upper estimate.[67] A larger eruption, approximately 74,000 years ago, in Mount Toba produced 2,800 km3 (670 cu mi) of tephra, forming lake Toba,[68] and produced an estimated 6,000 million tonnes (6.6×109 short tons) of sulfur dioxide.[69][70] The explosive energy of the eruption may have been as high as equivalent to 20,000,000 megatons (Mt) of TNT,[71][better source needed] while the asteroid created Chicxulub impact, that is connected with the extinction of the dinosaurs corresponds to at least 70,000,000 Mt of energy, which is roughly 7000 times the maximum arsenal of the US and Soviet Union.[71] Protest against the deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe, Bonn, West Germany, 1981 However, comparisons with supervolcanoes are more misleading than helpful due to the different aerosols released, the likely air burst fuzing height of nuclear weapons and the globally scattered location of these potential nuclear detonations all being in contrast to the singular and subterranean nature of a supervolcanic eruption.[3] Moreover, assuming the entire world stockpile of weapons were grouped together, it would be difficult, due to the nuclear fratricide effect, to ensure the individual weapons would go off all at once. Nonetheless, many people believe that a full-scale nuclear war would result, through the nuclear winter effect, in the extinction of the human species, though not all analysts agree on the assumptions that underpin these nuclear winter models.[4] On 26 September 1983, a Soviet early warning station under the command of Stanislav Petrov falsely detected 5 inbound intercontinental ballistic missiles from the US. Petrov correctly assessed the situation as a false alarm, and hence did not report his finding to his superiors. It is quite possible that his actions prevented "World War III", as the Soviet policy at that time was immediate nuclear response upon discovering inbound ballistic missiles.[72] The world came unusually close to nuclear war in November 1983 when the Soviet Union thought that the NATO military exercise Able Archer 83 was a ruse or "cover-up" to begin a nuclear first strike. The Soviets responded by raising readiness and preparing their nuclear arsenal for immediate use. Soviet fears of an attack ceased once the exercise concluded without incident. Post-Cold War See also: Second Cold War Although the dissolution of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War and greatly reduced tensions between the United States and the Russian Federation, the Soviet Union's formal successor state, both countries remained in a "nuclear stand-off" due to the continuing presence of a very large number of deliverable nuclear warheads on both sides. Additionally, the end of the Cold War led the United States to become increasingly concerned with the development of nuclear technology by other nations outside of the former Soviet Union. In 1995, a branch of the U.S. Strategic Command produced an outline of forward-thinking strategies in the document "Essentials of Post–Cold War Deterrence". In 1995, a Black Brant sounding rocket launched from the Andøya Space Center caused a high alert in Russia, known as the Norwegian Rocket Incident. The Russians thought it might be a nuclear missile launched from an American submarine.[73][74] In 1996, a Russian continuity of government facility, Kosvinsky Mountain, which is believed to be a counterpart to the US Cheyenne Mountain Complex, was completed.[75] It was designed to resist US earth-penetrating nuclear warheads,[75] and is believed to host the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces alternate command post, a post for the general staff built to compensate for the vulnerability of older Soviet era command posts in the Moscow region. In spite of this, the primary command posts for the Strategic Rocket Forces remains Kuntsevo in Moscow and the secondary is the Kosvinsky Mountain in the Ural Mountains.[citation needed] The timing of the Kosvinsky facilities completion date is regarded as one explanation for U.S. interest in a new nuclear "bunker buster" Earth-penetrating warhead and the declaration of the deployment of the B-61 mod 11 in 1997; Kosvinsky is protected by about 1000 feet of granite.[citation needed] UN vote on adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on 7 July 2017 Yes No Did not vote As a consequence of the September 11 attacks, American forces immediately increased their readiness to the highest level in 28 years, closing the blast doors of the NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center for the first time due to a non-exercise event. But unlike similar increases during the Cold War, Russia immediately decided to stand down a large military exercise in the Arctic region, in order to minimize the risk of incidents, rather than following suit.[76] The former chair of the United Nations disarmament committee stated that there are more than 16,000 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons ready for deployment and another 14,000 in storage, with the U.S. having nearly 7,000 ready for use and 3,000 in storage, and Russia having about 8,500 ready for use and 11,000 in storage. In addition, China is thought to possess about 400 nuclear weapons, Britain about 200, France about 350, India about 80–100, and Pakistan 100–110. North Korea is confirmed as having nuclear weapons, though it is not known how many, with most estimates between 1 and 10. Israel is also widely believed to possess usable nuclear weapons. NATO has stationed about 480 American nuclear weapons in Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and Turkey, and several other nations are thought to be in pursuit of an arsenal of their own.[77] Pakistan's nuclear policy was significantly affected by the 1965 war with India.[78] The 1971 war and India's nuclear program played a role in Pakistan's decision to go nuclear.[79] India and Pakistan both decided not to participate in the NPT.[80] Pakistan's nuclear policy became fixated on India because India refused to join the NPT and remained open to nuclear weapons.[81] Impetus by Indian actions spurred Pakistan's nuclear research.[82] After nuclear weapons construction was started by President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's command, the chair of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission Usmani quit in objection.[83] The 1999 war between Pakistan and India occurred after both acquired nuclear weapons.[84] It is believed by some that nuclear weapons are the reason a big war has not broken out in the subcontinent.[85] India and Pakistan still have a risk of nuclear conflict on the issue of war over Kashmir. Nuclear capability deliverable by sea were claimed by Pakistan in 2012.[86] The aim was to achieve a "minimum credible deterrence".[87] Pakistan's nuclear program culminated in the tests at Chagai.[88] One of the aims of Pakistan's programs is fending off potential annexation and maintaining independence.[89] A key development in nuclear warfare throughout the 2000s and early 2010s is the proliferation of nuclear weapons to the developing world, with India and Pakistan both publicly testing several nuclear devices, and North Korea conducting an underground nuclear test on October 9, 2006. The U.S. Geological Survey measured a 4.2 magnitude earthquake in the area where the North Korean test is said to have occurred. A further test was announced by the North Korean government on May 25, 2009.[90] Iran, meanwhile, has embarked on a nuclear program which, while officially for civilian purposes, has come under close scrutiny by the United Nations and many individual states. Recent studies undertaken by the CIA cite the enduring India-Pakistan conflict as the one "flash point" most likely to escalate into a nuclear war. During the Kargil War in 1999, Pakistan came close to using its nuclear weapons in case the conventional military situation underwent further deterioration.[91] Pakistan's foreign minister had even warned that it would "use any weapon in our arsenal", hinting at a nuclear strike against India.[92] The statement was condemned by the international community, with Pakistan denying it later on. This conflict remains the only war (of any sort) between two declared nuclear powers. The 2001-2002 India-Pakistan standoff again stoked fears of nuclear war between the two countries. Despite these very serious and relatively recent threats, relations between India and Pakistan have been improving somewhat over the last few years. However, with the November 26, 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, tensions again worsened. External image image icon A geopolitical example of nuclear strike plan of ROC Army in Kinmen history. Effective Radius: 10 km; Pop.: 1.06 million Large stockpile with global range (dark blue), smaller stockpile with global range (medium blue), small stockpile with regional range (light blue). Another potential geopolitical issue that is considered particularly worrisome by military analysts is a possible conflict between the United States and the People's Republic of China over Taiwan. Although economic forces are thought to have reduced the possibility of a military conflict, there remains concern about the increasing military buildup of China (China is rapidly increasing its naval capacity), and that any move toward Taiwan independence could potentially spin out of control. Israel is thought to possess somewhere between one hundred and four hundred nuclear warheads. It has been asserted that the Dolphin-class submarines which Israel received from Germany have been adapted to carry nuclear-armed Popeye cruise missiles, so as to give Israel a second strike capability.[93] Israel has been involved in wars with its neighbors in the Middle East (and with other "non-state actors" in Lebanon and Palestine) on numerous prior occasions, and its small geographic size and population could mean that, in the event of future wars, the Israel Defense Forces might have very little time to react to an invasion or other major threat. Such a situation could escalate to nuclear warfare very quickly in some scenarios. On March 7, 2013, North Korea threatened the United States with a pre-emptive nuclear strike.[94] On April 9, North Korea urged foreigners to leave South Korea, stating that both countries were on the verge of nuclear war.[95] On April 12, North Korea stated that a nuclear war was unavoidable. The country declared Japan as its first target.[96] In 2014, when Russia-United States and Russia-NATO relations worsened over the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Russian state-owned television channel Russia 1 stated that "Russia is the only country in the world that is really capable of turning the USA into radioactive ash."[97] U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter considered proposing deployment of ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy Russian weapons.[98] In August 2017, North Korea warned that it might launch mid-range ballistic missiles into waters within 18 to 24 miles (29 to 39 km) of Guam, following an exchange of threats between the governments of North Korea and the United States.[99][100] Escalating tensions between North Korea and the United States, including threats by both countries that they could use nuclear weapons against one another, prompted a heightened state of readiness in Hawaii. The perceived ballistic missile threat broadcast all over Hawaii on 13 January 2018 was a false missile alarm.[101][102] In October 2018, the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev commented that U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty is "not the work of a great mind" and that "a new arms race has been announced".[103][104] In early 2019, more than 90% of world's 13,865 nuclear weapons were owned by Russia and the United States.[105][106] In 2019, Vladimir Putin warned that Russia would deploy nuclear missiles in Europe if the United States deployed intermediate-range nuclear missiles there. Journalist Dmitry Kiselyov listed the targets in the United States, which includes The Pentagon, Camp David, Fort Ritchie, McClellan Air Force Base, and Jim Creek Naval Radio Station. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov denies the existence of the target list.[107][108] On February 24, 2022, in a televised address preceding the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Russia "is today one of the most powerful nuclear powers in the world... No one should have any doubts that a direct attack on our country will lead to defeat and dire consequences for any potential aggressor." Later in the same speech, Putin stated: "Now a few important, very important words for those who may be tempted to intervene in ongoing events. Whoever tries to hinder us, and even more so to create threats for our country, for our people, should know that Russia's response will be immediate and will lead you to such consequences that you have never experienced in your history."[109][110] On February 27, 2022, Putin publicly put his nuclear forces on alert, stating that NATO powers had made "aggressive statements".[111] On April 14, The New York Times reported comments by CIA director William Burns, who said "potential desperation" could lead President Putin to order the use of tactical nuclear weapons.[112] On September 21, 2022, days before declaring the annexation of additional parts of Ukraine, Putin claimed in a national television address that high NATO officials had made statements about the possibility of "using nuclear weapons of mass destruction against Russia", and stated "if the territorial integrity of our country is threatened, we will certainly use all the means at our disposal to protect Russia and our people... It's not a bluff." NBC News characterized Putin's statements as a "thinly veiled" threat that Putin was willing to risk nuclear conflict if necessary to win the war with Ukraine.[113] Hans M. Kristensen, director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, stated that "if you start detonating nuclear weapons in the [battlefield] you potentially get radioactive fallout that you can't control — it could rain over your own troops as well, so it might not be an advantage to do that in the field."[114] According to a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Nature Food in August 2022,[115] a full-scale nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia would kill 360 million people directly, with a further 5 billion people dying from starvation. More than 2 billion people would die from a smaller-scale nuclear war between India and Pakistan.[116][117] Sub-strategic use See also: Nuclear bunker buster and Edward Teller § Decision to drop the bombs The above examples envisage nuclear warfare at a strategic level, i.e., total war. However, nuclear powers have the ability to undertake more limited engagements. "Sub-strategic use" includes the use of either "low-yield" tactical nuclear weapons, or of variable yield strategic nuclear weapons in a very limited role, as compared to battlefield exchanges of larger-yield strategic nuclear weapons. This was described by the UK Parliamentary Defence Select Committee as "the launch of one or a limited number of missiles against an adversary as a means of conveying a political message, warning or demonstration of resolve".[118] It is believed that all current nuclear weapons states possess tactical nuclear weapons, with the exception of the United Kingdom, which decommissioned its tactical warheads in 1998. However, the UK does possess scalable-yield strategic warheads, and this technology tends to blur the difference between "strategic", "sub-strategic", and "tactical" use or weapons. American, French and British nuclear submarines are believed to carry at least some missiles with dial-a-yield warheads for this purpose, potentially allowing a strike as low as one kiloton (or less) against a single target. Only the People's Republic of China and the Republic of India have declarative, unqualified, unconditional "no first use" nuclear weapons policies. India and Pakistan maintain only a credible minimum deterrence. Commodore Tim Hare, former Director of Nuclear Policy at the British Ministry of Defence, has described "sub-strategic use" as offering the Government "an extra option in the escalatory process before it goes for an all-out strategic strike which would deliver unacceptable damage".[119] However, this sub-strategic capacity has been criticized as potentially increasing the "acceptability" of using nuclear weapons. Combined with the trend in the reduction in the worldwide nuclear arsenal as of 2007 is the warhead miniaturization and modernization of the remaining strategic weapons that is presently occurring in all the declared nuclear weapon states, into more "usable" configurations. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute suggests that this is creating a culture where use of these weapons is more acceptable and therefore is increasing the risk of war, as these modern weapons do not possess the same psychological deterrent value as the large Cold-War era, multi-megaton warheads.[120] In many ways, this present change in the balance of terror can be seen as the complete embracement of the switch from the 1950s Eisenhower doctrine of "massive retaliation"[121] to one of "flexible response", which has been growing in importance in the US nuclear war fighting plan/SIOP every decade since. For example, the United States adopted a policy in 1996 of allowing the targeting of its nuclear weapons at non-state actors ("terrorists") armed with weapons of mass destruction.[122] Another dimension to the tactical use of nuclear weapons is that of such weapons deployed at sea for use against surface and submarine vessels. Until 1992, vessels of the United States Navy (and their aircraft) deployed various such weapons as bombs, rockets (guided and unguided), torpedoes, and depth charges. Such tactical naval nuclear weapons were considered more acceptable to use early in a conflict because there would be few civilian casualties. It was feared by many planners that such use would probably quickly have escalated into a large-scale nuclear war.[123] This situation was particularly exacerbated by the fact that such weapons at sea were not constrained by the safeguards provided by the Permissive Action Link attached to U.S. Air Force and Army nuclear weapons. It is unknown if the navies of the other nuclear powers yet today deploy tactical nuclear weapons at sea. The 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review emphasised the need for the US to have sub-strategic nuclear weapons as additional layers for its nuclear deterrence.[124] Nuclear terrorism Main article: Nuclear terrorism Nuclear terrorism by non-state organizations or actors (even individuals) is a largely unknown and understudied factor in nuclear deterrence thinking, as states possessing nuclear weapons are susceptible to retaliation in kind, while sub- or trans-state actors may be less so. The collapse of the Soviet Union has given rise to the possibility that former Soviet nuclear weapons might become available on the black market (so-called 'loose nukes'). A number of other concerns have been expressed about the security of nuclear weapons in newer nuclear powers with relatively less stable governments, such as Pakistan, but in each case, the fears have been addressed to some extent by statements and evidence provided by those nations, as well as cooperative programs between nations. Worry remains, however, in many circles that a relative decrease in the security of nuclear weapons has emerged in recent years, and that terrorists or others may attempt to exert control over (or use) nuclear weapons, militarily applicable technology, or nuclear materials and fuel. Another possible nuclear terrorism threat are devices designed to disperse radioactive materials over a large area using conventional explosives, called dirty bombs. The detonation of a "dirty bomb" would not cause a nuclear explosion, nor would it release enough radiation to kill or injure a large number of people. However, it could cause severe disruption and require potentially very costly decontamination procedures and increased spending on security measures.[125] Radioactive materials can also be used for targeted assassinations. For example, the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko was described by medical professionals, as "an ominous landmark: the beginning of an era of nuclear terrorism."[126][127][128][129] Survival See also: Nuclear famine, Nuclear War Survival Skills, and Civil defense The predictions of the effects of a major countervalue nuclear exchange include millions of city dweller deaths within a short period of time. Some 1980s predictions had gone further and argued that a full-scale nuclear war could eventually bring about the extinction of the human race.[7] Such predictions, sometimes but not always based on total war with nuclear arsenals at Cold War highs, received contemporary criticism.[4] On the other hand, some 1980s governmental predictions, such as FEMA's CRP-2B and NATO's Carte Blanche, have received criticism from groups such as the Federation of American Scientists for being overly optimistic. CRP-2B, for instance, infamously predicted that 80% of Americans would survive a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, a figure that neglected nuclear war's impacts on healthcare infrastructure, the food supply, and the ecosystem and assumed that all major cities could be successfully evacuated within 3–5 days.[130] A number of Cold War publications advocated preparations that could purportedly enable a large proportion of civilians to survive even a total nuclear war. Among the most famous of these is Nuclear War Survival Skills.[131] To avoid injury and death from a nuclear weapon's heat flash and blast effects, the two most far-ranging prompt effects of nuclear weapons, schoolchildren were taught to duck and cover by the early Cold War film of the same name. Such advice is once again being given in case of nuclear terrorist attacks.[132] Prussian blue, or "Radiogardase", is stockpiled in the US, along with potassium iodide and DPTA, as pharmaceuticals useful in treating internal exposure to harmful radioisotopes in fallout.[133] Publications on adapting to a changing diet and supplying nutritional food sources following a nuclear war, with particular focus on agricultural radioecology, include Nutrition in the postattack environment by the RAND corporation.[134] The British government developed a public alert system for use during a nuclear attack with the expectation of a four-minute warning before detonation. The United States expected a warning time of anywhere from half an hour (for land-based missiles) to less than three minutes (for submarine-based weapons). Many countries maintain plans for continuity of government following a nuclear attack or similar disasters. These range from a designated survivor, intended to ensure the survival of some form of government leadership, to the Soviet Dead Hand system, which allows for retaliation even if all Soviet leadership were destroyed. Nuclear submarines are given letters of last resort: orders on what action to take in the event that a

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ David William Belin (June 20, 1928 – January 17, 1999) was an attorney for the Warren Commission and the Rockefeller Commission.[1] Belin was a partner in a Des Moines, Iowa law firm and, with former NBC News president Michael Gartner, was co-owner of The Tribune in Ames, Iowa.[1] Early life Belin was born in Washington, D.C. and raised in Sioux City, Iowa.[1] Notable actions Belin served the Jewish community in many leadership positions, establishing the Jewish Outreach Institute in 1987 after serving as chairman of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations' outreach commission.[1] A successful businessman, Belin owned a number of Midwestern publications. Belin attended the University of Michigan where he received a bachelor's degree in 1951, a master's degree in business in 1953, and a law degree in 1954. He began practicing law in Des Moines in 1954.[1] Government service Belin served in the United States Army in Korea and in Japan.[1] He was a concert violinist for a period of his service.[2] Belin served as staff counsel to the Warren Commission, which investigated President John F. Kennedy's assassination. The Commission’s report concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely on his own as Kennedy's assassin. Belin was hired by Lee Rankin, chief counsel to the Commission, who assigned a team of two lawyers to each of the major areas for investigation. Belin and Joe Ball, a criminal defense lawyer from Los Angeles, shared the important task of investigating Oswald’s activities during the assassination.[3] As their work progressed, Belin focused his efforts on trying to prove that a second shooter had participated in the assassination, but detailed work by the FBI and analysis of the Zapruder film suggested that all of the shots that hit President Kennedy and Texas Governor John Connally originated from Oswald’s position in the book depository.[4] At Robert Kennedy’s insistence, Chief Justice Earl Warren personally reviewed the evidence relating to President Kennedy’s medical treatment and autopsy.[5] Because the photos were so gruesome, Warren prevented the staff attorneys from using the autopsy evidence to corroborate the testimony of medical witnesses.[6] Belin described this decision as “disastrous� because it “gave rise to wild speculation and rumor� about the President’s injuries. Belin believed that the Kennedy family’s desire for privacy was outweighed by the public’s need to know the facts about the assassination.[7] In January 1975, President Gerald Ford, a former Warren Commission member, appointed Belin to serve as executive director of the Rockefeller Commission, which investigated illegal activities of the Central Intelligence Agency.[8] Belin led the Rockefeller Commission’s effort to investigate and publicize the CIA’s program to assassinate foreign officials. Under pressure from Belin, the CIA turned over records demonstrating the existence of these secret activities. When members of the Commission, including Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, objected to further investigation, Belin used favorable press coverage to convince the Commission to allow him to continue. Key CIA officials then testified about the agency’s plans from 1960 to 1964 to assassinate Fidel Castro – plans that had not been disclosed to the Warren Commission.[9] Based on this evidence, Belin prepared a draft chapter for the commission’s report, but both Rockefeller and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger successfully opposed publication of this chapter. Belin was upset about this decision, but the evidence that he collected provided important support for the groundbreaking work of the Church Committee in 1975 and 1976.[10] Responding to Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK,� Belin delivered a major defense of the Commission’s work in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on March 26, 1992. He described “the lies, omissions, misrepresentations, and manufactured facts� in the film, and characterized Stone’s work as an effort to impeach the integrity of Earl Warren, “a great Chief Justice.� Belin also noted the massive amount of money spent by film studios and television networks to generate controversy and profits “as they rewrite the truth� about the Kennedy assassination.[11] Belin wrote two books on the JFK Assassination: November 22, 1963: You Are the Jury (1973) and Final Disclosure: The Full Truth About the Assassination of President Kennedy (1988). Belin stood by the findings of the Warren Commission’s report until his death, and was known to become incensed at any mention of an assassination conspiracy. As he lay in a coma in his final days, his friends would whisper conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination into his ear to confirm his unconsciousness by his unprecedented lack of response.[12] Belin Lectureship In 1991, Belin established the David W. Belin Lectureship in American Jewish Affairs at his alma mater the University of Michigan as an academic forum for the discussion of contemporary Jewish life in the United States. Belin graduated from the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and the Arts, Business School and Law School. Past Belin lecturers have included Egon Mayer, Stephen J. Whitfeld, Arthur Green, Deborah Dash Moore, Alvin Rosenfeld, Paula Hyman, Jeffrey S. Gurock, Arnold Eisen, Sylvia Barack Fishman, Jonathan Sarna, Hasia Diner, Susan Martha Kahn, Riv-Ellen Prell, Andrew Heinze, and Fred Lazin.[citation needed] The Belin lectures have been published annually by the University of Michigan Frankel Center for Judaic Studies.[13] Later years and death Belin lived in Windsor Heights, Iowa and on Manhattan's East Side. In January 1999, he sustained head injuries in a fall in a Rochester, Minnesota hotel room.[1] Belin was in a coma before dying twelve days later on January 17.[1] References Pace, Eric (January 18, 1999). "David W. Belin, Warren Commission Lawyer, Dies at 70". The New York Times. New York. Retrieved March 26, 2012. Belin, David William (June 20, 1928–January 17, 1999) Willens, Howard P., 1931- (31 October 2013). History Will Prove Us Right : Inside the Warren Commission report on the assassination of John F. Kennedy ("HWPUR"). New York, NY. pp. 43–45. ISBN 978-1-4683-0917-1. OCLC 863152345. Willens, HWPUR, pp. 85-87. Willens, HWPUR, pp. 193-94. Bugliosi, Vincent (2007). Reclaiming history : the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (First ed.). New York. pp. 426–27. ISBN 978-0-393-04525-3. OCLC 80180151. Belin, David W. (1973). November 22, 1963 : you are the jury. [New York]: Quadrangle. pp. 345–47. ISBN 0-8129-0374-9. OCLC 768651. Belin, David W. (1988). Final disclosure : the full truth about the assassination of President Kennedy. New York: Scribner's. pp. 86–91. ISBN 0-684-18976-3. OCLC 18017377. Willens, HWPUR, pp. 310-13. Belin, Final Disclosure, pp. 163-65. Willens, HWPUR, pp. 332-33. Sullivan, Andrew (January 2, 2000). "The Lives They Lived: David W. Belin, b. 1928". The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved August 25, 2020. "David W. Belin Lecture". www.lsa.umich.edu. Jean & Samuel Frankel Center for Judaic Studies. Archived from the original on September 27, 2015. Retrieved August 3, 2015. Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata International FAST ISNI VIAF WorldCat National Israel United States Netherlands Other NARA Categories: 1928 births1999 deaths20th-century American businesspeople20th-century American JewsWriters from Des Moines, IowaUniversity of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts alumniWarren Commission counsel and staffWriters from New York (state)University of Michigan Law School alumniRoss School of Business alumniBusinesspeople from Manhattan

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Barton Springs is a set of four natural water springs located at Barton Creek on the grounds of Zilker Park[2] in Austin, Texas, resulting from water flowing through the Edwards Aquifer. The largest spring, Main Barton Spring (also known as Parthenia, "the mother spring"), supplies water to Barton Springs Pool, a popular recreational destination in Austin. The smaller springs are located nearby, two with man-made structures built to contain and direct their flow. The springs are the only known habitat of the Barton Springs Salamander, an endangered species.[3] The Barton Creek National Archeological and Historic District was formed in 1985. Geology Barton Springs is the main discharge point for the Barton Springs segment of the Edwards Aquifer of Texas, a well known karst aquifer. Geologically, the aquifer is composed of limestone from the Cretaceous period, about 100 million years old. Fractures, fissures, conduits, and caves have developed in this limestone. Both physical forces, such as faulting, and chemical forces, such as dissolution of limestone by infiltrating water, have enlarged these voids. This results in a karst aquifer made up of limestone with large void spaces. Water then enters the aquifer and fills the voids.[4] All water discharging from Barton Springs originates as rainfall. Some of this rain falls directly onto the area of land where the aquifer limestone rock is exposed, which is known as the recharge zone. Other rainfall enters into creeks that cross the recharge zone, and infiltrates the limestone bedrock. After water enters the aquifer, it flows along the gradients created by differences in hydraulic pressure into the area of lowest hydraulic pressure. This lowest point of hydraulic pressure is Barton Springs. Main spring Main Barton Spring/Parthenia is the most famous, yet least visible of the four springs because it is completely submerged by pool water. Located near the diving board in Barton Springs Pool, the spring's flow is not always visible at the surface. The main spring discharges an average flow of about 31 million US gallons (120,000 m3) per day. The lowest discharge ever recorded was 9 million US gallons (34,000 m3) per day during the drought of the 1950s, and the highest discharge ever recorded was 85 million US gallons (320,000 m3) per day during December 1991[5] and September 2016[6] flooding. By comparison, a typical domestic in-ground swimming pool holds about 20,000 US gallons (76 m3), and the City of Austin, a city of about 1 million residents, uses about 120 million US gallons (450,000 m3) per day for its public water supply system.[7] Other springs Eliza Spring in 2005. The three other springs associated with Barton Springs are Eliza, Old Mill, and Upper Barton Spring. Each is significantly smaller than Main Barton Spring, discharging an average of 3 million US gallons (11,000 m3) per day. Sometimes, these springs dry up completely. Eliza Spring, also known as Concession Spring, is located near the north entrance to Barton Springs Pool, 300 feet (100m) east towards the children's playscape. During the early 20th century, an amphitheater-style swimming enclosure was built around the spring. This structure is no longer open to the public due to safety concerns, and the fact that Eliza Spring has become a sensitive habitat area for the endangered Barton Springs Salamander. Old Mill Spring, also known as Sunken Gardens Spring or Zenobia Spring, is located on the south side of Barton Springs Pool. Like Eliza Spring, the early 20th century structure built around the spring is now closed to public access due to safety and endangered species habitat issues. Scientific analysis show that the water at Old Mill Spring has a slightly different chemistry than that of Main Barton Spring and Eliza Spring, even though it is less than half a mile (800 m) away from these springs. Upper Barton Spring is located in the creek bed of Barton Creek, about a half mile (800 m) upstream or west of Barton Springs Pool. Frequently dry, Upper Barton Spring is fully submerged by Barton Creek during floods. The water at Upper Barton Spring also has a significantly different chemistry than the other springs. The entire area around Barton Springs is riddled with faults from the Balcones Fault Zone and features other, smaller springs. For example, about one mile (2 km) upstream of Upper Barton Spring, an intermittent spring fills a popular natural swimming hole. Several other small springs empty directly into the Barton Creek bypass tunnel that passes to the side of Barton Springs Pool.[8] Fauna Two salamander species are found only at Barton Springs: Barton Springs salamander and Austin blind salamander.[9] Notes "National Register Information System – (#85003213)". National Register of Historic Places. National Park Service. March 13, 2009. Gregg Eckhardt. 2009 Gunnar, Brune. "Barton Springs". Retrieved September 12, 2011. Eckhardt, Gregg (2009). "Edwards Aquifer and Barton Springs". Edwards Aquifer. Retrieved September 12, 2011. "Barton SPGS at Austin, TX". "Barton SPGS at Austin, TX". "Austin Water Use at Record Low". Hill Country Alliance. Retrieved July 11, 2020. Lai, Valeria (July 23, 2010). "Barton Springs". Retrieved September 11, 2011. Frost, Darrel R. (2014). "Amphibian Species of the World: an Online Reference. Version 6.0". American Museum of Natural History. Retrieved February 14, 2015. External links Wikimedia Commons has media related to Barton Springs. Save Our Springs Alliance Barton Springs/Edwards Aquifer Conservation District vte Austin, Texas Slogan: Live Music Capital of the World Attractions Austin Zoo Circuit of the Americas Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium Dell Diamond Driskill Hotel Frank Erwin Center NLand State Capitol Texas Governor's Mansion Treaty Oak UFCU Disch-Falk Field University of Texas Tower Zach Theatre History 1839 city plan 1928 city plan Austin Dam failure Capitol View Corridors COVID-19 pandemic French Legation Greater Austin Stephen F. Austin Texas Archive War Timeline Treaty Oak Waterloo, Texas Education Tertiary Austin Community College Concordia University Texas Huston–Tillotson University St. Edward's University University of Texas School districts Austin ISD template Del Valle ISD Eanes ISD Hays CISD Leander ISD Lake Travis ISD Manor ISD Pflugerville ISD State schools Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired Texas School for the Deaf Closed Texas Blind, Deaf, and Orphan School Libraries Austin Public Library Lorenzo de Zavala State Archives and Library Building Government City Hall Camp Mabry City Council (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10) Fire Health Police Industry General Amy's Ice Creams Golfsmith Keller Williams Realty Schlotzsky's Whole Foods Market Creative arts Alamo Drafthouse Cinema/Drafthouse Films Collings Guitars Devolver Digital Gunfire Games Inner Sanctum Records Powerhouse Animation Studios Retro Studios Rooster Teeth Troublemaker Studios Waterloo Records Western Vinyl Technology Advanced Technology Development Facility (ATDF) Cirrus Logic Dell Freescale Semiconductor Luminex Corporation MCC National Instruments Silicon Labs Valence Technology Museums Arthouse at Laguna Gloria Arthouse at The Jones Center Austin History Center Austin Museum of Digital Art Blanton Museum of Art Bullock Texas State History Museum The Contemporary Austin Dolph Briscoe Center for American History Elisabet Ney Museum French Legation Museum George Washington Carver Museum and Cultural Center Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center Jacob Fontaine Religious Museum Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum Mexic-Arte Museum Neill-Cochran House Museum O. Henry Museum South Austin Museum of Popular Culture Texas Memorial Museum Texas Military Forces Museum Texas State Capitol Visitors Center Umlauf Sculpture Garden and Museum Music Antone's Armadillo World Headquarters Austin City Limits Austin Opera Austin Symphony Orchestra Cinematic Symphony Emo's Germania Insurance Amphitheater SXSW Neighborhoods Allandale Anderson Mill Barton Hills Blackland Bouldin Creek Bremond Block Historic District Brentwood Bryker Woods Canyon Creek Chinatown Circle C Ranch Clarksville Congress Avenue Copperfield Crestview Dawson Dove Springs Downtown Austin The Drag East Cesar Chavez East Riverside-Oltorf Easton Park French Place Galindo Granada Hills Hancock Hyde Park Historic District Jollyville Montopolis Moore's Crossing Historic District Mueller Community North Burnet–Gateway North Shoal Creek Northwest Hills Oak Hill Old West Austin Onion Creek Pemberton Heights Rainey Street Rosedale Saint John Scenic Brook Shadow Lawn Historic District Sixth Street South Congress South Lamar South River City Spyglass-Barton's Bluff Swedish Hill Tarrytown Travis Heights Waters Park West Campus Westgate West Line Willow-Spence Streets Windsor Hills Windsor Park Wooten Zilker Parks and recreation Auditorium Shores Barton Creek Barton Springs Big Walnut Creek Bull Creek Colorado River Deep Eddy Pool Emma Long Hippie Hollow Lady Bird Lake Lake Austin Lake Travis Lake Walter E. Long McKinney Falls Mount Bonnell Pease Park Republic Square Rosewood Park Walnut Creek Park Wild Basin Zilker Park Transportation Public Austin–Bergstrom International Airport CapMetro CapMetro Bus CapMetro Rail CapMetro Rapid Capital Area Rural Transportation System Freeways MoPac Expressway Interstate 35 Pickle Parkway SH 71 US 290 US 183 Streets Congress Avenue Guadalupe Street Sixth Street Bridges Ann W. Richards Congress Avenue Bridge Lamar Boulevard Bridge Larry Monroe Forever Bridge Montopolis Bridge Pennybacker Bridge Pfluger Pedestrian Bridge West Fifth Street Bridge West Sixth Street Bridge Culture Keep Austin Weird Leslie Cochran Occupy Austin Spamarama Weird City Sports Austin Aztex FC Austin Bold FC Austin FC Austin FC II Austin Gilgronis Austin Huns Austin Lightning Austin Lady Lone Stars Austin Lone Stars Austin Outlaws Austin Rise FC Austin Spurs Austin Thunder Austin United FC FC Austin Elite Round Rock Express Texas Stars vte National Register of Historic Places in Austin, Texas Archaeological Andrew M. Cox Ranch Site Levi Rock Shelter Smith Rock Shelter Business Arnold Bakery Austin Daily Tribune Building Blue Bonnet Court Brown Building Cambridge Tower Driskill Hotel Goodman Building Green Pastures Haehnel Building Lundberg Bakery Millett Opera House Norwood Tower Paramount Theatre J. P. Schneider Store Scholz Garten Victory Grill Westgate Tower Civic All Saints' Episcopal Church Anderson Stadium Austin Central Fire Station 1 Austin Fire Drill Tower Austin History Center Austin State Hospital Battle Hall Camp Mabry George Washington Carver Museum and Cultural Center Central Christian Church Elisabet Ney Museum French Legation General Land Office Building Gethsemane Lutheran Church Dewitt C. Greer State Highway Building Hyde Park Presbyterian Church Lamar Boulevard Bridge Littlefield House Montopolis Bridge Moonlight Towers O. Henry Hall Oakwood Cemetery Royal Arch Masonic Lodge James E. Rudder State Office Building St. David's Episcopal Church St. Edward's University Main Building St. Mary's Cathedral Scottish Rite Dormitory Seaholm Power Plant Texas Federation of Women's Clubs Headquarters Texas Governor's Mansion Texas State Capitol Texas State Cemetery Third Street Railroad Trestle Town Lake Gazebo United States Courthouse (1936) University Baptist Church University Junior High School Anthony and Louise Viaer Alumni Hall Wesley United Methodist Church West Fifth Street Bridge West Sixth Street Bridge Districts Bremond Block Historic District Clarksville Historic District Congress Avenue Historic District Hyde Park Historic District Little Campus Moore's Crossing Historic District Old West Austin Historic District Rainey Street Historic District Shadow Lawn Historic District Sixth Street Historic District Swedish Hill Historic District Travis Heights-Fairview Park Historic District West Line Historic District Willow–Spence Streets Historic District Private Aynesworth–Wright House Judge Robert Lynn Batts House Genaro P. and Carolina Briones House Brizendine House Carrington–Covert House Daniel H. and William T. Caswell Houses Frank M. and Annie G. Covert House Cox–Craddock House J. Frank Dobie House Fischer House Granger House and The Perch Hildreth–Flanagan–Heierman House Henry Hirshfeld House and Cottage A. J. Jernigan House Keith House Laguna Gloria Peter and Clotilde Shipe Mansbendel House Mayfield–Gutsch Estate McKinney Homestead Millett Opera House Neill–Cochran House Oliphant–Walker House Page–Gilbert House Perry Estate–St. Mary's Academy William Sidney Porter House Louis and Mathilde Reuter House Roberts Clinic Robinson–Macken House Sheeks–Robertson House Col. Monroe M. Shipe House Smith–Marcuse–Lowry House Southgate–Lewis House Wahrenberger House Woodlawn Goodall Wooten House Worrell–Ettlinger House Ziller House Recreational Barton Springs Deep Eddy Pool Lions Municipal Golf Course Mount Bonnell Wooldridge Park Zilker Park Categories: National Register of Historic Places in Austin, TexasCity of Austin Historic LandmarksGeography of Austin, TexasHistoric districts on the National Register of Historic Places in TexasSprings of TexasBodies of water of Travis County, TexasArchaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Texas

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Blacks Britannica was a 1978 American documentary film directed and produced by David Koff and Musindo Mwinyipembe.[1] An analysis of the Black British experience of racism in Britain, it featured contributions by Colin Prescod, Darcus Howe, Jessica Huntley, Gus John, Claudia Jones, Courtney Hay, the Manchester community worker Ron Phillips, Tony Sealy and Steel Pulse. Making of the film Koff and Mwinyipembe, who had spent much of her childhood in Britain, became interested in the phenomenon of British racism. In the wake of riots against over-policing of the 1976 and 1977 Notting Hill Carnival, they saw racial discrimination in Britain as similar in degree to that in the United States. They wanted to understand how it had developed so quickly: "from, say, 1958 to 1978 ... one had a 20 year span of time in which a pattern of institutional racism developed in Britain but at the same time a very clear response to that racism was also beginning to manifest itself.[2] They initially proposed a documentary about the British black community to the Boston public television station WGBH in September 1977. To make the documentary, Koff and Mwinyipembe worked closely with Colin Prescod and other black British intellectuals and activists. By the end of May 1978, according to Koff, the film was ready to show to WGBH. However, it faced immediate opposition from WGBH executives such as David Fanning and Peter McGhee:[2] There was a very immediate and hostile reaction. Everyone felt that it was "revolutionary, that the audience just wouldn't be able to cope with a film that came out so clearly, as they said, with a "call for revolution."[2] It was officially agreed that Koff and Mwinyipembe should continue preparing the film for national television release on July 13, 1978.[2] Censorship After submitting the final cut of the film in late June Koff and Mwinyipembe learned that WGBH had decided to cancel the July 13 broadcast, and 're-edit' the film for release. Accusing WGBH of censorship, Koff and Mwinyipembe organized a London press conference, and private screenings of the original film. Blacks Britannica also went on public exhibition at one London cinema, until WGBH secured an injunction against it.[2] WGBH released a statement by David Fanning objecting to the "arrangement of the material within the film, which, when viewed out of context by an American audience, would be confusing."[3] They showcased their own re-edit to the press, blocking the original production team from attending viewings. The re-edit removed the beginning and end framing of the original film, removed provocative material such as and restructured the sequence of other material. The result was nearly five minutes shorter, with around 80 changes. The original film had presented an analysis "clearly from the black perspective", ascribing political responsibility for the situation to the British state in a post-colonial situation where capitalism was encountering limits. By contrast, the re-edited version presented what Mwinyipembe characterized as "the point of view of the state itself, laying the blame on blacks". All of the original production team disassociated themselves, and were not included in the credits for the re-edited version. Colin Prescod, outraged after managing to see the re-edit, demanded that the company remove all his material. WGBH ignored Prescod's request, and his legal attempt to block publication was unsuccessful.[2] Reception The critic Peter Biskind saw Blacks Britannica as approaching "British racism from an uncompromising Marxist perspective, showing how it is used to create a permanent underclass and to set the working class at war with itself". WBGH's recut version provided "an object lesson in the anatomy of censorship."[3] In December 1978 Blacks Britannica won the special prize of the International Organization of Journalists at the Leipzig Film Festival. Joel Dreyfuss, writing for Jump Cut in November 1979, called the film "a relentless and engrossing indictment of racism toward black immigrants to England, told from an obvious Marxist perspective."[4] Credits Producer & Director: David Koff Associate Producer: Musindo Mwinyipembe Editor: Tom Scott Robson Assistant Editor: Neil Gibson Photography: William Brayne, Mike Davis, Charles Stewart Music: Steel Pulse Sound Recording: Albert Bailey: Neil Kingsbury, Michael Lax Dubbing Mix: Tony Anscombe Research: Margaret Henry References Fisher, Tracy (2012). "Revolutions of the Mind: Afro-Asian Politics of Change in Babylon". What's Left of Blackness: Feminisms, Transracial Solidarities, and the Politics of Belonging in Britain. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 59–63. ISBN 978-0230339170. Koff, David; Mwinyipembe, Musindo (May–June 1979). "The Black Scholar Interviews: David Koff & Musindo Mwinyipembe". The Black Scholar. 10 (8/9): 68–80. doi:10.1080/00064246.1979.11644174. JSTOR 41163864. Biskind, Peter (November 1979). "Blacks Britannica: A Clear Case of Censorship". Jump Cut (21). Reprinted in Rosenthal, Alan (ed.). New Challenges for Documentary. pp. 402–407. Dreyfuss, Joel (November 1979). "Blacks Britannica: Racism in public TV". Jump Cut (21). External links Blacks Britannica at IMDb Edit this at Wikidata Blacks Britannica, YouTube Categories: 1978 documentary films American documentary television films Documentary films about racism Racism in the United Kingdom Black British culture Black British history Censored films

More CIA stories from John Stockwell: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ The video "Reagan and Iran: Uncovering a Covert Action" features John Stockwell, a former CIA official, delving into Reagan's clandestine arms dealings with Iran. Drawing from his experience managing a similar scenario in Angola during his tenure at the CIA, Stockwell offers profound insights into the inner workings of the CIA and the National Security Council. He highlights parallels between the "Israeli connection" in the Iran situation and his past involvement in the Angolan operation. Stockwell contextualizes these covert actions within the expansive global arms industry, estimating its annual worth at a staggering $900 billion. He critically evaluates the disinformation campaigns orchestrated by the CIA and the Reagan administration in recent years. Additionally, he scrutinizes the media coverage surrounding these covert activities. Drawing from his recent visit to Nicaragua, Stockwell shares his firsthand observations on the state of the embattled country. The video, recorded on November 26, 1986, presents a comprehensive analysis of covert operations, arms trade, media coverage, and the geopolitical landscape during that period. The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ماجرای ایران-کنترا; Spanish: Caso Irán-Contra), often referred to as the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan administration. Between 1981 and 1986, senior administration officials secretly facilitated the illegal sale of arms to Iran, who was subjected to an arms embargo at the time.[1] The administration hoped to use the proceeds of the arms sale to fund the Contras, an anti-Sandinista rebel group in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by legislative appropriations was prohibited by Congress, but the Reagan administration figured out a loophole by secretively using non-appropriated funds instead. The Iran–Contra affair is sometimes referred to as the McFarlane affair in Iran. The official justification for the arms shipments was that they were part of an operation to free seven US hostages being held in Lebanon by Hezbollah, an Islamist paramilitary group with Iranian ties connected to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.[2] The idea to exchange arms for hostages was proposed by Manucher Ghorbanifar, an expatriate Iranian arms dealer.[3][4][5] Some within the Reagan administration hoped the sales would influence Iran to get Hezbollah to release the hostages. In late 1985, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North of the National Security Council (NSC) diverted a portion of the proceeds from the Iranian weapon sales to fund the Contras, a group of anti-Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN) rebels, in their insurgency against the socialist government of Nicaragua. North later claimed that Ghorbanifar had given him the idea for diverting profits from BGM-71 TOW and MIM-23 Hawk missile sales to Iran to the Nicaraguan Contras.[6] While President Ronald Reagan was a vocal supporter of the Contra cause,[7] the evidence is disputed as to whether he personally authorized the diversion of funds to the Contras.[2] Handwritten notes taken by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger on 7 December 1985 indicate that Reagan was aware of potential hostage transfers with Iran, by Israel, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to "moderate elements" within that country.[8] Weinberger wrote that Reagan said "he could answer charges of illegality but he couldn't answer charge [sic] that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free hostages.'"[8] After the weapon sales were revealed in November 1986, Reagan appeared on national television and stated that the weapons transfers had indeed occurred, but that the US did not trade arms for hostages.[9] The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the affair were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.[10] On 4 March 1987, Reagan made a further nationally televised address, saying he was taking full responsibility for the affair and stating that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."[11] The affair was investigated by Congress and by the three-person, Reagan-appointed Tower Commission. Neither investigation found evidence that President Reagan himself knew of the extent of the multiple programs.[2] Additionally, US Deputy Attorney General Lawrence Walsh was appointed Independent Counsel in December 1986 to investigate possible criminal actions by officials involved in the scheme. In the end, several dozen administration officials were indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, some of which were vacated on appeal.[12] The rest of those indicted or convicted were all pardoned in the final days of the presidency of George H. W. Bush, who had been vice president at the time of the affair.[13] Former Independent Counsel Walsh noted that, in issuing the pardons, Bush appeared to have been preempting being implicated himself by evidence that came to light during the Weinberger trial and noted that there was a pattern of "deception and obstruction" by Bush, Weinberger, and other senior Reagan administration officials.[14] Walsh submitted his final report on 4 August 1993[15] and later wrote an account of his experiences as counsel, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-Up.[14] Background The US was the largest seller of arms to Iran under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and the vast majority of the weapons that the Islamic Republic of Iran inherited in January 1979 were US-made.[16] To maintain this arsenal, Iran required a steady supply of spare parts to replace those broken and worn out. After Iranian students stormed the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979 and took 52 Americans hostage, US President Jimmy Carter imposed an arms embargo on Iran.[16] After Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980, Iran desperately needed weapons and spare parts for its current weapons. After Ronald Reagan took office as president on 20 January 1981, he vowed to continue Carter's policy of blocking arms sales to Iran on the grounds that Iran supported terrorism.[16] A group of senior Reagan administration officials in the Senior Interdepartmental Group conducted a secret study on 21 July 1981 and concluded that the arms embargo was ineffective because Iran could always buy arms and spare parts for its US weapons elsewhere, while, at the same time, the arms embargo opened the door for Iran to fall into the Soviet sphere of influence as the Kremlin could sell Iran weapons if the US would not.[16] The conclusion was that the US should start selling Iran arms as soon as it was politically possible in order to keep Iran from falling into the Soviet sphere of influence.[16] At the same time, the openly declared goal of Ayatollah Khomeini to export his Islamic revolution all over the Middle East and overthrow the governments of Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the other states around the Persian Gulf led to the Americans perceiving Khomeini as a major threat to the US.[16] In the spring of 1983, the US launched Operation Staunch, a wide-ranging diplomatic effort to persuade other nations all over the world not to sell arms or spare parts for weapons to Iran.[16] This was at least part of the reason the Iran–Contra affair proved so humiliating for the US when the story first broke in November 1986 that the US itself was selling arms to Iran. At the same time that the US government was considering its options on selling arms to Iran, Contra militants based in Honduras were waging a guerrilla war to topple the FSLN revolutionary government of Nicaragua. Almost from the time he took office in 1981, a major goal of the Reagan administration was the overthrow of the left-wing Sandinista government in Nicaragua and to support the Contra rebels.[17] The Reagan administration's policy toward Nicaragua produced a major clash between the executive and legislative branches as Congress sought to limit, if not curb altogether, the ability of the White House to support the Contras.[17] Direct US funding of the Contras insurgency was made illegal through the Boland Amendment, the name given to three US legislative amendments between 1982 and 1984 aimed at limiting US government assistance to Contra militants. By 1984, funding for the Contras had run out; and, in October of that year, a total ban came into effect. The second Boland Amendment, in effect from 3 October 1984 to 3 December 1985, stated: During the fiscal year 1985 no funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose of or which may have the effect of supporting directly or indirectly military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, organization, group, movement, or individual.[17] In violation of the Boland Amendment, senior officials of the Reagan administration continued to secretly arm and train the Contras and provide arms to Iran, an operation they called "the Enterprise".[18][19] Given the Contras' heavy dependence on US military and financial support, the second Boland Amendment threatened to break the Contra movement and led to President Reagan ordering in 1984 that the NSC "keep the Contras together 'body and soul'", no matter what Congress voted for.[17] A major legal debate at the center of the Iran–Contra affair concerned the question of whether the NSC was one of the "any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities" covered by the Boland Amendment. The Reagan administration argued it was not, and many in Congress argued that it was.[17] The majority of constitutional scholars have asserted the NSC did indeed fall within the purview of the second Boland Amendment, though the amendment did not mention the NSC by name.[20] The broader constitutional question at stake was the power of Congress versus the power of the presidency. The Reagan administration argued that, because the constitution assigned the right to conduct foreign policy to the executive, its efforts to overthrow the government of Nicaragua were a presidential prerogative that Congress had no right to try to halt via the Boland Amendments.[21] By contrast, Congressional leaders argued that the constitution had assigned Congress control of the budget, and Congress had every right to use that power not to fund projects like attempting to overthrow the government of Nicaragua that they disapproved of.[21] As part of the effort to circumvent the Boland Amendment, the NSC established "the Enterprise", an arms-smuggling network headed by a retired US Air Force officer turned arms dealer Richard Secord that supplied arms to the Contras. It was ostensibly a private sector operation, but in fact was controlled by the NSC.[20] To fund "the Enterprise", the Reagan administration was constantly on the look-out for funds that came from outside the US government in order not to explicitly violate the letter of the Boland Amendment, though the efforts to find alternative funding for the Contras violated the spirit of the Boland Amendment.[22] Ironically, military aid to the Contras was reinstated with Congressional consent in October 1986, a month before the scandal broke.[23][24] In his 1995 memoir My American Journey, General Colin Powell, the US Deputy National Security Advisor, wrote that the weapons sales to Iran were used "for purposes prohibited by the elected representatives of the American people [...] in a way that avoided accountability to the President and Congress. It was wrong."[25] In 1985, Manuel Noriega offered to help the US by allowing Panama as a staging ground for operations against the FSLN and offering to train Contras in Panama, but this would later be overshadowed by the Iran–Contra affair itself.[26] At around the same time, the Soviet Bloc also engaged in arms deals with ideologically opponent buyers,[27] possibly involving some of the same players as the Iran–Contra affair.[28] In 1986, a complex operation involving East Germany's Stasi and the Danish-registered ship Pia Vesta ultimately aimed to sell Soviet arms and military vehicles to South Africa's Armscor, using various intermediaries to distance themselves from the deal. Manuel Noriega of Panama was apparently one of these intermediaries but backed out on the deal as the ship and weapons were seized at a Panamanian port.[29][30][28] The Pia Vesta led to a small controversy, as the Panama and Peru governments in 1986 accused the US and each other of being involved in the East Germany-originated shipment.[31][28] Arms sales to Iran See also: Brokers of Death arms case and Israel in the Iran–Iraq War As reported in The New York Times in 1991, "continuing allegations that Reagan campaign officials made a deal with the Iranian Government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the fall of 1980" led to "limited investigations". However "limited", those investigations established that "Soon after taking office in 1981, the Reagan Administration secretly and abruptly changed United States policy." Secret Israeli arms sales and shipments to Iran began in that year, even as, in public, "the Reagan Administration" presented a different face, and "aggressively promoted a public campaign [...] to stop worldwide transfers of military goods to Iran". The New York Times explains: "Iran at that time was in dire need of arms and spare parts for its American-made arsenal to defend itself against Iraq, which had attacked it in September 1980", while "Israel [a US ally] was interested in keeping the war between Iran and Iraq going to ensure that these two potential enemies remained preoccupied with each other". Major General Avraham Tamir, a high-ranking Israeli Defense Ministry official in 1981, said there was an "oral agreement" to allow the sale of "spare parts" to Iran. This was based on an "understanding" with Secretary Alexander Haig (which a Haig adviser denied). This account was confirmed by a former senior US diplomat with a few modifications. The diplomat claimed that "[Ariel] Sharon violated it, and Haig backed away". A former "high-level" Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) official who saw reports of arms sales to Iran by Israel in the early 1980s estimated that the total was about $2 billion a year—but also said, "The degree to which it was sanctioned I don't know."[32] On 17 June 1985, National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane wrote a National Security Decision Directive which called for the US to begin a rapprochement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.[16] The paper read: Dynamic political evolution is taking place inside Iran. Instability caused by the pressures of the Iraq-Iran war, economic deterioration and regime in-fighting create the potential for major changes inside Iran. The Soviet Union is better positioned than the U.S. to exploit and benefit from any power struggle that results in changes from the Iranian regime [...]. The U.S. should encourage Western allies and friends to help Iran meet its import requirements so as to reduce the attractiveness of Soviet assistance [...]. This includes provision of selected military equipment.[33] Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was highly negative, writing on his copy of McFarlane's paper: "This is almost too absurd to comment on [...] like asking Qaddafi to Washington for a cozy chat."[34] Secretary of State George Shultz was also opposed, stating that having designated Iran a State Sponsor of Terrorism in January 1984, how could the US possibly sell arms to Iran?[34] Only the Director of the CIA William J. Casey supported McFarlane's plan to start selling arms to Iran.[34] In early July 1985, the historian Michael Ledeen, a consultant of National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane, requested assistance from Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres for help in the sale of arms to Iran.[35] Having talked to an Israeli diplomat David Kimche and Ledeen, McFarlane learned that the Iranians were prepared to have Hezbollah release US hostages in Lebanon in exchange for Israelis shipping Iran US weapons.[34] Having been designated a State Sponsor of Terrorism since January 1984,[36] Iran was in the midst of the Iran–Iraq War and could find few Western nations willing to supply it with weapons.[citation needed] The idea behind the plan was for Israel to ship weapons through an intermediary (identified as Manucher Ghorbanifar) to the Islamic Republic as a way of aiding a supposedly moderate, politically influential faction within the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini who was believed to be seeking a rapprochement with the US; after the transaction, the US would reimburse Israel with the same weapons, while receiving monetary benefits.[37] McFarlane in a memo to Shultz and Weinberger wrote: The short term dimension concerns the seven hostages; the long term dimension involves the establishment of a private dialogue with Iranian officials on the broader relations [...]. They sought specifically the delivery from Israel of 100 TOW missiles [...].[34] The plan was discussed with President Reagan on 18 July 1985 and again on 6 August 1985.[34] Shultz at the latter meeting warned Reagan that "we were just falling into the arms-for-hostages business and we shouldn't do it".[34] The Americans believed that there was a moderate faction in the Islamic Republic headed by Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful speaker of the Majlis who was seen as a leading potential successor to Khomeini and who was alleged to want a rapprochement with the US.[38] The Americans believed that Rafsanjani had the power to order Hezbollah to free the US hostages and establishing a relationship with him by selling Iran arms would ultimately place Iran back within the US sphere of influence.[38] It remains unclear if Rafsanjani really wanted a rapprochement with the US or was just deceiving Reagan administration officials who were willing to believe that he was a moderate who would effect a rapprochement.[38] Rafsanjani, whose nickname is "the Shark", was described by the UK journalist Patrick Brogan as a man of great charm and formidable intelligence known for his subtlety and ruthlessness whose motives in the Iran–Contra affair remain completely mysterious.[38] The Israeli government required that the sale of arms meet high-level approval from the US government, and, when McFarlane convinced them that the US government approved the sale, Israel obliged by agreeing to sell the arms.[35] In 1985, President Reagan entered Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for colon cancer surgery. Reagan's recovery was nothing short of miserable, as the 74-year-old President admitted having little sleep for days in addition to his immense physical discomfort. While doctors seemed to be confident that the surgery was successful, the discovery of his localized cancer was a daunting realization for Reagan. From seeing the recovery process of other patients, as well as medical “experts� on television predicting his death to be soon, Reagan's typical optimistic outlook was dampened. These factors were bound to contribute to psychological distress in the midst of an already distressing situation.[39] Additionally, Reagan's invocation of the 25th Amendment prior to the surgery was a risky and unprecedented decision that smoothly flew under the radar for the duration of the complex situation. While it only lasted slightly longer than the length of the procedure (approximately seven hours and 54 minutes), this temporary transfer of power was never formally recognized by the White House. It was later revealed that this decision was made on the grounds that "Mr. Reagan and his advisors did not want his actions to establish a definition of incapacitation that would bind future presidents." Reagan expressed this transfer of power in two identical letters that were sent to the speaker of the House of Representatives, Representative Tip O'Neill, and the president pro tempore of the senate, Senator Strom Thurmond.[40] While the President was recovering in the hospital, McFarlane met with him and told him that representatives from Israel had contacted the National Security Agency to pass on confidential information from what Reagan later described as the "moderate" Iranian faction headed by Rafsanjani opposed to the Ayatollah's hardline anti-US policies.[37] The visit from McFarlane in Reagan's hospital room was the first visit from an administration official outside of Donald Regan since the surgery. The meeting took place five days after the surgery and only three days after doctors gave the news that his polyp had been malignant. The three participants of this meeting had very different recollections of what was discussed during its 23-minute duration. Months later, Reagan even stated that he "had no recollection of a meeting in the hospital in July with McFarlane and that he had no notes which would show such a meeting". This does not come as a surprise considering the possible short and long-term effects of anesthesia on patients above the age of 60, in addition to his already weakened physical and mental state.[39] According to Reagan, these Iranians sought to establish a quiet relationship with the US, before establishing formal relationships upon the death of the aging Ayatollah.[37] In Reagan's account, McFarlane told Reagan that the Iranians, to demonstrate their seriousness, offered to persuade the Hezbollah militants to release the seven US hostages.[41] McFarlane met with the Israeli intermediaries;[42] Reagan claimed that he allowed this because he believed that establishing relations with a strategically located country, and preventing the Soviet Union from doing the same, was a beneficial move.[37] Although Reagan claims that the arms sales were to a "moderate" faction of Iranians, the Walsh Iran–Contra Report states that the arms sales were "to Iran" itself,[43] which was under the control of the Ayatollah. Following the Israeli–US meeting, Israel requested permission from the US to sell a small number of BGM-71 TOW antitank missiles to Iran, claiming that this would aid the "moderate" Iranian faction,[41] by demonstrating that the group actually had high-level connections to the US government.[41] Reagan initially rejected the plan, until Israel sent information to the US showing that the "moderate" Iranians were opposed to terrorism and had fought against it.[44] Now having a reason to trust the "moderates", Reagan approved the transaction, which was meant to be between Israel and the "moderates" in Iran, with the US reimbursing Israel.[41] In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan claimed that he was deeply committed to securing the release of the hostages; it was this compassion that supposedly motivated his support for the arms initiatives. The president requested that the "moderate" Iranians do everything in their capability to free the hostages held by Hezbollah.[3] Reagan always publicly insisted after the scandal broke in late 1986 that the purpose behind the arms-for-hostages trade was to establish a working relationship with the "moderate" faction associated with Rafsanjani to facilitate the reestablishment of the US–Iranian alliance after the soon to be expected death of Khomeini, to end the Iran–Iraq War and end Iranian support for Islamic terrorism while downplaying the importance of freeing the hostages in Lebanon as a secondary issue.[45] By contrast, when testifying before the Tower Commission, Reagan declared that hostage issue was the main reason for selling arms to Iran.[46] A BGM-71 TOW antitank guided missile The following arms were supplied to Iran:[43][47] First arms sales in 1981 (see above) 20 August 1985 – 96 TOW antitank missiles 14 September 1985 – 408 more TOWs 24 November 1985 – 18 Hawk antiaircraft missiles 17 February 1986 – 500 TOWs 27 February 1986 – 500 TOWs 24 May 1986 – 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts 4 August 1986 – More Hawk spares 28 October 1986 – 500 TOWs First few arms sales The first arms sales to Iran began in 1981, though the official paper trail has them beginning in 1985 (see above). On 20 August 1985, Israel sent 96[contradictory] US-made TOW missiles to Iran through an arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar.[48] Subsequently, on 14 September 1985, 408 more TOW missiles were delivered. On 15 September 1985, following the second delivery, Reverend Benjamin Weir was released by his captors, the Islamic Jihad Organization. On 24 November 1985, 18 Hawk antiaircraft missiles were delivered. Modifications in plans Robert McFarlane resigned on 4 December 1985,[49][50] stating that he wanted to spend more time with his family,[51] and was replaced by Admiral John Poindexter.[52] Two days later, Reagan met with his advisors at the White House, where a new plan was introduced. This called for a slight change in the arms transactions: instead of the weapons going to the "moderate" Iranian group, they would go to "moderate" Iranian army leaders.[53] As each weapons delivery was made from Israel by air, hostages held by Hezbollah would be released.[53] Israel would continue to be reimbursed by the US for the weapons. Though staunchly opposed by Secretary of State George Shultz and Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the plan was authorized by Reagan, who stated that, "We were not trading arms for hostages, nor were we negotiating with terrorists".[54] In his notes of a meeting held in the White House on 7 December 1985, Weinberger wrote he told Reagan that this plan was illegal, writing: I argued strongly that we have an embargo that makes arms sales to Iran illegal and President couldn't violate it and that 'washing' transactions through Israel wouldn't make it legal. Shultz, Don Regan agreed.[55] Weinberger's notes have Reagan saying he "could answer charges of illegality but he couldn't answer charge [sic] that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free hostages'."[55] Now retired National Security Advisor McFarlane flew to London to meet with Israelis and Ghorbanifar in an attempt to persuade the Iranian to use his influence to release the hostages before any arms transactions occurred; this plan was rejected by Ghorbanifar.[53] On the day of McFarlane's resignation, Oliver North, a military aide to the US National Security Council (NSC), proposed a new plan for selling arms to Iran, which included two major adjustments: instead of selling arms through Israel, the sale was to be direct at a markup; and a portion of the proceeds would go to Contras, or Nicaraguan paramilitary fighters waging guerrilla warfare against the Sandinista government, claiming power after an election full of irregularities.[56][not specific enough to verify] The dealings with the Iranians were conducted via the NSC with Admiral Poindexter and his deputy Colonel North, with the US historians Malcolm Byrne and Peter Kornbluh writing that Poindexter granted much power to North "who made the most of the situation, often deciding important matters on his own, striking outlandish deals with the Iranians, and acting in the name of the president on issues that were far beyond his competence. All of these activities continued to take place within the framework of the president's broad authorization. Until the press reported on the existence of the operation, nobody in the administration questioned the authority of Poindexter's and North's team to implement the president's decisions".[57] North proposed a $15 million markup, while contracted arms broker Ghorbanifar added a 41-percent markup of his own.[58] Other members of the NSC were in favor of North's plan; with large support, Poindexter authorized it without notifying President Reagan, and it went into effect.[59] At first, the Iranians refused to buy the arms at the inflated price because of the excessive markup imposed by North and Ghorbanifar. They eventually relented, and, in February 1986, 1,000 TOW missiles were shipped to the country.[59] From May to November 1986, there were additional shipments of miscellaneous weapons and parts.[59] Both the sale of weapons to Iran and the funding of the Contras attempted to circumvent not only stated administration policy, but also the Boland Amendment. Administration officials argued that, regardless of Congress restricting funds for the Contras, or any affair, the President (or in this case the administration) could carry on by seeking alternative means of funding such as private entities and foreign governments.[60] Funding from one foreign country, Brunei, was botched when North's secretary, Fawn Hall, transposed the numbers of North's Swiss bank account number. A Swiss businessperson, suddenly $10 million richer, alerted the authorities of the mistake. The money was eventually returned to the Sultan of Brunei, with interest.[61] On 7 January 1986, John Poindexter proposed to Reagan a modification of the approved plan: instead of negotiating with the "moderate" Iranian political group, the US would negotiate with "moderate" members of the Iranian government.[62] Poindexter told Reagan that Ghorbanifar had important connections within the Iranian government, so, with the hope of the release of the hostages, Reagan approved this plan as well.[62] Throughout February 1986, weapons were shipped directly to Iran by the US (as part of Oliver North's plan), but none of the hostages were released. Retired National Security Advisor McFarlane conducted another international voyage, this one to Tehran—bringing with him a gift of a Bible with a handwritten inscription by Ronald Reagan[63][64] and, according to George W. Cave, a cake baked in the shape of a key.[63] Howard Teicher described the cake as a joke between North and Ghorbanifar.[65] McFarlane met directly with Iranian officials associated with Rafsanjani, who sought to establish US–Iranian relations in an attempt to free the four remaining hostages.[66] The US delegation comprised McFarlane, North, Cave (a retired CIA officer who served as the group's translator), Teicher, Israeli diplomat Amiram Nir, and a CIA communicator.[67] They arrived in Tehran in an Israeli plane carrying forged Irish passports on 25 May 1986.[68] This meeting also failed. Much to McFarlane's disgust, he did not meet ministers, and instead met in his words "third and fourth level officials".[68] At one point, an angry McFarlane shouted: "As I am a Minister, I expect to meet with decision-makers. Otherwise, you can work with my staff."[68] The Iranians requested concessions such as Israel's withdrawal from the Golan Heights, which the US rejected.[66] More importantly, McFarlane refused to ship spare parts for the Hawk missiles until the Iranians had Hezbollah release the US hostages, whereas the Iranians wanted to reverse that sequence with the spare parts being shipped first before the hostages were freed.[68] The differing negotiating positions led to McFarlane's mission going home after four days.[69] After the failure of the secret visit to Tehran, McFarlane advised Reagan not to talk to the Iranians anymore, advice that was disregarded.[69] Subsequent dealings On 26 July 1986, Hezbollah freed the US hostage Father Lawrence Jenco, former head of Catholic Relief Services in Lebanon.[69] Following this, William J. Casey, head of the CIA, requested that the US authorize sending a shipment of small missile parts to Iranian military forces as a way of expressing gratitude.[70] Casey also justified this request by stating that the contact in the Iranian government might otherwise lose face or be executed, and hostages might be killed. Reagan authorized the shipment to ensure that those potential events would not occur.[70] North used this release to persuade Reagan to switch over to a "sequential" policy of freeing the hostages one by one, instead of the "all or nothing" policy that the Americans had pursued until then.[69] By this point, the Americans had grown tired of Ghorbanifar who had proven himself a dishonest intermediary who played off both sides to his own commercial advantage.[69] In August 1986, the Americans had established a new contact in the Iranian government, Ali Hashemi Bahramani, the nephew of Rafsanjani and an officer in the Revolutionary Guard.[69] The fact that the Revolutionary Guard was deeply involved in international terrorism seemed only to attract the Americans more to Bahramani, who was seen as someone with the influence to change Iran's policies.[69] Richard Secord, a US arms dealer, who was being used as a contact with Iran, wrote to North: "My judgment is that we have opened up a new and probably better channel into Iran".[69] North was so impressed with Bahramani that he arranged for him to secretly visit Washington DC and gave him a guided tour at midnight of the White House.[69] North frequently met with Bahramani in the summer and autumn of 1986 in West Germany, discussing arms sales to Iran, the freeing of hostages held by Hezbollah and how best to overthrow President Saddam Hussein of Iraq and the establishment of "a non-hostile regime in Baghdad".[69] In September and October 1986, three more Americans—Frank Reed, Joseph Cicippio, and Edward Tracy—were abducted in Lebanon by a separate terrorist group, who referred to them simply as "G.I. Joe", after the popular US toy. The reasons for their abduction are unknown, although it is speculated that they were kidnapped to replace the freed Americans.[71] One more original hostage, David Jacobsen, was later released. The captors promised to release the remaining two, but the release never happened.[72] During a secret meeting in Frankfurt in October 1986, North told Bahramani that: "Saddam Hussein must go".[69] North also claimed that Reagan had told him to tell Bahramani that: "Saddam Hussein is an asshole."[69] Behramani during a secret meeting in Mainz informed North that Rafsanjani "for his own politics [...] decided to get all the groups involved and give them a role to play".[73] Thus, all the factions in the Iranian government would be jointly responsible for the talks with the Americans and "there would not be an internal war".[73] This demand of Behramani caused much dismay on the US side as it made clear to them that they would not be dealing solely with a "moderate" faction in the Islamic Republic, as the Americans liked to pretend to themselves, but rather with all the factions in the Iranian government—including those who were very much involved in terrorism.[73] Despite this, the talks were not broken off.[73] Discovery and scandal After a leak by Mehdi Hashemi, a senior official in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa exposed the arrangement on 3 November 1986.[74] According to Seymour Hersh, an unnamed former military officer told him that the leak may have been orchestrated by a covert team led by Arthur S. Moreau Jr., assistant to the chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, due to fears the scheme had grown out of control.[75] This was the first public report of the weapons-for-hostages deal. The operation was discovered only after an airlift of guns (Corporate Air Services HPF821) was downed over Nicaragua. Eugene Hasenfus, who was captured by Nicaraguan authorities after surviving the plane crash, initially alleged in a press conference on Nicaraguan soil that two of his coworkers, Max Gomez and Ramon Medina, worked for the CIA.[76] He later said he did not know whether they did or not.[77] The Iranian government confirmed the Ash-Shiraa story, and, 10 days after the story was first published, President Reagan appeared on national television from the Oval Office on 13 November, stating: My purpose was [...] to send a signal that the United States was prepared to replace the animosity between [the US and Iran] with a new relationship [...]. At the same time we undertook this initiative, we made clear that Iran must oppose all forms of international terrorism as a condition of progress in our relationship. The most significant step which Iran could take, we indicated, would be to use its influence in Lebanon to secure the release of all hostages held there.[9] The scandal was compounded when Oliver North destroyed or hid pertinent documents between 21 November and 25 November 1986. During North's trial in 1989, his secretary, Fawn Hall, testified extensively about helping North alter and shred official US National Security Council (NSC) documents from the White House. According to The New York Times, enough documents were put into a government shredder to jam it.[58] Hall also testified that she smuggled classified documents out of the Old Executive Office Building by concealing them in her boots and dress.[78] North's explanation for destroying some documents was to protect the lives of individuals involved in Iran and Contra operations.[58] It was not until 1993, years after the trial, that North's notebooks were made public, and only after the National Security Archive and Public Citizen sued the Office of the Independent Counsel under the Freedom of Information Act.[58] The diversion of funds is revealed What is involved is that in the course of the arms transfers, which involved the United States providing the arms to Israel and Israel in turn transferring the arms -- in effect, selling the arms to representatives of Iran. Certain monies which were received in the transaction between representatives of Israel and representatives of Iran were taken and made available to the forces in Central America, which are opposing the Sandinista government there.[79] – U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, White House news conference on November 25, 1986 During the trial, North testified that on 21, 22 or 24 November, he witnessed Poindexter destroy what may have been the only signed copy of a presidential covert-action finding that sought to authorize CIA participation in the November 1985 Hawk missile shipment to Iran.[58] U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese admitted on 25 November that profits from weapons sales to Iran were made available to assist the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. On the same day, John Poindexter resigned, and President Reagan fired Oliver North.[80] Poindexter was replaced by Frank Carlucci on 2 December 1986.[81] When the story broke, many legal and constitutional scholars expressed dismay that the NSC, which was supposed to be just an advisory body to assist the President with formulating foreign policy, had "gone operational" by becoming an executive body covertly executing foreign policy on its own.[82] The National Security Act of 1947, which created the NSC, gave it the vague right to perform "such other functions and duties related to the intelligence as the National Security Council may from time to time direct."[83] However, the NSC had usually, although not always, acted as an advisory agency until the Reagan administration when the NSC had "gone operational", a situation that was condemned by both the Tower Commission and by Congress as a departure from the norm.[83] The American historian John Canham-Clyne asserted that Iran-Contra affair and the NSC "going operational" were not departures from the norm, but were the logical and natural consequence of existence of the "national security state", the plethora of shadowy government agencies with multi-million dollar budgets operating with little oversight from Congress, the courts or the media, and for whom upholding national security justified almost everything.[83] Canham-Clyne argued that for the "national security state", the law was an obstacle to be surmounted rather than something to uphold and that the Iran-Contra affair was just "business as usual", something he asserted that the media missed by focusing on the NSC having "gone operational."[83] In Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA 1981–1987, journalist Bob Woodward chronicled the role of the CIA in facilitating the transfer of funds from the Iran arms sales to the Nicaraguan Contras spearheaded by Oliver North. According to Woodward, then-Director of the CIA William J. Casey admitted to him in February 1987 that he was aware of the diversion of funds to the Contras.[84] The controversial admission occurred while Casey was hospitalized for a stroke, and, according to his wife, was unable to communicate. On 6 May 1987, William Casey died the day after Congress began public hearings on Iran-Contra. Independent Counsel, Lawrence Walsh later wrote: "Independent Counsel obtained no documentary evidence showing Casey knew about or approved the diversion. The only direct testimony linking Casey to early knowledge of the diversion came from [Oliver] North."[85] Gust Avrakodos, who was responsible for the arms supplies to the Afghans at this time, was aware of the operation as well and strongly opposed it, in particular the diversion of funds allotted to the Afghan operation. According to his Middle Eastern experts, the operation was pointless because the moderates in Iran were not in a position to challenge the fundamentalists. However, he was overruled by Clair George.[86] Tower Commission Main article: Tower Commission On 25 November 1986, President Reagan announced the creation of a Special Review Board to look into the matter; the following day, he appointed former Senator John Tower, former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft to serve as members. This Presidential Commission took effect on 1 December and became known as the Tower Commission. The main objectives of the commission were to inquire into "the circumstances surrounding the Iran-Contra matter, other case studies that might reveal strengths and weaknesses in the operation of the National Security Council system under stress, and the manner in which that system has served eight different presidents since its inception in 1947". The Tower Commission was the first presidential commission to review and evaluate the National Security Council.[87] President Reagan (center) receives the Tower Commission Report in the White House Cabinet Room; John Tower is at left and Edmund Muskie is at right, 1987. President Reagan appeared before the Tower Commission on 2 December 1986, to answer questions regarding his involvement in the affair. When asked about his role in authorizing the arms deals, he first stated that he had; later, he appeared to contradict himself by stating that he had no recollection of doing so.[88] In his 1990 autobiography, An American Life, Reagan acknowledges authorizing the shipments to Israel.[89] The report published by the Tower Commission was delivered to the president on 26 February 1987. The commission had interviewed 80 witnesses to the scheme, including Reagan, and two of the arms trade middlemen: Manucher Ghorbanifar and Adnan Khashoggi.[88] The 200-page report was the most comprehensive of any released,[88] criticizing the actions of Oliver North, John Poindexter, Caspar Weinberger, and others. It determined that President Reagan did not have knowledge of the extent of the program, especially about the diversion of funds to the Contras, although it argued that the president ought to have had better control of the National Security Council staff. The report heavily criticized Reagan for not properly supervising his subordinates or being aware of their actions. A major result of the Tower Commission was the consensus that Reagan should have listened to his National Security Advisor more, thereby placing more power in the hands of that chair. Congressional committees investigating the affair Main article: Congressional committees investigating the Iran-Contra affair In January 1987, Congress announced it was opening an investigation into the Iran-Contra affair. Depending upon one's political perspective, the Congressional investigation into the Iran-Contra affair was either an attempt by the legislative arm to gain control over an out-of-control executive arm, a partisan "witch hunt" by the Democrats against a Republican administration or a feeble effort by Congress that did far too little to rein in the "imperial presidency" that had run amok by breaking numerous laws.[90] The Democratic-controlled United States Congress issued its own report on 18 November 1987, stating that "If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have."[2] The Congressional report wrote that the president bore "ultimate responsibility" for wrongdoing by his aides, and his administration exhibited "secrecy, deception and disdain for the law".[91] It also read that "the central remaining question is the role of the President in the Iran-Contra affair. On this critical point, the shredding of documents by Poindexter, North and others, and the death of Casey, leave the record incomplete". Aftermath Reagan expressed regret with regard to the situation in a nationally televised address from the Oval Office on 4 March 1987, and in two other speeches.[92] Reagan had not spoken to the American people directly for three months amidst the scandal,[93] and he offered the following explanation for his silence: The reason I haven't spoken to you before now is this: You deserve the truth. And as frustrating as the waiting has been, I felt it was improper to come to you with sketchy reports, or possibly even erroneous statements, which would then have to be corrected, creating even more doubt and confusion. There's been enough of that.[93] Reagan then took full responsibility for the acts committed: First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior.[93] Finally, the president acknowledged that his previous assertions that the U.S. did not trade arms for hostages were incorrect: A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not. As the Tower board reported, what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages. This runs counter to my own beliefs, to administration policy, and to the original strategy we had in mind.[93] Reagan's role in these transactions is still not definitively known. It is unclear exactly what Reagan knew and when, and whether the arms sales were motivated by his desire to save the U.S. hostages. Oliver North wrote that "Ronald Reagan knew of and approved a great deal of what went on with both the Iranian initiative and private efforts on behalf of the contras and he received regular, detailed briefings on both...I have no doubt that he was told about the use of residuals for the Contras, and that he approved it. Enthusiastically."[94] Handwritten notes by Defense Secretary Weinberger indicate that the President was aware of potential hostage transfers[clarification needed] with Iran, as well as the sale of Hawk and TOW missiles to what he was told were "moderate elements" within Iran.[8] Notes taken by Weinberger on 7 December 1985 record that Reagan said that "he could answer charges of illegality but he couldn't answer charge that 'big strong President Reagan passed up a chance to free hostages'".[8] The Republican-written "Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair" made the following conclusion: There is some question and dispute about precisely the level at which he chose to follow the operation details. There is no doubt, however, ... [that] the President set the US policy towards Nicaragua, with few if any ambiguities, and then left subordinates more or less free to implement it.[95] Domestically, the affair precipitated a drop in President Reagan's popularity. His approval ratings suffered "the largest single drop for any U.S. president in history", from 67% to 46% in November 1986, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.[96] The "Teflon President", as Reagan was nicknamed by critics,[97] survived the affair, however, and his approval rating recovered.[98] Internationally, the damage was more severe. Magnus Ranstorp wrote, "U.S. willingness to engage in concessions with Iran and the Hezbollah not only signaled to its adversaries that hostage-taking was an extremely useful instrument in extracting political and financial concessions for the West but also undermined any credibility of U.S. criticism of other states' deviation from the principles of no-negotiation and no concession to terrorists and their demands."[99] In Iran, Mehdi Hashemi, the leaker of the scandal, was executed in 1987, allegedly for activities unrelated to the scandal. Though Hashemi made a full video confession to numerous serious charges, some observers find the coincidence of his leak and the subsequent prosecution highly suspicious.[100] In 1994, just five years after leaving office, President Reagan announced that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease.[101] Lawrence Walsh, who was appointed Independent Counsel in 1986 to investigate the transactions later implied Reagan's declining health may have played a role in his handling of the situation. However, Walsh did note that he believed President Reagan's "instincts for the country's good were right".[102] Indictments North's mugshot,[103] after his arrest Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, was indicted on two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice on 16 June 1992.[citation needed] Weinberger received a pardon from George H. W. Bush on 24 December 1992, before he was tried.[citation needed] Robert C. McFarlane, National Security Adviser, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years of probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.[104] Elliott Abrams, Assistant Secretary of State, convicted of withholding evidence, but after a plea bargain was given only two years probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.[105] Alan D. Fiers, Chief of the CIA's Central American Task Force, convicted of withholding evidence and sentenced to one year probation. Later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush. Clair George, Chief of Covert Ops-CIA, convicted on two charges of perjury, but pardoned by President George H. W. Bush before sentencing.[106] Oliver North, member of the National Security Council was indicted on 16 charges.[107] A jury convicted him of accepting an illegal gratuity, obstruction of a Congressional inquiry, and destruction of documents. The convictions were overturned on appeal because his Fifth Amendment rights may have been violated by use of his immunized public testimony[108] and because the judge had incorrectly explained the crime of destruction of documents to the jury.[109] Fawn Hall, Oliver North's secretary, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for her testimony.[110] Jonathan Scott Royster, Liaison to Oliver North, was given immunity from prosecution on charges of conspiracy and destroying documents in exchange for his testimony.[111] National Security Advisor John Poindexter was convicted of five counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, perjury, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence. A panel of the D.C. Circuit overturned the convictions on 15 November 1991 for the same reason the court had overturned Oliver North's, and by the same 2 to 1 vote.[112] The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.[113] Duane Clarridge. An ex-CIA senior official, he was indicted in November 1991 on seven counts of perjury and false statements relating to a November 1985 shipment to Iran. Pardoned before trial by President George H. W. Bush.[114][115] Richard V. Secord. Former Air Force major general, who was involved in arms transfers to Iran and diversion of funds to Contras, he pleaded guilty in November 1989 to making false statements to Congress and was sentenced to two years of probation. As part of his plea bargain, Secord agreed to provide further truthful testimony in exchange for the dismissal of remaining criminal charges against him.[116][18] Albert Hakim. A businessman, he pleaded guilty in November 1989 to supplementing the salary of North by buying a $13,800 fence for North with money from "the Enterprise," which was a set of foreign companies Hakim used in Iran-Contra. In addition, Swiss company Lake Resources Inc., used for storing money from arms sales to Iran to give to the Contras, plead guilty to stealing government property.[117] Hakim was given two years of probation and a $5,000 fine, while Lake Resources Inc. was ordered to dissolve.[116][118] Thomas G. Clines. A former CIA clandestine service officer. According to Special Prosecutor Walsh, he earned nearly $883,000 helping retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord and Albert Hakim carry out the secret operations of "the Enterprise". He was indicted for concealing the full amount of his Enterprise profits for the 1985 and 1986 tax years, and for failing to declare his foreign financial accounts. He was convicted and served 16 months in prison, the only Iran-Contra defendant to have served a prison sentence.[119] The Independent Counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, chose not to re-try North or Poindexter.[120] In total, several dozen people were investigated by Walsh's office.[121] George H. W. Bush's involvement On 27 July 1986, Israeli counterterrorism expert Amiram Nir briefed Vice President Bush in Jerusalem about the weapon sales to Iran.[122] In an interview with The Washington Post in August 1987, Bush stated that he was denied information about the operation and did not know about the diversion of funds.[123] Bush said that he had not advised Reagan to reject the initiative because he had not heard strong objections to it.[123] The Post quoted him as stating, "We were not in the loop."[123] The following month, Bush recounted meeting Nir in his September 1987 autobiography Looking Forward, stating that he began to develop misgivings about the Iran initiative.[124] He wrote that he did not learn the full extent of the Iran dealings until he was briefed by Senator David Durenberger regarding a Senate inquiry into them.[124] Bush added the briefing with Durenberger left him with the feeling he had "been deliberately excluded from key meetings involving details of the Iran operation".[124] In January 1988 during a live interview with Bush on CBS Evening News, Dan Rather told Bush that his unwillingness to speak about the scandal led "people to say 'either George Bush was irrelevant or he was ineffective, he set himself outside of the loop.'"[125] Bush replied, "May I explain what I mean by 'out of the loop'? No operational role."[125][126] Although Bush publicly insisted that he knew little about the operation, his statements were contradicted by excerpts of his diary released by the White House in January 1993.[125][127] An entry dated 5 November 1986 stated: "On the news at this time is the question of the hostages... I'm one of the few people that know fully the details, and there is a lot of flak and misinformation out there. It is not a subject we can talk about..."[125][127] Pardons On 24 December 1992, after he had been defeated for reelection, lame duck President George H. W. Bush pardoned five administration officials who had been found guilty on charges relating to the affair.[128] They were: Elliott Abrams; Duane Clarridge; Alan Fiers; Clair George; and Robert McFarlane. Bush also pardoned Caspar Weinberger, who had not yet come to trial.[129] Attorney General William P. Barr advised the President on these pardons, especially that of Caspar Weinberger.[130] In response to these Bush pardons, Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh, who headed the investigation of Reagan administration officials' criminal conduct in the Iran-Contra scandal, stated that "the Iran-Contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed." Walsh noted that in issuing the pardons Bush appears to have been preempting being implicated himself in the crimes of Iran-Contra by evidence that was to come to light during the Weinberger trial, and noted that there was a pattern of "deception and obstruction" by Bush, Weinberger and other senior Reagan administration officials.[120][13][14] Modern interpretations The Iran-Contra affair and the ensuing deception to protect senior administration officials (including President Reagan) was cast as an example of post-truth politics by Malcolm Byrne of George Washington University.[131] Reports and documents The 100th Congress formed a Joint Committee of the United States Congress (Congressional Committees Investigating The Iran-Contra Affair) and held hearings in mid-1987. Transcripts were published as: Iran-Contra Investigation: Joint Hearings Before the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition and the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran (U.S. GPO 1987–88). A closed Executive Session heard classified testimony from North and Poindexter; this transcript was published in a redacted format. The joint committee's final report was Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair With Supplemental, Minority, and Additional Views (U.S. GPO 17 November 1987). The records of the committee are at the National Archives, but many are still non-public.[132] Testimony was also heard before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and can be found in the Congressional Record for those bodies. The Senate Intelligence Committee produced two reports: Preliminary Inquiry into the Sale of Arms to Iran and Possible Diversion of Funds to the Nicaraguan Resistance (2 February 1987) and Were Relevant Documents Withheld from the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair? (June 1989).[133] The Tower Commission Report was published as the Report of the President's Special Review Board (U.S. GPO 26 February 1987). It was also published as The Tower Commission Report by Bantam Books (ISBN 0-553-26968-2). The Office of Independent Counsel/Walsh investigation produced four interim reports to Congress. Its final report was published as the Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters. Walsh's records are available at the National Archives.[134] See also icon1980s portal Israel–United States relations Israel's role in the Iran–Iraq War Timeline of the Iran–Contra affair Brokers of Death arms case CIA involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking Congressional committees investigating the Iran–Contra affair Iran–Iraq relations Iran–Israel relations Iran–United States relations Iraq–Israel relations Iraq–United States relations Latin America–United States relations List of federal political scandals in the United States William Northrop 1980 October Surprise theory Operation Tipped Kettle (the transfer of PLO weapons which were seized by Israel in Lebanon to the Contras) United States and state-sponsored terrorism United States foreign policy in the Middle East United States involvement in regime change in Latin America Footnotes The Iran-Contra Affair 20 Years On. The National Security Archive (George Washington University), 2006-11-24 "Reagan's mixed White House legacy". BBC. 6 June 2004. Retrieved 22 April 2008. Butterfield, Fox (27 November 1988). "Arms for Hostages – Plain and Simple". The New York Times (National ed.). sec. 7. p. 10. Retrieved 29 December 2018. Abshire, David (2005). Saving the Reagan Presidency: Trust Is the Coin of the Realm. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 9781603446204. Valentine, Douglas (2008). Reagan, Bush, Gorbachev: Revisiting the End of the Cold War. Praeger Security International. ISBN 9780313352416. Rozen, Laura (21 March 2005). "The Front". Reagan 1990, p. 542. "Weinberger Diaries Dec 7 handwritten" (PDF). National Security Archive. George Washington University. Reagan, Ronald (13 November 1986). "Address to the Nation on the Iran Arms and Contra Aid Controversy". Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. Retrieved 7 June 2008. "Excerpts From the Iran-Contra Report: A Secret Foreign Policy". The New York Times. 1994. Retrieved 7 June 2008. Reagan, Ronald (4 March 1987). "Address to the Nation on the Iran Arms and Contra Aid Controversy". Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation. Retrieved 7 June 2008. Dwyer, Paula. "Pointing a Finger at Reagan". Business Week. Archived from the original on 16 April 2008. Retrieved 22 April 2008. "Pardons Granted by President George H. W. Bush (1989-1993)". U.S. Department of Justice. 12 January 2015. Archived from the original on 23 December 2020. Retrieved 22 December 2020. Walsh, Lawrence E. (1997). Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up. New York: Norton & Company. p. 290. Walsh 1993. Kornbluh & Byrne 1993, p. 213. Hicks 1996, p. 965. Johnston, David (9 November 1989). "Secord Is Guilty of One Charge in Contra Affair". The New York Times (National ed.). sec. A. p. 24. Retrieved 19 July 2011. Corn, David (2 July 1988). "Is There Really A 'Secret Team'?". The Nation. Hicks 1996, p. 966. Hicks 1996, p. 964. Hicks 1996, pp. 966–967. Lemoyne, James (19 October 1986). "Ortega, Faulting Reagan, Warns of Coming War". The New York Times (National ed.). sec. 1. p. 6. Retrieved 15 November 2018. Payton, Brenda (4 April 1988). "Is U.S. Backing Contras with Drug Funds?". Oakland Tribune. Powell, Colin L.; Persico, Joseph E. (1995). My American Journey. New York: Random House. p. 341. ISBN 0-679-43296-5. "Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega's complex US ties suggest lessons for Trump era, historians say". ABC News. Retrieved 7 November 2021. Plaut, Martin (30 October 2018). "Apartheid, guns and money: book lifts the lid on Cold War secrets". The Conversation. Retrieved 7 November 2021. Van Vuuren, Hennie (2018). Apartheid guns and money : a tale of profit. London. pp. 260–269. ISBN 978-1-78738-247-3. OCLC 1100767741. Plaut, Martin (3 November 2018). "The Chinese and Soviets had a bigger role in supporting apartheid than we previously knew". Quartz. Retrieved 6 November 2021. Guerrero, Alina (18 June 1986). "Danish Ship Caught Carrying Soviet-Made Weapons". Associated Press News. Tyroler, Deborah (17 December 1986). "The Pia Vesta Caper: A New Dimension To Contragate". NotiCen. Hersh, Seymour M. (8 December 1991). "U.S. Said to Have Allowed Israel to Sell Arms to Iran". The New York Times (National ed.). sec. 1. p. 1. Retrieved 15 November 2018. Kornbluh & Byrne 1993, pp. 213–214. Kornbluh & Byrne 1993, p. 214. "The Iran-Contra Scandal". The American–Israeli Cooperative Enterprise. Retrieved 7 June 2008. "State Sponsors of Terrorism". State.gov. Retrieved 18 August 2014. Reagan 1990, p. 504. Brogan, Patrick (1989). The Fighting Never Stopped: A Comprehensive Guide To World Conflicts Since 1945. New York: Vintage Books. p.

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Ralph Webster Yarborough (June 8, 1903 – January 27, 1996) was an American politician and lawyer. He was a Texas Democratic politician who served in the United States Senate from 1957 to 1971 and was a leader of the progressive wing of his party. Along with Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson and Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, but unlike most Southern congressmen, Yarborough refused to support the 1956 Southern Manifesto, which called for resistance to the racial integration of schools and other public places. Yarborough voted in favor of the Civil Rights Acts of 1957,[2] 1960,[3] 1964,[4] and 1968,[5] as well as the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,[6] the Voting Rights Act of 1965,[7] and the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall to the U.S. Supreme Court.[8] Yarborough was the only senator from a state that was part of the Confederacy to vote for all five bills.[9] Born in Chandler, Texas, Yarborough practiced law in El Paso after graduating from the University of Texas School of Law. He became an assistant to Texas Attorney General James Burr V Allred in 1931 and specialized in prosecuting major oil companies. Allred was later elected governor of Texas and appointed Yarborough to a judgeship in Travis County. After serving in the United States Army during World War II, Yarborough repeatedly ran for governor, opposing the conservative faction of Democrats led by Allan Shivers. Price Daniel resigned from the Senate after winning the 1956 gubernatorial election, and Yarborough won the special election to serve the remainder of Daniel's term. He won election to a full term in 1958 and was reelected again in 1964, defeating Harris County Republican Party Chairman George H. W. Bush in the latter race. Yarborough was known as "Smilin' Ralph" and used the slogan "Let's put the jam on the lower shelf so the little people can reach it" in his campaigns. He staunchly supported the "Great Society" legislation that encompassed Medicare and Medicaid, the War on Poverty, federal support for higher education and veterans, and other programs. He also co-wrote the Endangered Species Act and was the most powerful proponent of the Big Thicket National Preserve.[10] Yarborough criticized the Vietnam War and supported Robert F. Kennedy in the 1968 presidential election until the latter's assassination. In 1970, Yarborough lost re-nomination to fellow Democrat Lloyd Bentsen, who campaigned as relatively more conservative. Yarborough attempted to win the 1972 Democratic primary for Texas's other Senate seat, but lost the primary to Barefoot Sanders. Yarborough did not seek public office after 1972. Early life Yarborough was born in Chandler in Henderson County west of Tyler, the seventh of nine children of Charles Richard Yarborough and the former Nannie Jane Spear. He was appointed to the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1919 but dropped out to become a teacher. Yarborough instead attended Sam Houston State Teachers College and transferred to the University of Texas at Austin. Yarborough graduated from the University of Texas Law School in 1927 and practiced law in El Paso until he was hired as an assistant attorney general in 1931 by the state Attorney General and later Governor James V. Allred.[11] From 1923 to 1926 he served with the 36th Infantry Division of the Texas Army National Guard, reaching the rank of Staff Sergeant.[12][1] After attending teaching school he taught for three years in Delta County and Martin Springs.[12][1] He spent one year working and studying foreign trade and international relations in Europe, mostly as assistant secretary for the American Chamber of Commerce in Berlin, Germany.[12][1] Yarborough was an expert in Texas land law and specialized in prosecuting major oil companies that violated production limits or failed to pay oil royalties to the Permanent School Fund for drilling on public lands. He earned renown for winning a million dollar judgment against the Mid-Kansas Oil and Gas Company for oil royalties, the second largest judgment ever in Texas at the time. After Allred was elected governor, he appointed Yarborough judge of the 53rd Judicial District serving Travis County, the county seat of which is Austin. Yarborough was elected to a four-year term later the same year.[13] Yarborough's first run for state office resulted in a third-place finish in the Democratic primary for state attorney general in 1938 against the sitting lieutenant governor. Yarborough served in the U.S. Army during World War II after 1943 and achieved the rank of lieutenant colonel. Before being elected a senator, Yarborough served on the Lower Colorado River Authority's board of directors and lectured on land law at University of Texas School of Law in 1935.[12][1] He also served as a presiding judge for the Third Administrative Judicial District of Texas.[12][1] From 1947 to 1951 he was a member of the Texas Board of Law Examiners.[12][1] Political career Running for governor See also: 1952 Texas gubernatorial election, 1954 Texas gubernatorial election, and 1956 Texas gubernatorial election Yarborough was urged to run again for state attorney general in 1952, and he planned to do so until he received a personal affront from Governor Allan Shivers who told him not to run. Texas Secretary of State John Ben Shepperd resigned in the spring of 1952 and was elected attorney general that year. He served two two-year terms. Angered at Shivers, Yarborough ran in the gubernatorial primaries in 1952 and 1954 against the conservative Shivers, drawing support from labor unions and liberals. Yarborough denounced the "Shivercrats" for veterans' fraud in the Texas Veterans Land Board of the Texas General Land Office and for endorsing in 1952 and 1956 the Republican Eisenhower/Nixon ticket, instead of the Democrat Adlai Stevenson of Illinois. Shivers portrayed Yarborough as an integrationist supported by communists and unions. The 1954 election was particularly nasty in its race-baiting by Shivers as it was the year that Brown v. Board of Education was decided, and Shivers made the most of the court decision in order to play on voters' fears. Yarborough, however, nearly upset Shivers.[11] In 1956, Yarborough made it to the primary runoff for governor against U.S. Senator Price Daniel. Texas historian J. Evetts Haley ran in the primary to the political right of both Daniel and Yarborough but lost. After being endorsed by former opponent and former Governor W. Lee O'Daniel, and making aggressive attacks on the Shivers-backed candidate, Yarborough looked to win the runoff, but instead he trailed Daniel by about nine thousand votes. It is believed (by Yarborough, his supporters, and biographer) that the election was stolen because of irregular voting in East Texas and that Yarborough really won the runoff by thirty thousand. Nevertheless, Yarborough's runs for governor had raised his stature and popularity in the state as he had been campaigning for six straight years for office.[11] Becoming a senator See also: 1957 United States Senate special election in Texas and 1958 United States Senate election in Texas Yarborough in a 1958 rally. When Daniel resigned from the Senate in 1957 to become governor, Yarborough ran in the special election to fill the empty seat. With no runoff then required, he needed only a plurality of votes to win. Ironically, his many runs for governor made him the best positioned candidate. Yarborough won the special election with 38 percent of the vote to join fellow Texan Lyndon B. Johnson in the Senate. The runner-up in the race with 30 percent of the vote was U.S. Representative Martin Dies, Jr., known for his investigations into communist infiltration. A Republican lawyer from Houston, Thad Hutcheson, ran third with 23 percent of the ballots cast.[14] James Boren served as Yarborough's campaign manager and chief of staff. In office, Ralph Yarborough was a very different kind of Southern senator. He did not support the Southern Manifesto opposing integration and supported national Democratic goals of more funding for health care, education, and the environment. Himself a veteran, he worked to expand the G.I. Bill to Cold War veterans. Yarborough's first major legislative victory was the successful passage of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which began federal funding of loans and grants to universities and their students.[15] In the 1958 Democratic primary, Yarborough easily defeated the conservative William A. Blakley, a millionaire businessman from Dallas who was backed by Daniel. Blakley had been the interim senator from January to April 1957 but did not run in the special election in which Yarborough defeated Dies and Hutcheson. Instead Blakley was appointed senator again in 1961 and ran in another special election, only to be defeated by the Republican John Tower. In the nationally Democratic year of 1958, Yarborough cruised to victory in the general election over the Republican nominee, publisher Roy Whittenburg of Amarillo. During his first full term, Yarborough worked for a bill signed by President John F. Kennedy to designate Padre Island as a national seashore. While serving in the senate he was a member of the Interparliamentary Union Group from 1961 to 1970 and a member of the board of directors of Gallaudet College from 1969 to 1971. Wrestling with Thurmond[16][17] Shortly after the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on July 9, Johnson nominated former Florida governor LeRoy Collins to a position in the Community Relations Service, which was designed to mediate racial disputes. Strom Thurmond, the most senior southern member of the Commerce Committee, bitterly opposed Collins's nomination, based on a speech that Collins made in Thurmond’s home state in which he said that southern leaders’ “harsh and intemperate� language unnecessarily stoked racial unrest. Commerce Chairman Warren Magnuson was aware that he had the votes in favor of the nomination, but had failed to get the required quorum. Thurmond, aware of Magnuson's struggles, stationed himself outside of the committee door, physically blocking any entry by later-arriving senators. Later, Yarborough arrived, and was blocked from entering. The only southern senator to have voted for the Civil Rights Act, Yarborough joked to Thurmond, "Come on in, Strom, and help us get a quorum." Thurmond responded, "If I can keep you out, you won’t go in, and if you can drag me in, I’ll stay there." Thurmond and Yarborough were both 61 years old, but Thurmond was 30 pounds lighter and much fitter. After some light scuffling, both senators removed their suit jackets. Thurmond overpowered Yarborough, whom he managed to bring to the floor. "Tell me to release you, Ralph, and I will," said Thurmond. Yarborough refused. Another senator approached, suggesting that they stop before one of them had a heart attack. Eventually, the fight was broken up by Magnuson, who growled, "Come on, you fellows, let’s break this up." Yarborough said, "I have to yield to the order of my chairman." Thurmond and Yarborough composed themselves and entered the committee chamber. Collins was nominated by a vote of 16 to 1. Assassination of John F. Kennedy Ralph Yarborough on the day of JFK's assassination. Yarborough rode in the Dallas motorcade in which John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963. He was in a convertible with Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, Lady Bird Johnson (who sat between Yarborough and Johnson), United States Secret Service agent Rufus Youngblood, and Hurchel Jacks of the Texas State Highway Patrol. From the start of the President's tour of Texas, Yarborough considered that he had been slighted by some of the arrangements and so, in the early stages, refused to ride with Johnson, despite repeated pleas by Youngblood.[18] His decision, underpinned by a long-standing feud with Governor Connally,[19] an old friend and erstwhile ally of Johnson, caused embarrassment to both the President and Vice President and drew considerable diversionary attention in the press.[20] According to Johnson, Kennedy considered Yarborough's behavior "an outrage"[21] and there is some evidence of a heated exchange between Kennedy and Johnson the night before Kennedy's death. According to Johnson's biographer Robert Caro, the next morning in Fort Worth, Kennedy intervened directly with Yarborough, making clear that, if he valued his friendship, he would ride with Johnson when the party reached Dallas. Then, during the short flight from Fort Worth, Kennedy persuaded Connally to give Yarborough a more prominent role in some of the later functions planned in Austin.[22] In the ensuing motorcade, the car carrying Yarborough and Johnson was two cars behind the presidential limousine carrying Kennedy and Connally (who was seriously wounded during the attack).[23] In a later interview, Yarborough called the event "the most tragic event of my life."[24] Shortly after Johnson became president, Yarborough telephoned him in conciliatory and supportive terms.[25] Reelection to Senate See also: 1964 United States Senate election in Texas In 1964, Yarborough again won the primary without a runoff, and won the general election with 56.2% of the vote. His Republican opponent was George H. W. Bush, who attacked Yarborough as a left-wing demagogue and for his vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yarborough denounced Bush as an extremist to the right of that year's GOP presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater, and as a rich easterner and carpetbagger trying to buy a Senate seat. It has since been learned that then-Governor Connally was covertly aiding Bush, against President Johnson's wishes, by teaching Democrats the techniques of split ticket voting. In the same election, Connally defeated Bush's ticket-mate, Jack Crichton. In 1967, Yarborough was the first U.S. senator to introduce the first bilingual education act.[26] Although Yarborough supported Johnson's domestic agenda, he went public with his criticism of Johnson's foreign policy and the Vietnam War after Johnson announced his retirement. Yarborough supported Robert F. Kennedy for president until his assassination, then Eugene McCarthy until his loss in Chicago, finally backing Hubert Humphrey in his 1968 campaign against Nixon. In 1969, Yarborough became chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Defeat See also: 1970 United States Senate election in Texas and 1972 United States Senate election in Texas In 1970, South Texan businessman and former Congressman Lloyd Bentsen defeated Yarborough in the Democratic primary, when Yarborough was focusing on an expected second general election campaign against Bush. Bentsen played on voters' fears of societal breakdown and urban riots, made an issue of Yarborough's opposition to the Vietnam War, and called him a political antique. Bentsen said, "It would be nice if Ralph Yarborough would vote for his state every once in a while." He defeated Bush in the general election. In 1972, Yarborough made a comeback effort to win the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate to challenge Senator John Tower, who as a young man had once circulated Yarborough stickers. Yarborough won the first round of the primary and came within 526 votes of winning the primary without the need for a runoff.[27] He again made accusations of vote fraud from the conservative wing. He lost in the primary runoff to a former U.S. Attorney, Barefoot Sanders, in an anti-incumbent sweep after the Sharpstown Bank-stock Scandal despite neither being an incumbent nor involved at all with the scandal.[28][29][30] From 1973 to 1974, Yarborough served as a member of the Constitutional Revision Commission of Texas.[12][1] From 1983 to 1987, he served as a member of the State Library and Archives Commission of Texas.[12][1] He practiced law in Austin from 1971 until his death in 1996.[12][1] Death This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) Yarborough died in 1996 at his home in Austin.[31] He is interred at the Texas State Cemetery there beside his wife, the former Opal Warren, a native of Murchison in Henderson County, Texas. The Texas State Cemetery is sometimes called "the Arlington of Texas". Yarborough left a legacy in the modernization of the state of Texas and achieved political power when Texas had a native son, Lyndon Johnson, in the White House. He was combative with the dominant industries of oil and natural gas and pushed for the petroleum industry to pay a greater share of taxes. Their son, Richard Warren Yarborough, a lawyer since 1955, died on March 5, 1986, at age 54. Ralph and his wife Opal were survived by three grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. Legacy Yarborough was one of the last of the New Deal Democrats and powerful liberals in Texas state politics. (He was followed by more conservative senators such as Bentsen and Phil Gramm). Yarborough is remembered as the acknowledged "patron saint of Texas liberals". Supporters and former aides who have since risen to prominence include Jim Hightower, Ann Richards, and Garry Mauro. The University of Texas at Austin Press published a biography, Ralph W. Yarborough: The People's Senator, by Patrick L. Cox. It features a foreword by Senator Edward Kennedy. The Yarborough Branch of the Austin Public Library was named in Yarborough's honor.[32] In October 1966, Yarborough introduced Senate Bill 5–3929 to establish a 75,000-acre national park to preserve the remaining natural and undisturbed areas of the Big Thicket in southeast Texas. Due in part to opposition from the lumber industry in the region, as well as vague and disputed definitions of what and where the Big Thicket actually was, it took seven years and another 27 Big Thicket bills until Congress established the Big Thicket National Preserve in 1974.[33] Yarborough was well known for his commitment to science. He favored the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and in 1957 was on a subcommittee that began the investigation that resulted in NASA's creation.[34] The next year, he voted for the National Aeronautics and Space Act, citing the impact he believed the agency could have on his hometown of Houston.[34] Yarborough advocated more education in science and technology in schools throughout the country.[34] In his biography, he wrote, "NASA helped push ahead progress in technology. The country's schools should be oriented towards developing technology and teaching science."[34] References Official congressional directory. 91st congress 2nd session 1970 "HR. 6127. Civil Rights Act of 1957". GovTrack.us. "HR. 8601. Passage of Amended Bill". "HR. 7152. Passage". "To Pass H.R. 2516, A Bill to Prohibit Discrimination in Sale or Rental of Housing, and to Prohibit Racially Motivated Interference with a Person Exercising His Civil Rights, and for Other Purposes". "S.J. Res. 29. Approval of Resolution Banning the Poll Tax as Prerequisite for Voting in Federal Elections". GovTrack.us. "To Pass S. 1564, The Voting Rights Act of 1965". "Confirmation of Nomination of Thurgood Marshall, The First Negro Appointed to the Supreme Court". GovTrack.us. Labaton, Stephen (January 28, 1996). "Ralph Yarborough Dies at 92; Cast Historic Civil Rights Vote". The New York Times. Retrieved August 2, 2012. Abernethy, Francis E.: Big Thicket from the Handbook of Texas Online. Retrieved August 24, 2012. Texas State Historical Association McDonald, Archie P. (April 15–21, 2001). "Liberal Where Liberal Isn't Cool". TexasEscapes.com. Retrieved August 2, 2012. Yarborough, Ralph Webster 1903–1996 Obadele-Starks, Ernest M. B. (1994). "Ralph Yarborough of Texas and the Road to Civil Rights". East Texas Historical Journal. 32 (1): 40. Retrieved February 9, 2018. "TX U.S. Senate Special Election, April 2, 1957". ourcampaigns.com. Retrieved September 8, 2013. Labaton, Stephen (January 28, 1996). "Ralph Yarborough Dies at 92; Cast Historic Civil Rights Vote". The New York Times. Retrieved October 13, 2014. "Senators Wrestle to Settle Nomination". Retrieved May 22, 2022. New York Times (July 10, 1964). "Two Senators Resort to Wrestling Over Collins Post". The New York Times. Retrieved May 22, 2022. Robert Caro (2012) The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Passage of Power; Robert Dallek (2003) John F. Kennedy: An Unfinished Life Sally Bedell-Smith (2004) Grace & Power: The Private World of the Kennedy White House e.g. Dallas Star, November 22, 1963. Bedell-Smith, op.cit. Caro, op.cit. Bedell-Smith's account suggests that Kennedy's aide Larry O'Brien spoke to Yarborough, while Congressman Albert Thomas persuaded Connally to include Yarborough in the programme for Austin (op.cit.) In any event, Kennedy appears to have been frustrated with Johnson's apparent inability or unwillingness to knock heads together (Caro; Bedell-Smith). Warren Commission Hearings, vol. II Warren Commission Testimony of Rufus Youngblood March 9, 1964. Accessed January 3, 2013. The Witnesses: Sen. Ralph Yarborough on YouTube Accessed January 3, 2013. Caro, op.cit. San Miguel, Jr., Guadalupe (2004). Contested Policy: The Rise and Fall of Federal Bilingual Education in the United States 1960–2001. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press. pp. 14–15. ISBN 1-57441-171-3. "Our Campaigns – TX US Senate – D Primary Race – May 06, 1972". "Our Campaigns – TX US Senate – D Runoff Race – Jun 03, 1972". "The 1972 Campaing [sic]". The New York Times. May 7, 1972. "Politics: I've Heard That Name Before". June 29, 2016. Pearson, Richard (January 28, 1996). "Ralph E. Yarborough Dies". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 2, 2023. "Yarborough Branch". Austin Public Library. Retrieved August 2, 2012. Cozine, J. (1993). Defining the Big Thicket. East Texas Historical Journal. 31(2); 57–71 Cox, Patrick. Ralph Yarborough: The People's Senator. Austin, Texas. University of Texas Press. 2002. External links Wikiquote has quotations related to Ralph Yarborough. Listen to this article (12 minutes) Duration: 12 minutes and 18 seconds.12:18 Spoken Wikipedia icon This audio file was created from a revision of this article dated 7 May 2005, and does not reflect subsequent edits. (Audio help · More spoken articles) United States Congress. "Ralph Yarborough (id: Y000006)". Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. Ralph Webster Yarborough from the Handbook of Texas Online Photographs of Ralph Yarborough, hosted by the Portal to Texas History East Texas historical newspaper column Appearances on C-SPAN “Eyes on the Prize; Interview with Ralph W. Yarborough" 1986-05-15, American Archive of Public Broadcasting Ralph Yarborough at Find a Grave Party political offices Preceded by Price Daniel Democratic nominee for U.S. Senator from Texas (Class 1) 1957, 1958, 1964 Succeeded by Lloyd Bentsen U.S. Senate Preceded by William A. Blakley U.S. senator (Class 1) from Texas 1957–1971 Served alongside: Lyndon B. Johnson, William Blakley, John G. Tower Succeeded by Lloyd Bentsen vte United States senators from Texas Class 1 Rusk Henderson Ward Wigfall Flanagan Maxey Reagan Chilton Mills Culberson Mayfield Connally Daniel Blakley Yarborough Bentsen Krueger Hutchison Cruz United States Senate Class 2 S. Houston Hemphill Hamilton Coke Chilton Bailey Johnston Sheppard A. Houston O'Daniel Johnson Blakley Tower Gramm Cornyn vte Chairs of the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Education/Education and Labor (1869–1947) Harlan Drake Sawyer Flanagan Ferry Patterson Burnside Bailey Blair Carey Kyle Shoup Kyle McComas Penrose Dolliver Borah H. Smith Kenyon Borah Phipps Couzens Metcalf Walsh Black Thomas Murray Labor and Public Welfare (1947–1977) Taft Thomas Murray A. Smith Hill Yarborough Williams Labor and Human Resources (1977–1999) Williams Hatch Kennedy Kassebaum Jeffords Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (1999–present) Jeffords Kennedy Jeffords Kennedy Gregg Enzi Kennedy Harkin Alexander Murray Sanders Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata International FAST ISNI VIAF National Germany United States People US Congress Other NARA SNAC Categories: 1903 births1996 deathsTexas state court judgesTexas DemocratsTexas lawyersAmerican anti–Vietnam War activistsWitnesses to the assassination of John F. KennedyUnited States Army personnel of World War IIUniversity of Texas School of Law alumniSam Houston State University alumniPoliticians from Austin, TexasPoliticians from El Paso, TexasPeople from Henderson County, TexasMilitary personnel from TexasBurials at Texas State CemeteryDemocratic Party United States senators from TexasTexas National Guard personnelUnited States Army officers20th-century American lawyers20th-century American politicians20th-century American judgesLiberalism in the United StatesGallaudet University trustees Mary Jane Goodpasture Bode (July 28, 1926 – September 23, 1998) was an American politician and journalist who served in the Texas House of Representatives from district 37-B from 1977 to 1981.[1][2] Early life Mary Jane Goodpasture was born on July 28, 1926, in Chicago, Illinois, to Basil M. Goodpasture and Margarite E. (Stinnett) Goodpasture. She moved to Texas and studied at the University of Houston. In the 1940s, she married Amadeo E. Carmignani of Galveston, Texas, with whom she had a daughter in 1949. However, the couple later divorced. In 1956, she moved to Austin, Texas, and started her career as a journalist for several newspapers, including the Austin American-Statesman. She was a capital correspondent for 10 years. She then married Austin journalist and broadcaster Winston Bode, and they divorced in the 1960s[3] Political career Bode began her career in 1968 when she ran for the Texas House of Representatives as a Democrat. She described herself as a "moderate liberal."[3] Her run was unsuccessful and she then worked as press secretary for Texas attorney general John Hill. When the Sarah Weddington, the representative for Texas House seat 37-B left for a position in the Carter Administration, Bode took her seat, winning with less than 70 votes. She would later win reelection. However, she lost her seat in 1980 after a Republican surge from the prominent political career of Ronald Reagan.[3] Later life and death Following her political defeat, Bode continued journalism, but retired 1989. Throughout her life she had struggled with health ailments, including lockjaw, polio, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and back surgery. She ultimately died of cancer at the age of 72 on September 23, 1998, at Goodshepard Hospital in Barrington, Illinois.[3] References "Mary Jane Bode". Lrl.texas.gov. Retrieved 2020-11-04. "Reward Bode with voter support". Newspapers.com. 1980-04-14. Retrieved 2020-11-04. "TSHA | Bode, Mary Jane Goodpasture". www.tshaonline.org. Retrieved 2 January 2022. Categories: 1926 births1998 deathsPoliticians from ChicagoDemocratic Party members of the Texas House of RepresentativesWomen state legislators in Texas20th-century American legislators20th-century American women politicians20th-century Texas politicians

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Alexander Porter Butterfield (born April 6, 1926) is a retired United States Air Force officer, public servant, and businessman. He served as the deputy assistant to President Richard Nixon from 1969 to 1973. He revealed the White House taping system's existence on July 13, 1973, during the Watergate investigation but had no other involvement in the scandal. From 1973 to 1975, he served as administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. Early life and Air Force career Butterfield was born April 6, 1926, in Pensacola, Florida,[1] to Susan Armistead Alexander Butterfield and United States Navy pilot (later rear admiral) Horace B. Butterfield.[2] He grew up in Coronado, California, and left home in 1943.[3] Butterfield enrolled in college at the University of California, Los Angeles,[1] where he became a friend of H. R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman.[4] He left the university to join the United States Air Force in 1948.[1][2][a] Initially, Butterfield was stationed at Las Vegas Air Force Base (now Nellis Air Force Base) as a fighter-gunnery instructor before being transferred to the 86th Fighter Wing in Munich, West Germany, in November 1951, where he was a member of the Skyblazers [ja] jet fighter acrobatic team.[2][3] He later served as the operations officer of a fighter-interceptor squadron in Knoxville, Tennessee, before being promoted to commander of a fighter squadron at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan.[2] During the Vietnam War, Butterfield commanded a squadron of low and medium-level[5] combat tactical air reconnaissance aircraft.[2] He flew 98 combat missions[6] and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross.[1] In 1965 and 1966, Butterfield served as the military assistant to the special assistant to the Secretary of Defense,[7] where he became a friend of Alexander Haig.[8] He also gained extensive experience working at the White House, where he spent half his time.[8] He advanced to the rank of colonel and, beginning in 1967, was serving in Australia as the F-111 project officer; representative for the commander-in-chief of the Pacific forces; and senior U.S. military representative.[2][1][7] During his military career, he attended the National War College,[2] and earned a bachelor of science degree from the University of Maryland (1956) and a master of science degree from George Washington University (1967).[7] White House assistant Watergate scandal The Watergate complex in 2006 Events List People Watergate burglars Groups CRP White House Richard Nixon Alexander Butterfield Charles Colson John Dean John Ehrlichman Gerald Ford H. R. Haldeman E. Howard Hunt Egil Krogh G. Gordon Liddy Gordon C. Strachan Rose Mary Woods Judiciary Journalists Intelligence community Congress Related vte Obtaining a position In late 1968, Butterfield learned that he would be stationed in Australia for another two years, delaying any potential promotion and potentially harming his military career.[9][10] The ambitious Butterfield wanted to be in "the smoke" (where the action was), and wanted to leave Australia.[11] After coming across a newspaper article which mentioned the appointment of H. R. Haldeman as Nixon's White House Chief of Staff, Butterfield wrote to Haldeman asking for a job.[9][10] The two met in New York City about December 19, 1968, to discuss a role as a military aide, but when nothing suitable came up, Butterfield asked to take any job in the White House. General Andrew Goodpaster, former White House staff secretary in the Eisenhower administration, suggested that Haldeman have a deputy, and Haldeman offered the position to Butterfield about January 13.[12] Butterfield retired from the Air Force a few days later,[6][b] and his appointment as deputy assistant to the president was announced on January 23, 1969.[14] Role as deputy assistant As deputy assistant to the president, Butterfield was Haldeman's chief assistant. His first few days in the White House were difficult. Butterfield did not meet the president for 13 days.[15] When Haldeman finally introduced Butterfield to Nixon, their meeting was short and awkward.[10][15] Haldeman then left for California, leaving Butterfield in charge of the White House staff for four days. During the second meeting with Butterfield, Nixon was rude and condescending,[10][15] and Butterfield nearly resigned. The following day, however, Nixon was cordial and witty, and Butterfield resolved to stay at the White House.[15] Butterfield, who came to like Nixon immensely, nevertheless felt the president was an "ignorant boor, a bumpkin".[11] Initially, when meeting with Nixon, Butterfield had to mimic Haldeman's mannerisms and to duplicate his managerial style. Everything Haldeman and Butterfield did was designed to make Nixon feel comfortable and relaxed, never surprised or "spooked". Haldeman told him, "If you don't do things exactly as I do, it could upset [Nixon]."[11] Next to Haldeman, Butterfield was the most powerful aide in the White House. He met with Nixon and Haldeman every day at 2 P.M. to plan the following day's activities. He "completely controlled" what paperwork Nixon saw and logged memos. He accompanied Haldeman on all domestic trips, co-supervised traveling White House staff with Haldeman, and ran the White House when Haldeman and Nixon went on foreign trips. Every meeting the president attended required "talking points" for Nixon written by an appropriate staff person as well as an after-meeting summary by that person, and Butterfield oversaw the process by which both documents were completed and filed. Butterfield also oversaw all FBI investigations requested by the White House, which included routine background checks of potential employees as well as politically motivated investigations.[16] Other than Haldeman, no one had a more intimate knowledge of Nixon's working style, the daily operations of the White House, what Nixon may have read, or who Nixon may have met.[17] Butterfield was also the person who primarily managed people as they met with Nixon. This included ensuring people arrived on time,[11] and that they did not stay too long. Butterfield also oversaw Nixon's often-distant relationship with his wife, Pat.[11][18] Late in 1970, the president's aides lost confidence in Constance C. Stuart, Pat Nixon's staff director and press secretary, and Butterfield was assigned responsibility for overseeing the First Lady's events and publicity.[19][20] The day after the 1972 presidential election, Pat Nixon confronted her husband over what she perceived to be Oval Office interference with her staff. Deputy assistant to the president Dwight Chapin and later Butterfield were appointed to act as liaison between the two staffs.[21] Installing the taping system Butterfield also oversaw installation of the taping system which Nixon ordered for the White House. On February 10, 1971,[11] Haldeman's assistant, Lawrence Higby, told Butterfield that Nixon wanted a voice-activated audio taping system installed in the Oval Office and on White House telephones.[22] The goal, Nixon said, was to create a more accurate record of events.[23] Butterfield worked with the Secret Service to install five hidden microphones in Nixon's desk in the Oval Office, two in lamps on the mantel over the fireplace, two in the cabinet room, and on all telephone lines in the Lincoln Sitting Room and Oval Office.[23] According to Butterfield, the system was highly secret, its existence known only to Nixon, Haldeman, Higby, and the three or four Secret Service technical staffers who installed it.[24][c] In April 1971, Nixon ordered the taping system to be installed in his private office in the Executive Office Building.[26] Resignation In March 1973, Butterfield was confirmed as administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and resigned from his position at the White House.[27] Revelation of the taping system Speculation on its existence John Dean testified in June 1973 that Nixon was deeply involved in the Watergate cover-up, and mentioned that he suspected White House conversations were taped.[28] Staff of the United States Senate Watergate Committee, thereafter, began to routinely ask witnesses appearing before the committee if they knew of any taping system.[17] Senate Watergate Committee staff then asked the White House for a list of dates on which the President had met with Dean.[29] About June 20 or 21,[30] Special White House Counsel for Watergate J. Fred Buzhardt provided the committee's Chief Minority (Republican) Counsel, Fred Thompson, with a document intended to impugn Dean's testimony. Buzhardt's document included almost verbatim quotations from meetings Nixon had with Dean.[29][d] Thompson initially violated an agreement under which the majority and minority staff would share all information. When committee Majority Investigator Scott Armstrong obtained the document, he realized it indicated the existence of a taping system.[32] July 13 questioning Tape recorder from President Nixon's Oval Office Butterfield was questioned by Senate Watergate Committee staff Scott Armstrong, G. Eugene Boyce, Marianne Brazer, and Donald Sanders (deputy minority counsel) on Friday, July 13, 1973, in a background interview prior to his public testimony before the full committee.[33] Butterfield was brought before the committee because he was Haldeman's top deputy and was the only person other than Haldeman who knew as much about the president's day-to-day behavior.[4][e] The critical line of questioning was conducted by Donald Sanders.[34] Armstrong had given a copy of Buzhardt's report to Butterfield;[35] now Sanders asked if the quotations in it might have come from notes. Butterfield said no, that the quotations were too detailed.[10] In addition, Butterfield said that neither staff nor the president kept notes of one-on-one private meetings with Nixon.[34] When asked where the quotations might have come from, Butterfield said he did not know.[10] Then Sanders asked if there was any validity to John Dean's hypothesis that the White House had taped conversations in the Oval Office. Butterfield replied, "I was wondering if someone would ask that. There is tape in the Oval Office."[34] Butterfield then told the investigators that, while he had hoped that no one would ask about the taping system, he had previously decided he would disclose its existence if asked a direct question.[36] Butterfield then testified extensively about when the taping system was installed and how it worked, telling the staff members, "Everything was taped... as long as the President was in attendance. There was not so much as a hint that something should not be taped."[37] Butterfield later said that he assumed the committee knew about the taping system, since they had already interviewed Haldeman and Higby.[38] All present recognized the significance of this disclosure, and, as former political adviser to President Gerald Ford James M. Cannon put it, "Watergate was transformed".[39] Butterfield's testimony lasted from 2 PM to 6:30 PM. The four investigators swore themselves to secrecy and agreed to tell only the Chief Counsel and Chief Minority Counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee.[36] Chief Counsel Samuel Dash says he immediately informed his subordinate, Deputy Chief Counsel Rufus L. Edmisten, and then Democratic Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the committee.[40] Both Ervin and Dash realized how important it was politically to have had a Republican uncover the taping system.[41] That same night, Ervin asked Dash to have Butterfield testify on Monday, July 16.[40] July 16 questioning Left to right: Fred Thompson, Sen. Howard Baker, and Sen. Sam Ervin during the Senate Watergate Committee hearings Friday night, Thompson informed Senator Howard Baker, the ranking minority member on the Senate Watergate Committee, of Butterfield's admission.[40] After Ervin had told him the news as well, Baker began pushing to have Butterfield testify immediately.[42] Again breaking rules not to have private conversations or meetings with the White House, Thompson also informed Buzhardt about Butterfield's Friday night interview.[43] Butterfield, scheduled to fly to Moscow on July 17 for a trade meeting, was worried that he would be called to testify before the Senate Watergate Committee and that this would force him to cancel his Russia trip.[42] Sources vary as to the next sequence of events. According to some sources, Butterfield was notified on the morning of Sunday, July 15, that he would testify the next day. Butterfield then met with Baker (whom he knew slightly). Butterfield asked Baker to use his influence to cancel the testimony, but Baker declined. Butterfield then called the White House and left a message for Special Counsel Leonard Garment (Dean's replacement), advising him of the content of his Friday testimony and the committee's subpoena for him to testify on Monday.[f] Haig and Buzhardt[g] received Butterfield's message, and waited for Garment to return from a cross-country trip later that day. After Garment was informed, the White House staff did nothing. Butterfield was not contacted, and Nixon was not told about Butterfield's testimony until either Monday morning or late Monday afternoon.[45] According to Butterfield and other sources, Butterfield left a message about his Friday interview for Garment at the White House on Saturday night.[46] He then met with Baker Sunday morning, but Baker told him the chances were slim that he would be called to testify.[42] According to Butterfield, he did not learn that he was going to testify before the Ervin committee until shortly after 10 AM on Monday, July 16,[47] just about three hours before he was due to appear at 2 PM.[11][48][38] Butterfield's July 16 testimony, which lasted just 30 minutes,[44] was carried on live television by all the major broadcast networks.[49] Senator Baker informed Dash before the hearing began that, since a Republican (Sanders) had elicited the testimony from Butterfield on July 13, he wanted Republican Chief Minority Counsel Thompson to question Butterfield during the hearing. Baker did not want the Republicans to look as if they had been caught by surprise.[50] The New York Times called Butterfield's testimony "dramatic",[49] and historian William Doyle has noted that it "electrified Washington and triggered a constitutional crisis".[51] Political scientist Keith W. Olson said Butterfield's testimony "fundamentally altered the entire Watergate investigation."[52] Within hours of Butterfield's testimony, Haig had the taping system removed.[53] Post-Watergate Butterfield at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library in 2016 Watergate revelations Butterfield was not involved in the Watergate cover-up and was never charged with any crime.[10] Butterfield did, however, play a minor role in Watergate. Nixon had $1.6 million in campaign funds left over from the 1968 election. Determined to raise as much re-election money as he could before a new federal campaign finance law took effect on April 7, 1972, Nixon's staff and political operatives began raising large amounts of cash.[54] Some of this cash was used for illegal purposes connected with the Watergate scandal, such as surveillance and paying for the Watergate burglary. Haldeman retained $350,000 in cash in a locked briefcase in the office of Hugh W. Sloan Jr. at the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. Haldeman said the case, colloquially known as "the 350", was for polling operations. Haldeman aide Gordon C. Strachan moved the cash to the White House in April 1972, but Haldeman ordered it removed.[55] Strachan then asked Butterfield to handle the cash by giving it to someone Butterfield trusted.[56] On April 7,[57] Butterfield removed the cash and met a close friend at the Key Bridge Marriott in Rosslyn, Virginia. The friend agreed to keep the cash in a safe deposit box in Arlington County, Virginia, and make it available to the White House on demand.[56] Butterfield voluntarily revealed his role in "the 350" to United States Attorneys shortly after leaving the White House in March 1973.[17][h] Butterfield also played a very limited role in some of the surveillance conducted by the Nixon White House. On September 7, 1972, Nixon met with Haldeman and Ehrlichman to discuss Senator Edward M. Kennedy's request for Secret Service protection while he campaigned on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee, Senator George McGovern. Haldeman suggested Butterfield handle the details, and Butterfield, Ehrlichman, and Haldeman met with Nixon later that day to discuss planting a mole.[59] Nixon was convinced Kennedy was an adulterer, and wanted to catch him "in the sack with one of his babes". Butterfield assigned former Nixon bodyguard Robert Newbrand as the spy in Kennedy's protective detail on September 8.[60] Federal Aviation Administration By late 1972, Butterfield felt his job no longer challenged him, and he informally told President Nixon that he wanted to leave. Nixon offered him a position in the State Department, but Butterfield was not interested in it. Nixon then suggested the Federal Aviation Administration, and Butterfield agreed.[17] On December 19, 1972, President Nixon nominated Butterfield to be the new Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.[61] Federal law, however, required that the Administrator be a civilian, not an active-duty or retired military officer. President Nixon sought legislation to waive this requirement for Butterfield, but it was not forthcoming. Subsequently, in February 1973 Butterfield resigned from the Air Force Reserves, giving up a $10,000 a year pension.[62] President Nixon withdrew Butterfield's nomination on February 26, 1973, and resubmitted it to the Senate the same day.[63] Butterfield was confirmed on March 12, 1973,[64] and he resigned as Deputy Assistant to the President on March 14.[16] United States Secretary of Transportation Claude Brinegar often criticized Butterfield for being lax on aviation safety, allegations Butterfield strongly denied.[65] In early January 1975, President Gerald Ford asked for the resignation of all executive branch officeholders who had been prominent in the Nixon administration. The Washington Post, quoting anonymous White House sources, said Butterfield's dismissal was not retaliation for his role in revealing the White House taping system, and allowed Butterfield to make a case for keeping his job with new White House Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld.[65] Butterfield did not retain his position, although the White House allowed him to take several months before resigning.[65] Butterfield resigned on March 25, 1975,[66] and left the government on March 31, 1975.[1] Post-government career Butterfield struggled for two years to find employment after leaving the federal government.[11] He eventually worked for a flight service company in San Francisco, California. He then found work with a financial holding company in Los Angeles. Butterfield left the financial industry to start a business and productivity consulting firm, Armistead & Alexander.[10] He retired in 1995.[67] Butterfield was among those who correctly guessed the identity of Watergate informant "Deep Throat" prior to the disclosure in 2005. He told the Hartford Courant in 1995, "I think it was a guy named Mark Felt."[68] Butterfield is a major source for Bob Woodward's 2015 book The Last of the President's Men.[6][10] Butterfield retained an extensive number of records when he left the White House, some of them historically important, including the "zilch" memo, which helped form part of the basis for the book.[11] On July 11, 2022, Butterfield was a guest on Lawrence O'Donnell's MSNBC show, The Last Word.[69] Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide in the Trump administration, testified to the January 6 Committee that she drew on Butterfield’s experience and example when deciding to go back to the Committee to testify fully and truthfully, despite significant legal and political pressure from Trump world.[70][71] Personal life Butterfield married Charlotte Maguire in 1949.[1] They divorced in 1985.[2] Butterfield moved to La Jolla, California, in 1992, where he was a close friend of (and sometimes dated)[11] Audrey Geisel, the widow of Theodor Geisel (the author of children's books, known as "Dr. Seuss").[10] He returned to school, obtaining a master's degree in history from the University of California, San Diego. As of November 2015, he was working on a Ph.D. in history, with a focus on the presidential power to pardon. He remains active on the boards of directors of several corporations.[10] References Notes Contrary to published reports, Butterfield did not serve in World War II.[3] Contrary to some published reports, Butterfield himself denies that he was told to resign from the military before taking the position. He says his decision to retire was solely his own.[13] Woodward and Bernstein note that the existence of the taping system was also known to White House Press Secretary Ron Ziegler and to Stephen B. Bull, Special Assistant to the President and Appointments Secretary and Butterfield's successor.[25] In late April 1973, Nixon asked Haldeman to review the tapes of Nixon's meetings with John Dean on Watergate, with a view of finding any discrepancies which might undermine Dean's credibility. The morning of June 4, Nixon began reviewing these tapes and making almost verbatim notes about conversations. That evening, he met with Buzhardt. Nixon verbally recounted the notes he made, adding his interpretation or explanatory observations, as Buzhardt took notes. The President instructed Buzhardt to work the notes up into a document, and to give the document only to Thompson.[31] Reporter Aaron Latham argues it is not clear why Butterfield was called. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, he says, believe that Butterfield was called to testify because they had repeatedly suggested it to Armstrong. But Armstrong says neither the majority counsel nor minority counsel was interested. Senate Watergate Committee chief counsel Samuel Dash said that Butterfield was simply one of many Nixon aides the committee was getting around to interviewing. Assistant chief counsel James Hamilton, who authorized the interview with Butterfield, had done so because of revelations that Butterfield had handled "the 350" ($350,000 in cash held by the Nixon reelection committee). But since this issue was not considered critically important, Butterfield's interview had been put off several times.[33] Samuel Dash also says Butterfield contacted the White House on Sunday.[40] Fred Emery says it was Haig and Ziegler.[44] Butterfield handled the money twice more. On April 21, 1972, he was told by Strachan to have $22,000 of the money delivered to Joseph Baroody, leader of the National Association of Arab Americans and a member of the Baroody family (which were very influential in conservative political circles). Butterfield contacted his friend, who delivered the money the next day. On November 28, 1972, Butterfield was instructed to obtain the money from his friend and turn it over to Strachan. This was the last transaction Butterfield was involved in.[58] Citations Hall 2008, p. 34. The International Who's Who, 1997-98 1997, p. 232. Alexander Butterfield Interview, Nixon Library 2008, p. 1. Kutler 1992, pp. 367–368. "Alexander Butterfield: "Evening With"". Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library. 2005. Archived from the original on September 14, 2016. Retrieved July 13, 2016. Woodward 2015, p. 5. "Alexander P. Butterfield. Collections: Textual Materials: White House Special Files: Textual Materials". Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. Archived from the original on June 24, 2016. Retrieved July 13, 2016. Alexander Butterfield Interview, Nixon Library 2008, p. 5. Alexander Butterfield Interview, Nixon Library 2008, pp. 3–4. Wilkens, John (November 28, 2015). "Nixon Tapes and the Man Who Spilled". San Diego Tribune. Retrieved July 12, 2016. Roig-Franzia, Manuel (October 12, 2015). "The Man Who Knew Too Much About Richard Nixon". The Washington Post. Retrieved July 12, 2016. Alexander Butterfield Interview, Nixon Library 2008, pp. 3–5. Alexander Butterfield Interview, Nixon Library 2008, p. 6. Rugaber, Walter (January 24, 1969). "Nixon Names Aide to Help Oversee Domestic Affairs". The New York Times. pp. 1, 15. Alexander Butterfield Interview, Nixon Library 2008, pp. 6–10. Kutler 1992, p. 367. Kutler 1992, p. 368. Swift 2014, p. 253. Beasley 2005, p. 119. Troy 2000, pp. 189, 193. Swift 2014, p. 264-265. Butterfield 1974, pp. 45=46. Brinkley & Nichter 2014, p. x. Butterfield 1974, pp. 45–46. Woodward & Bernstein 1976, p. 43. Brinkley & Nichter 2014, p. xi. Woodward 2015, p. 142. Kutler 1992, p. 359. Latham 1974, p. 46. Dean 2015, p. 616. Woodward & Bernstein 1976, pp. 43–51. Woodward 2015, pp. 147–153. Latham 1974, pp. 44–45. Latham 1974, p. 60. Latham 1974, p. 45. Latham 1974, p. 63. Kutler 1997, p. 638. Emery 1995, p. 369. Cannon 2013, p. 120. Dash 1976, p. 180. Emery 1995, p. 367. Alexander Butterfield Interview, Nixon Library 2008, p. 46. Woodward & Bernstein 1976, p. 57. Emery 1995, p. 368. Locker 2016, pp. 243–244. Alexander Butterfield Interview, Nixon Library 2008, p. 48. Alexander Butterfield Interview, Nixon Library 2008, pp. 46–47. Alexander Butterfield Interview, Nixon Library 2008, p. 47. Naughton, James M. (July 17, 1973). "Nixon Wired His Phone, Offices to Record All Conversation". The New York Times. pp. 1, 26. Dash 1976, p. 182. Doyle 1999, p. 183. Olson 2014, p. 325. Brinkley & Nichter 2014, p. xiii. Emery 1995, pp. 108–109. Emery 1995, p. 109. Emery 1995, pp. 109–110. Butterfield 1974, p. 53-54. Butterfield 1974, p. 54-55. Kutler 1997, pp. 132–133. Fulsom 2012, pp. 104–105. Charlton, Linda (December 20, 1972). "Nixon Appoints Aide for Liaison". The New York Times. p. 10. Apple, R.W. Jr. (February 27, 1973). "Nominee to FAA Quits Air Force". The New York Times. p. 22. "Butterfield Gets 2d Nomination". The Washington Post. February 27, 1973. p. D8. Kraus 2008, p. 45. Cannon, Lou (January 7, 1975). "Ford Said To Ask FAA Chief to Quit". The Washington Post. p. A1. "Butterfield Quits as FAA Chief: Disclosed Existence of Nixon Tapes". The Washington Post. March 26, 1975. p. A2. Woodward 2015, pp. 179–181. Rizzo, Frank (December 17, 1995). "Nixon: One Role Will Remain Nameless". Hartford Courant. Retrieved July 12, 2016. The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell/MSNBC Alexander Butterfield Was 'Worried To Death' Testifying Against Nixon, retrieved December 23, 2022 "To defy Trump world, transcript shows Cassidy Hutchinson draw courage from history". MSNBC.com. Retrieved December 23, 2022. "Cassidy Hutchinson's Trump-supporting father refused to help her get her own lawyer for Jan 6 evidence". www.yahoo.com. December 22, 2022. Retrieved December 23, 2022. Bibliography Wikimedia Commons has media related to Alexander Butterfield. Alexander Butterfield Interview Transcription. Document 2008-06-12-BUT (PDF) (Report). Nixon Presidential Library and Museum. June 12, 2008. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 29, 2016. Retrieved July 13, 2016. Beasley, Maurine Hoffman (2005). First Ladies and the Press: The Unfinished Partnership of the Media Age. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press. ISBN 9780810123120. Brinkley, Douglas; Nichter, Luke (2014). The Nixon Tapes: 1971–1972. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN 9780544274150. Butterfield, Alexander (1974). "Testimony of Alexander Porter Butterfield". Testimony of Witnesses: Alexander Butterfield, Paul O'Brien, and Fred C. LaRue. Book I. U.S. House of Representatives. 93d Cong., 2d sess. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. hdl:2027/uiug.30112104083214. Cannon, James M. (2013). Gerald R. Ford: An Honorable Life. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 9780472116041. Dash, Samuel (1976). Chief Counsel: Inside the Erwin Committee: The Untold Story of Watergate. New York: Random House. Dean, John W. (2015). The Nixon Defense: What He Knew and When He Knew It. New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 9780143127383. Doyle, William (1999). Inside the Oval Office: The White House Tapes From FDR to Clinton. New York: Kodansha International. ISBN 9781568362854. Emery, Fred (1995). Watergate: The Corruption of American Politics and the Fall of Richard Nixon. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780684813233. Fulsom, Don (2012). Nixon's Darkest Secrets: The Inside Story of America's Most Troubled President. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. ISBN 9780312662967. Hall, Mitchell K. (2008). Historical Dictionary of the Nixon-Ford Era. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810864108. The International Who's Who, 1997–98. London: Europa Publications. 1997. ISBN 9781857430226. Kraus, Theresa L. (2008). The Federal Aviation Administration: A Historical Perspective, 1903–2008. Washington, D.C.: Aviation Administration. Kutler, Stanley I. (1992). The Wars of Watergate: The Last Crisis of Richard Nixon. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 9780393308273. Kutler, Stanley I. (1997). Abuse of Power: The New Nixon Tapes. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 9780684851877. Latham, Aaron (June 17, 1974). "There is tape in the Oval Office". New York Magazine. pp. 44–46, 60, 63. Retrieved July 13, 2016. Locker, Ray (2016). Nixon's Gamble: How a President's Own Secret Government Destroyed His Administration. Guilford, Conn.: Lyons Press. ISBN 9781493009312. Olson, Keith (2014). "A President Resigns: The Watergate Scandal". In Angerholzer, Maxmillian (ed.). Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Congress: Case Studies in Legislative Leadership. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger. ISBN 9781440831997. Swift, Will (2014). Pat and Dick: The Nixons, an Intimate Portrait of a Marriage. New York: Threshold Editions. ISBN 9781451676945. Troy, Gil (2000). Mr. and Mrs. President: From the Trumans to the Clintons. Lawrence, Kan.: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 9780700610341. Woodward, Bob (2015). The Last of the President's Men. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9781501116445. Woodward, Bob; Bernstein, Carl (1976). The Final Days. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 9780671222987. Government offices Preceded by John H. Schaffer Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 1973–1975 Succeeded by John L. McLucas Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata Categories: 1926 birthsLiving peopleAdministrators of the Federal Aviation AdministrationCalifornia RepublicansFord administration personnelGeorge Washington University alumniMilitary personnel from CaliforniaMilitary personnel from FloridaNational War College alumniNixon administration personnelNixon administration personnel involved in the Watergate scandalPeople from Coronado, CaliforniaPeople from La Jolla, San DiegoPeople from Pensacola, FloridaRecipients of the Distinguished Flying Cross (United States)United States Air Force colonelsUnited States Air Force personnel of the Vietnam WarUniversity of California, San Diego alumniUniversity of Maryland, College Park alumni Herbert Warren Kalmbach (October 19, 1921 – September 15, 2017) was an American attorney and banker. He served as the personal attorney to United States President Richard Nixon (1968–1973). He became embroiled in the Watergate scandal due to his fundraising activities in the early 1970s, some of which supported undercover operatives directed by senior White House figures under Nixon. Kalmbach was convicted and served 191 days in jail for his part in the scandal, and lost his license to practice law for a time, although he was later reinstated.[1] Education, early career Kalmbach was born on October 19, 1921, in Port Huron, Michigan.[1] He earned both his undergraduate and law degrees at the University of Southern California, and was admitted to the bar in 1952. He was a real estate lawyer and founding partner of Kalmbach, DeMarco, Knapp & Chillingworth.[2][3] Meets Nixon, political fundraiser Kalmbach was introduced to Richard Nixon, then vice-president, by H. R. Haldeman in the 1950s.[4] He raised money for Richard Nixon's candidacy in the 1960 United States presidential election and again in the 1968 United States presidential election. Banker, becomes Nixon's attorney Kalmbach declined Nixon's offer to appoint him Under Secretary of Commerce, choosing instead to remain in California and build up his law practice, becoming the former Vice President's private lawyer. His law firm prospered during this period; it employed two lawyers in 1968, 14 in 1970, and 24 by 1973. The presidential connection drew United Airlines, Dart Industries, Marriott Corporation, and MCA Inc. as clients. During this period Kalmbach founded the Bank of Newport, in Newport Beach, California. The firm performed routine legal chores for the President. It was a shrewd choice. Kalmbach's solid but unspectacular career as a real estate lawyer was quickly touched with gold. Suddenly major clients from all over the nation were eager to sign up with the attorney who represented the President: United Air Lines, Dart Industries Inc., the Marriott Corp., MCA Inc. (the dominant producer of prime-time TV shows). National companies traditionally seek out lawyers who have friends and clients in high places in Washington, and Kalmbach's were very high indeed.[3][5] Arranges private polling Kalmbach was involved in a secret Nixon polling operation hidden from all but his closest senior advisors. Nixon used the poll results to shape policy and campaign strategy and manipulate popular opinion. On December 21, 1971, Kalmbach set up a Delaware shell corporation with private funding, to hide Administration sponsorship of polls.[6] Joins 1972 re-election campaign Kalmbach was also the Deputy Finance Chairman for the Committee to Re-elect the President. In this capacity he was eventually implicated in a fund-raising scandal involving re-election campaign contributions by Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (AMPI) and two other major dairy-farm cooperatives in connection with Nixon's support of an increase in price supports for milk in 1971.[7] Testimony by AMPI general manager George L. Mehrens in 1973 identified Kalmbach as a major solicitor of these contributions.[7] Articles on Charles Colson's involvement in the AMPI scandal indicated that $2 million in contributions had been expected, but that the actual donations were nearer to $400,000, of which some $197,500 had been given by AMPI.[7] Manages finances for undercover operations Kalmbach handled a secret $500,000 fund to finance the sabotage and espionage operations of Donald Segretti.[8][9] Convicted, imprisoned Kalmbach was associate finance chairman of the 1968 Nixon for President campaign and was an unofficial fund-raiser for the Committee for the Re-election of the President, controlling several secret funds. Kalmbach served six months in jail and was fined $10,000 for operating an illegal campaign committee and for offering an ambassadorship in return for political support. He also handled a secret $500,000 fund to finance sabotage and espionage operations in the salary of Donald H. Segretti, a lawyer, whose job it was to discredit the Democrats. including $30,000 to $40,000 in 1972 alone for spying on Democrats.[10] Segretti was paid from re-election funds gathered before the April 7, 1972, cutoff point after which a new law required full disclosure of contributors;[11] Kalmbach told investigators in early 1973 that he had destroyed the contribution records prior to the April 7 date, violating the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which required the records be maintained for two years and which expired only as of the new law's going into effect.[12] Kalmbach claimed in a later FBI interview that he had not known who was supervising Segretti nor what activities he was being paid to perform.[11][13] Kalmbach also raised $220,000 in "hush money" to pay off the Watergate burglars. He claimed that he was told the money was for lawyer's fees; a claim he accepted because he felt the burglars wrongly believed that they were acting on authority.[14][15] But it was his raising of $3.9 million for a secret Republican congressional campaign committee[16] and promising an ambassador a better post in exchange for $100,000 that led to his conviction and imprisonment for 191 days and a $10,000 fine.[17] Kalmbach pleaded guilty on February 25, 1974, on one count of violation of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act and on one count of promising federal employment as a reward for political activity and support of a candidate. He was sentenced to serve 6 to 18 months in prison for the first count and 6 months in prison on the second count. He executed both sentences concurrently and was released from prison on January 5, 1975.[18] Kalmbach lost his license to practice law, although he was reinstated in 1977.[15][19] Later life Although he retired in the late 1980s, he remained of counsel to Baker Hostetler.[3][9] He died on September 15, 2017, in Newport Beach, California.[1] Notes "Herbert Kalmbach, Who Figured in Watergate Payoffs, Dies at 95". New York Times. September 29, 2017. "Herbert Warren Kalmbach." Almanac of Famous People, 9th ed. Thomson Gale, 2007. Reproduced in Biography Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale, 2009. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/BioRC. Fee via Fairfax County Public Library, accessed 2009-04-24. "Baker Hostetler - Find Lawyers - Herbert W. Kalmbach". Costa Mesa, California: Baker Hostetler (law firm). Archived from the original on 2011-03-13. Retrieved 2009-04-24. "Herbert W. Kalmbach is Of Counsel to the firm. He has been involved in consulting assignments for a wide variety of clients." All the President's Men, by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, New York, 1974, Simon & Schuster "The Rise and Fall of Herb Kalmbach". Time. March 11, 1974. "Discreet and studiously low-key, Herbert W. Kalmbach, 52, was the ideal lawyer to handle Richard Nixon's personal affairs. Like the President, he was a self-made and extraordinarily diligent man, both traits that Nixon admired in an aide. Above all else, Kalmbach was an unswerving and unquestioning loyalist." Mike Mokrzycki. "Nixon Aides Ran A Covert Polling Operation," Los Angeles Times (AP), August 13, 1995; summarizing The Rise of Presidential Polling: The Nixon White House in Historical Perspective, Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Y. Shapiro, The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 2 (Summer, 1995), pp. 163-195 (article consists of 33 pages), Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2749700 New York Times News Service. "Nixon's lawyer listed as solicitor," The Dallas Morning News, January 11, 1973, page 5A. United Press International. "A Watergate chronology," The Dallas Morning News, April 29, 1973, page 44A. de Witt, Karen (June 15, 1992). "Watergate, Then And Now. Who Was Who in the Cover-Up and Uncovering of Watergate". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-04-24. "Herbert W. Kalmbach Nixon lawyer" United Press International. "Payment reported," The Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1973, page 2A. United Press International. "Chapin, Segretti face grand jury," The Dallas Morning News, April 12, 1973, page 10A. Seymour M. Hersh, New York Times News Service. "Donor list reported destroyed," The Dallas Morning News, May 4, 1973, page 1A. New York Times Press Service. "Watergate jogs memory: Democrats recall strange election incidents," The Dallas Morning News, May 13, 1973, page 14A. Larry Eichel. "The 'duality' that made the man: Richard Milhous Nixon, 1913-1994," Philadelphia Inquirer, April 24, 1994. "Watergate figures! Where are they? What do they say?", Associated Press, June 14, 1982. James R. Polk. "Top money manager: unpublicized fund-raiser may hold key for Nixon," originally in Washington Star, reprinted in The Dallas Morning News, February 3, 1972, page 2A. Miller and Morris, "Donations flood a loophole," Los Angeles Times, October 11, 1992. Stanley Kutler (ed.), Watergate: the fall of Richard Nixon, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2010), pp. 215-216 "The lives they lead now," Washington Post, June 13, 1982. Further reading Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 10: September, 1973-August, 1976. New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1977. Biography Index. A cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines. Volume 12: September, 1979-August, 1982. New York: H. W. Wilson Co., 1983. Who's Who in America. 38th edition, 1974–1975. Wilmette: Marquis Who's Who, 1974. Who's Who in America. 39th edition, 1976–1977. Wilmette: Marquis Who's Who, 1976. Who's Who in the West. 14th edition, 1974–1975. Wilmette: Marquis Who's Who, 1974. Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (AKA Senate Watergate Hearings), 1973. Testimony given to the committee and cross-examination by senators and counsel. Can be found on YouTube. Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata NARA Categories: 1921 births2017 deathsAmerican male criminalsCalifornia lawyersCalifornia RepublicansLawyers disbarred in the Watergate scandalMembers of the Committee for the Re-Election of the PresidentPeople associated with BakerHostetlerPeople convicted in the Watergate scandalPeople from Port Huron, MichiganUSC Gould School of Law alumniUniversity of Southern California alumni

Read more about the CIA: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Victor Marchetti was a former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and an author known for his critical stance on the agency. After working at the CIA for over a decade, he became increasingly disillusioned with its operations and policies. This disillusionment led him to resign in 1969 and later co-author a book titled The CIA and the Cult of Intelligencewith John D. Marks, which was published in 1974. The book is a critical exposé of the CIA's activities, focusing on what Marchetti and Marks saw as the agency's excessive secrecy, its involvement in covert operations, and its influence on U.S. foreign policy. It was one of the first books to provide a detailed inside look at the inner workings of the CIA and to question its impact on American democracy and international relations. Secrecy and Accountability: The book argues that the CIA operates with a level of secrecy that is dangerous to democratic accountability. Marchetti and Marks suggest that this secrecy allows the agency to conduct operations without adequate oversight from Congress or the public. Covert Operations: Marchetti and Marks describe various covert operations undertaken by the CIA, including attempts to influence foreign governments, conduct psychological warfare, and engage in paramilitary activities. They criticize these operations for often being morally and ethically dubious, and for sometimes having unintended and harmful consequences. Manipulation of Intelligence: The authors discuss how the CIA manipulates intelligence to serve its own ends or the political goals of the administration in power. This manipulation can lead to misinformation and misguided policies. Influence on Foreign Policy: The book highlights the significant influence the CIA has on U.S. foreign policy, often acting as a clandestine arm of the government that can shape international events in ways that are not always in line with the publicly stated values and interests of the United States. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligenceis notable not only for its content but also for the legal battles it sparked. Before its publication, the CIA demanded that numerous passages be deleted or altered, citing national security concerns. Marchetti and Marks fought these demands, but ultimately, many parts of the book were censored. The final version contains blank spaces where the CIA's redactions were made, highlighting the extent of the agency's intervention. The publication of the book, despite the censorship, was a significant moment in the debate over the CIA's role and the balance between national security and transparency. It contributed to a broader public and congressional scrutiny of intelligence agencies during the 1970s, leading to reforms and greater oversight, such as the establishment of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Victor Leo Marchetti Jr. (December 23, 1929 – October 19, 2018)[1] was a special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency who later became a prominent critic of the United States Intelligence Community and the Israel lobby in the United States.[2] Early life and background Marchetti was born in Hazleton, Pennsylvania.[3] From 1951 to 1953, he served as a corporal in U.S. Army Intelligence in France and Germany.[4] Returning to the United States after his military service, he enrolled in Pennsylvania State University, where he majored in Russian area studies, graduating with a bachelor's degree in history in 1955.[4] CIA career External audio audio icon "Looking at the CIA." Interview by Tim McGovern. KPFK (April 27, 1974). Los Angeles: Pacifica Radio Archives. PRA BC2043. audio icon "Intelligence Service." Interview by Tim McGovern. KPFK (1977). Los Angeles: Pacifica Radio Archives. PRA KZ0390. After a few months working as an analyst at the National Security Agency, Marchetti joined the CIA in October 1955.[4] He began his career as an analyst in the Office of Research and Reports, eventually serving a tour of duty in the Office of National Estimates (ONE).[5] From ONE, Marchetti moved to the Office of Planning, Programming, and Budgeting in 1966, where he worked for over two years.[5] Beginning in July 1968, he served for nine months as special assistant to CIA Deputy Director Rufus Taylor.[5] His final position in the Agency was on the Planning, Programming, and Budget Staff of the National Photographic Interpretation Center.[5] Among other projects with which he was involved, Marchetti worked on setting up the Pine Gap satellite ground station near Alice Springs in Central Australia.[6] In September 1969, Marchetti resigned from the CIA.[5] Writing career After leaving the CIA, Marchetti began a writing career. His first work was a novel, The Rope-Dancer, published in 1971. The plot involves an officer in the "National Intelligence Agency" who becomes a spy for the Soviet Union.[7] In a 2004 article for American Intelligence Journal, Jon Wiant, career member of the Department of State's Senior Executive Service and a faculty member of the Joint Military Intelligence College, reported a 1991 conversion with retired KGB General Oleg Kalugin in which the latter told him that Rope Dancer is assigned as required reading for every KGB officer assigned to the United States.[8] Kalugin believed the novel was an excellent primer in American counterintelligence doctrine.[8] External audio audio icon "The CIA and Dirty Tricks." Interview by Robert Kuttner on WBAI (February 21, 1972). Los Angeles: Pacifica Radio Archives, with CovertAction Magazine. audio icon The Internal Danger: Uncovering Covert CIA Activities (1975), with William Colby, John D. Marks, Bella Abzug, Phillip Agee. Los Angeles: Pacifica Radio Archives. PRA KZ1146.01. During public appearances promoting the novel, Marchetti announced that he was writing a non-fiction work about the CIA. In March 1972, he completed a draft of an article for Esquire which, according to a later CIA account, included "names of agents, relations with named governments, and identifying details of ongoing operations."[5] The CIA received a copy of the article and decided to seek an injunction against its publication.[5] The basis for seeking an injunction against Marchetti was the secrecy agreement which he had signed when beginning employment at the CIA. The CIA presented the agreement and the parts of the draft article it considered in violation of the agreement, to Judge Albert V. Bryan, Jr. of the US District Court for Eastern Virginia, who granted a temporary restraining order in April 1972. The case proceeded to trial, at which Bryan found for the CIA and issued a permanent injunction requiring Marchetti to submit his writings to CIA for review prior to publication.[9] Marchetti appealed the injunction to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Bryan's restraint but limited it to classified material. The appeals court also found that Marchetti was entitled to timely review of materials he submitted to the CIA.[10] Marchetti appealed again to the US Supreme Court, but the Court rejected Marchetti's appeal in December 1972.[11] Marchetti continued work on his book with a co-author, John D. Marks, and signed a book contract with publisher Alfred A. Knopf. In August 1973, they submitted their manuscript to the CIA.[12] After reviewing the manuscript, the Agency responded with a list of 339 passages which it claimed contained classified information and demanded their deletion.[12] Marchetti and Marks rejected the demand and indicated they would go to court in order to print the manuscript as written. The CIA then withdrew its objections to 171 of the items but stood firm on the remaining 168.[13] The trial was held again before Judge Bryan. This time, however, he rejected all but 26 of the deletions requested by the CIA on the grounds that the information in them was not properly or provably classified. The CIA appealed Bryan's ruling, and ultimately the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld all 168 of the deletions.[14] The book was published by Knopf in 1974 as The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence.[15] It was printed with blanks for deleted passages and boldface type for the 171 deletions which CIA originally requested and later withdrew.[16] Later writing In 1978, Marchetti published an article about the JFK assassination in the far-right newspaper of the antisemitic[17] Liberty Lobby, The Spotlight. Marchetti, a proponent of the organized crime and the CIA conspiracy theory, claimed that the House Select Committee on Assassinations revealed a CIA memo from 1966 that named E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming in the JFK assassination. Marchetti also claimed that Marita Lorenz offered sworn testimony to confirm this. The HSCA reported that it had not received such a memo and rejected theories that Hunt was involved in a plot to kill Kennedy.[18] In 1981, Hunt sued the Liberty Lobby and Marchetti for defamation and won $650,000 in damages. Liberty Lobby, represented by attorney Mark Lane, appealed the verdict. On February 1, 1985, Marchetti stated that key parts of his articles were based upon rumors that he heard from Penthouse columnist Bill Corson and that he had no corroboration of Corson's story.[18] Corson had provided an earlier deposition stating that he not discussed the rumors with Marchetti.[18] Marchetti and Liberty Lobby won the appeal in 1985.[19] Commenting afterward, two jurors rejected that the conspiracy theories offered by Lane influenced the verdict.[19] Lane's 1991 book Plausible Denial, develops the claims he presented in the trial. In 1989, Marchetti presented a paper on the CIA at the Ninth International Revisionist Conference held by the Holocaust denial organisation Institute for Historical Review (IHR).[2] Marchetti edited the New American View newsletter,[20] which described its aim as to "document for patriotic Americans... the excess of pro-Israelism, which warps the news we see and hear from our media, cows our Congress into submission, and has already cost us hundreds of innocent, young Americans in Lebanon and elsewhere."[2] He also co-published the Zionist Watch newsletter with Mark Lane, and published ADL and Zionism, by Paul Goldstein and Jeffrey Steinberg, who were both closely associated with the LaRouche movement.[2][21] Personal life and death [icon] This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (September 2019) Marchetti suffered from dementia in his last years. He died at his home in Ashburn, Virginia at the age of 88 on October 19, 2018.[22] Filmography Inside Pine Gap (1997) Inside the CIA: On Company Business (1980) The JFK Conspiracy: Final Analysis (1992) "You Have Used Me as a Fish Long Enough" (Part 2). The Living Dead: Three Films About the Power of the Past (1995). The second major television documentary series by British filmmaker Adam Curtis for the BBC. The series examines the manipulation of history and memory (both national and individual) by politicians and others. Extract of Marchetti discussing Acoustic Kitty. 1 min. Publications Articles "CIA: The President's Loyal Tool." The Nation, vol. 214, no. 14 (Apr. 3, 1972), pp. 430–432. "Inside the CIA: The Clandestine Mentality," with John D. Marks. Ramparts Magazine (Jul. 1974), pp. 21-25, 48, 50, 52. "Twilight of the Spooks." Inquiry (July 10, 1978), pp. 6–8. "CIA to Admit Hunt Involvement in Kennedy Slaying." Spotlight (Aug. 14, 1978). "How the CIA Views the UFO Phenomenon." Second Look, vol. 1, no. 7 (May 1979), pp. 2–7. Republished in the Journal of Historical Review, vol. 17, no. 5 (Sep./Oct. 1998), p. 14. Books The Rope-Dancer. New York: Grosset & Dunlap (1971). ISBN 0448024608, 978-0448024608. OCLC 159470. The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, with John D. Marks. New York: Knopf (1974). ISBN 978-0394482392. Book reviews "Memoirs of a Frustrated Spook." Review of Decent Interval: An Insider's Account of Saigon's Indecent End Told by the CIA's Chief Strategy Analyst in Vietnam by Frank Snepp. Inquiry (Feb. 6, 1978), pp. 22–24. "A Sand Trap for the CIA." Review of Ropes of Sand by Wilbur Crane Eveland. Inquiry (Nov. 10, 1980), pp. 23–24. Republished: Journal of Historical Review, vol. 14, no. 3 (May-Jun. 1994), p. 43. Interviews Kondracke, Morton. Penthouse (January 1975). Castleman, Michael. "I Was a Spook for the CIA: A Conversation with Victor Marchetti." Ann Arbor Sun, vol. 3, no. 9 (April 25, 1975), pp. 15, 21. JSTOR community.28032710. full issue. Newsletters New American Views (as editor). Washington, D.C. (1988–). OCLC 20463595. "Monitoring the special relationship between the United States and Israel." Zionist Watch (as co-publisher, with Mark Lane). Transcripts "Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History." Presented at the Ninth International Revisionist Conference in Huntington Beach, California, hosted by the Institute for Historical Review (February 1989). Republished in the Journal of Historical Review, vol. 9, no. 3 (Fall 1989), pp. 305–320. See also Philip Agee, author, former CIA case officer in Mexico and Ecuador Robert Baer, author, former CIA case officer in Middle East Peer de Silva, author, former CIA Chief of Station in East Asia Richard Helms, author, former Director of CIA Ray McGovern, former CIA senior analyst and national security adviser John R. Stockwell, author and former CIA case officer in Vietnam and Africa Ralph McGehee, author, former CIA case officer Peter Wright, author, principal scientific officer for MI5 Further reading "Trying to Expose the CIA." TIME, vol. 103, no. 16 (April 22, 1974), pp. 22, 27. online References Schudel, Matt (October 27, 2018). "Victor Marchetti, disillusioned CIA officer who challenged secrecy rules, dies at 88". The Washington Post. Berlet, Chip. "Populist Party/Liberty Lobby Recruitment of Anti-CIA Critics". Political Research Associates. Archived from the original on April 14, 2012. Retrieved April 13, 2012. Warner, John S. (1977). "The Marchetti Case; New Case Law" (PDF). Studies in Intelligence. 21 (1): 12. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 23, 2017. Warner 1977, p. 1. Warner 1977, p. 2. Pilger, John. A Secret Country. London: Vintage Books (1992), pp. 185, 197-98, 210, 216, 225, 353, 362. ISBN 978-0099152316. Barnet, Richard J. "The CIA's New Cover." New York Review of Books (December 30, 1971). ISSN 0028-7504. Waint, Jon A. "Spy Fiction, Spy Reality." American Intelligence Journal, vol. 22 (Spring/Summer 2004), p. 25. Warner 1977, p. 3-4. Warner 1977, p. 5. "Author to Defy Court on Book Ban". Chicago Tribune. Vol. 125, no. 347 (Final ed.). Chicago Tribune Company. December 12, 1972. Section 1A, page 7. Retrieved July 31, 2017. Warner 1977, p. 6. Warner 1977, p. 6-7. Warner 1977, p. 8-9. Marchetti, Victor; Marks, John D. (1974). The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. New York: Knopf. ISBN 978-0-394-48239-2. Warner 1977, p. 10. Upi (February 13, 1982). "Lobby Is Called a 'Hate' Group". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved February 15, 2019. Doig, Stephen K. "Ex-CIA agent admits he used JFK 'rumors.'" Miami Herald (February 2, 1985), p. 2B. Archived by the Central Intelligence Agency and Newspapers.com. Doig, Stephen K. "Hunt-JFK article 'trash' but not libelous, jury finds." Miami Herald (February 7, 1985), p. 1A. Archived by the Central Intelligence Agency and Newspapers.com. Hatonn, Gyeorgos Ceres. Coalescence. Phoenix Source Distributors, Inc. (1993), p. 84. "WashingtonPost.com: The Cult Controversy". The Washington Post. May 6, 1997. Archived from the original on May 6, 1997. Retrieved February 25, 2023. Schudel, 2018 External links Victor Marchetti at IMDb Victor Marchetti FBI file at Internet Archive Victor Marchetti collection at the Harold Weisberg Archives Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata International FAST ISNI VIAF WorldCat National Norway Spain Germany Israel Belgium United States Netherlands Poland Other IdRef Categories: 1929 births2018 deathsPeople from Ashburn, VirginiaPeople from Hazleton, PennsylvaniaMilitary personnel from PennsylvaniaPennsylvania State University alumniAmerican spiesAmerican whistleblowersHistorians of the Central Intelligence AgencyPeople of the Central Intelligence AgencyResearchers of the assassination of John F. KennedyWriters from PennsylvaniaAmerican conspiracy theorists The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence is a 1974 controversial non-fiction political book written by Victor Marchetti, a former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and John D. Marks, a former officer of the United States Department of State.[1] Content The book discusses how the CIA works and how its original purpose (i.e. collecting and analyzing information about foreign governments, corporations, and persons in order to advise public policymakers) has, according to the author, been subverted by its obsession with clandestine operations. It is the first book the federal government of the United States ever went to court to censor before its publication. The CIA demanded the authors delete 339 passages but they resisted and in the end only 168 passages were deleted.[2] The publisher, Alfred A. Knopf, published the book with blanks for deleted passages and with boldface type for items which the CIA initially wanted deleted, but later withdrew its objections.[3] It is perhaps the earliest published book to adopt this format.[4] The book was a critically acclaimed bestseller whose publication contributed to the establishment of the Church Committee, a United States Senate select committee to study governmental operations with respect to intelligence activities, in 1975.[citation needed] The book was published in paperback by Dell Publishing in 1975. Cult of intelligence Victor Marchetti used the expression "cult of intelligence" to denounce what he viewed as a counterproductive mindset and culture of secrecy, elitism, amorality and lawlessness within and surrounding the Central Intelligence Agency in the service of American imperialism: There exists in our nation today a powerful and dangerous secret cult -- the cult of intelligence. Its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Its patrons and protectors are the highest officials of the federal government. Its membership, extending far beyond governmental circles, reaches into the power centers of industry, commerce, finance, and labor. Its friends are many in the areas of important public influence -- the academic world and the communications media. The cult of intelligence is a secret fraternity of the American political aristocracy. The purpose of the cult is to further the foreign policies of the U.S. government by covert and usually illegal means, while at the same time containing the spread of its avowed enemy, communism. Traditionally, the cult's hope has been to foster a world order in which America would reign supreme, the unchallenged international leader. Today, however, that dream stands tarnished by time and frequent failures. Thus, the cult's objectives are now less grandiose, but no less disturbing. It seeks largely to advance America's self-appointed role as the dominant arbiter of social, economic, and political change in the awakening regions of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. And its worldwide war against communism has to some extent been reduced to a covert struggle to maintain a self-serving stability in the Third World, using whatever clandestine methods are available.[1] Critical reception In his 1978 memoir, Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA, William Colby, a former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, endorsed Marchetti's critique and adopted the use of the expression "cult of intelligence": Socially as well as professionally they cliqued together, forming a sealed fraternity. They ate together at their own special favorite restaurants; they partied almost only among themselves; their families drifted to each other, so their defenses did not always have to be up. In this way they increasingly separated themselves from the ordinary world and developed a rather skewed view of that world. Their own dedicated double life became the proper norm, and they looked down on the life of the rest of the citizenry. And out of this grew what was later named -- and condemned -- as the "cult" of intelligence, an inbred, distorted, elitist view of intelligence that held it to be above the normal processes of society, with its own rationale and justification, beyond the restraints of the Constitution, which applied to everything and everyone else.[5] In popular culture In reaction to Marchetti's use of the expression "cult of intelligence", it has also come to be used by some writers of conspiracy theory and conspiracy fiction to describe a cabal, with a pyramid-shaped hierarchy, which is fanatically devoted to gathering information, often of an esoteric or occult nature.[6][page needed] References Marchetti, Victor; Marks, John D. (1974). The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. Knopf. ISBN 0-394-48239-5. Warner, John S. (1977). "The Marchetti Case; New Case Law" (PDF). Studies in Intelligence. 21 (1): 12. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 23, 2017. Warner 1977, p. 10. Scott Shane (October 28, 2007). "Spies Do a Huge Volume of Work in Invisible Ink". The New York Times. Retrieved June 27, 2008. Colby, William (1974). Honorable Men: My Life in the CIA. Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-394-48239-5. Moench, Doug (1995). Factoid Books: The Big Book of Conspiracies. Paradox Press. ISBN 1-56389-186-7. See also CIA influence on public opinion Family Jewels (Central Intelligence Agency) Kerry Committee report Philip Agee Pike Committee Robert Seldon Lady § 2009 Interview United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence United States President's Commission on CIA activities within the United States United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Categories: 1974 non-fiction booksAmerican political booksNon-fiction books about the Central Intelligence AgencyBooks about the Cold WarNon-fiction books about espionageAlfred A. Knopf booksCensored booksCounterculture of the 1970s

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Pax Americana (Latin: American Peace, modeled after Pax Romana and Pax Britannica; also called the Long Peace) is a term applied to the concept of relative peace in the Western Hemisphere and later in the world after the end of World War II in 1945, when the United States became the world's dominant economic, cultural, and military power. In this sense, Pax Americana has come to describe the military and economic position of the United States relative to other nations. The U.S. Marshall Plan, which saw the country transfer $13.3 billion (equivalent of $173 billion in 2023) in economic recovery programs to Western European countries, has been described as "the launching of the Pax Americana".[5] Early period Main article: Gilded Age See also: History of the United States (1865–1918) and Territorial evolution of the United States The first articulation of a Pax Americana occurred after the end of the American Civil War (in which the United States both quashed its greatest disunity and demonstrated the ability to field millions of well-equipped soldiers utilizing modern tactics) with reference to the peaceful nature of the North American geographical region, and was abeyant at the commencement of the First World War. Its emergence was concurrent with the development of the idea of American exceptionalism. This view holds that the U.S. occupies a special niche among developed nations[6] in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions, and unique origins. The concept originates from Alexis de Tocqueville,[7] who asserted that the then-50-year-old United States held a special place among nations because it was a country of immigrants and the first modern democracy. From the establishment of the United States after the American Revolution until the Spanish–American War, the foreign policy of the United States had a regional, instead of global, focus. The Pax Americana, which the Union enforced upon the states of central North America, was a factor in the United States' national prosperity. The larger states were surrounded by smaller states, but these had no anxieties: no standing armies to require taxes and hinder labor; no wars or rumors of wars that would interrupt trade; there is not only peace, but security, for the Pax Americana of the Union covered all the states within the federal constitutional republic.[8] According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first time the phrase appeared in print was in the August 1894 issue of Forum: "The true cause for exultation is the universal outburst of patriotism in support of the prompt and courageous action of President Cleveland in maintaining the supremacy of law throughout the length and breadth of the land, in establishing the pax Americana."[9] 1898 political cartoon: "Ten Thousand Miles From Tip to Tip" meaning the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a bald eagle) from Puerto Rico to the Philippines. 1906 political cartoon depicting Theodore Roosevelt using the Monroe Doctrine to keep European powers out of the Dominican Republic With the rise of the New Imperialism in the Western hemisphere at the end of the 19th century, debates arose between imperialist and isolationist factions in the U.S. Here, Pax Americana was used to connote the peace across the United States and, more widely, as a Pan-American peace under the aegis of the Monroe Doctrine. Those who favored traditional policies of avoiding foreign entanglements included labor leader Samuel Gompers and steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie. American politicians such as Henry Cabot Lodge, William McKinley, and Theodore Roosevelt advocated an aggressive foreign policy, but the administration of President Grover Cleveland was unwilling to pursue such actions. On January 16, 1893, U.S. diplomatic and military personnel conspired with a small group of individuals to overthrow the constitutional government of the Kingdom of Hawaii and establish a Provisional Government and then a republic. On February 15, they presented a treaty for annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the U.S. Senate, but opposition to annexation stalled its passage. The United States finally opted to annex Hawaii by way of the Newlands Resolution in July 1898. After its victory in the Spanish–American War of 1898 and the subsequent acquisition of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and Guam, the United States had gained a colonial empire. By ejecting Spain from the Americas, the United States shifted its position to an uncontested regional power, and extended its influence into Southeast Asia and Oceania. Although U.S. capital investments within the Philippines and Puerto Rico were relatively small, these colonies were strategic outposts for expanding trade with Latin America and Asia, particularly China. In the Caribbean area, the United States established a sphere of influence in line with the Monroe Doctrine, not explicitly defined as such, but recognized in effect by other governments and accepted by at least some of the republics in that area.[10] The events around the start of the 20th century demonstrated that the United States undertook an obligation, usual in such cases, of imposing a "Pax Americana".[10] As in similar instances elsewhere, this Pax Americana was not quite clearly marked in its geographical limit, nor was it guided by any theoretical consistency, but rather by the merits of the case and the test of immediate expediency in each instance.[10] Thus, whereas the United States enforced a peace in much of the lands southward from the Nation and undertook measures to maintain internal tranquility in such areas, the United States on the other hand withdrew from interposition in Mexico.[10] European powers largely regarded these matters as the concern of the United States. Indeed, the nascent Pax Americana was, in essence, abetted by the policy of the United Kingdom, and the preponderance of global sea power which the British Empire enjoyed by virtue of the strength of the Royal Navy.[11] Preserving the freedom of the seas and ensuring naval dominance had been the policy of the British since victory in the Napoleonic Wars. As it was not in the interests of the United Kingdom to permit any European power to interfere in Americas, the Monroe Doctrine was indirectly aided by the Royal Navy. British commercial interests in South America, which comprised a valuable component of the informal empire that accompanied Britain's overseas possessions, and the economic importance of the United States as a trading partner, ensured that intervention by Britain's rival European powers could not engage with the Americas. The United States lost its Pacific and regionally bounded nature towards the end of the 19th century. The government adopted protectionism after the Spanish–American War and built up the navy, the "Great White Fleet", to expand the reach of U.S. power. When Theodore Roosevelt became President in 1901, he accelerated a foreign policy shift away from isolationism towards foreign intervention which had begun under his predecessor, William McKinley. The Philippine–American War arose from the ongoing Philippine Revolution against imperialism.[12] Interventionism found its formal articulation in the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, proclaiming the right of the United States to intervene in the affairs of weak states in the Americas in order to stabilize them, a moment that underlined the emergent U.S. regional hegemony. By 1900, the United States possessed the world's largest industrial capacity and national income, having surpassed both the United Kingdom and Germany.[13] Interwar period Main article: Interwar period The United States had been criticized for not taking up the hegemonic mantle following the disintegration of Pax Britannica before the First World War and during the interwar period due to the absence of established political structures, such as the World Bank or United Nations which would be created after World War II, and various internal policies, such as protectionism.[2][14][15][16] Though, the United States participated in the Great War, according to Woodrow Wilson: [...] to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth insure the observance of those principles. [...] for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.[2] The Gap in the Bridge. Cartoon about the absence of the U.S. from the League of Nations, depicted as the missing keystone of the arch. The United States' entry into the Great War marked the abandonment of the traditional American policy of isolation and independence of world politics. Not at the close of the Civil War, not as the result of the Spanish War, but in the Interwar period did the United States become a part of the international system.[2] With this global reorganization from the Great War, there were those in the American populace that advocated an activist role in international politics and international affairs by the United States.[2] Activities that were initiated did not fall into political-military traps and, instead, focused on economic-ideological approaches that would increase the American Empire and general worldwide stability.[17] Following the prior path, a precursor to the United Nations and a league to enforce peace, the League of Nations, was proposed by Woodrow Wilson.[2] This was rejected by the American Government in favor of more economic-ideological approaches and the United States did not join the League. Additionally, there were even proposals of extending the Monroe Doctrine to Great Britain put forth to prevent a second conflagration on the European theater.[18] Ultimately, the United States' proposals and actions did not stop the factors of European nationalism spawned by the previous war, the repercussions of Germany's defeat, and the failures of the Treaty of Versailles from plunging the globe into a Second World War.[19] Between World War I and World War II, America also sought to continue to preserve Pax America as a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.[18] Some sought the peaceful and orderly evolution of existing conditions in the western hemisphere and nothing by immediate changes.[18] Before 1917, the position of the United States government and the feelings of the nation in respect to the "Great War" initially had properly been one of neutrality.[18] Its interests remained untouched, and nothing occurred of a nature to affect those interests.[18] The average American's sympathies, on the other hand, if the feelings of the vast majority of the nation had been correctly interpreted, was with the Allied (Entente) Powers.[18] The population of the United States was revolted at the ruthlessness of the Prussian doctrine of war, and German designs to shift the burden of aggression encountered skeptical derision.[18] The American populace saw themselves safeguarding liberal peace in the Western World. To this end, the American writer Roland Hugins stated:[20] The truth is that the United States is the only high-minded Power left in the world. It is the only strong nation that has not entered on a career of imperial conquest, and does not want to enter on it. [...] There is in America little of that spirit of selfish aggression which lies at the heart of militarism. Here alone exists a broad basis for "a new passionate sense of brotherhood, and a new scale of human values." We have a deep abhorrence of war for war's sake; we are not enamored of glamour or glory. We have a strong faith in the principle of self-government. We do not care to dominate alien peoples, white or colored; we do not aspire to be the Romans of tomorrow or the "masters of the world." The idealism of Americans centers in the future of America, wherein we hope to work out those principles of liberty and democracy to which we are committed. This political idealism, this strain of pacifism, this abstinence from aggression and desire to be left alone to work out our own destiny, has been manifest from the birth of the republic. We have not always followed our light, but we have never been utterly faithless to it.[2] It was observed during this time that the initial defeat of Germany opened a moral recasting of the world.[18] The battles between Germans and Allies were seen as far less battles between different nations than they represent the contrast between Liberalism and reaction, between the aspirations of democracy and the Wilhelminism gospel of iron.[18][21] Modern period A world map of 1945 with three superpowers: the United States (in blue), the Soviet Union (in red), and the British Empire (in teal). The modern Pax Americana era is cited by supporters and critics of U.S. foreign policy after World War II. From 1945 to 1991, it was a partial international order, as it applied only to the Western world, being preferable for some authors to speak about a Pax Americana et Sovietica.[22] Many commentators and critics focus on American policies from 1992 to the present, and as such, it carries different connotations depending on the context. For example, it appears three times in the 90-page document, Rebuilding America's Defenses,[23] by the Project for the New American Century, but is also used by critics to characterize American dominance and hyperpower status as imperialist in function and basis. From about the mid-1940s until 1991, U.S. foreign policy was dominated by the Cold War, and characterized by its significant international military presence and greater diplomatic involvement. Seeking an alternative to the isolationist policies pursued after World War I, the United States defined a new policy called containment to oppose the spread of Soviet communism. The modern Pax Americana may be seen as similar to the period of peace in Rome, Pax Romana. In both situations, the period of peace was 'relative peace'. During both Pax Romana and Pax Americana wars continued to occur, but it was still a prosperous time for both Western and Roman civilizations. It is important to note that during these periods, and most other times of relative tranquility, the peace that is referred to does not mean complete peace. Rather, it simply means that the civilization prospered in their military, agriculture, trade, and manufacturing. Pax Britannica heritage Main article: Pax Britannica From the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 until the First World War in 1914, the United Kingdom played the role of offshore-balancer in Europe, where the balance of power was the main aim. It was also in this time that the British Empire became the largest empire of all time. The global superiority of British military and commerce was guaranteed by dominance of a Europe lacking in strong nation-states, and the presence of the Royal Navy on all of the world's oceans and seas. In 1905, the Royal Navy was superior to any two navies combined in the world. It provided services such as suppression of piracy and slavery. In this era of peace, though, there were several wars between the major powers: the Crimean War, the Franco-Austrian War, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, and the Russo-Japanese War, as well as numerous other wars. William Wohlforth has argued that this period of tranquility, sometimes termed La Belle Époque, was actually a series of hegemonic states imposing a peaceful order. In Wohlforth's view, Pax Britannica transitioned to Pax Russica and then to Pax Germanica, before ultimately, between 1853 and 1871, ceasing to be a Pax of any kind.[24] During the Pax Britannica, America developed close ties with Britain, evolving into what has become known as a "special relationship" between the two. The many commonalities shared with the two nations (such as language and history) drew them together as allies. Under the managed transition of the British Empire to the Commonwealth of Nations, members of the British government, such as Harold Macmillan, liked to think of Britain's relationship with America as similar to that of a progenitor Greece to America's Rome.[25] Throughout the years, both have been active in North American, Middle Eastern, and Asian countries. Late 20th century Main article: American Century See also: History of the United States (1945–1964) and History of the United States (1964–1980) After the Second World War, no armed conflict emerged among major Western nations themselves, and no nuclear weapons were used in open conflict. The United Nations was also soon developed after World War II to help keep peaceful relations between nations and establishing the veto power for the permanent members of the UN Security Council, which included the United States. In the second half of the 20th century, the USSR and US superpowers were engaged in the Cold War, which can be seen as a struggle between hegemonies for global dominance. After 1945, the United States enjoyed an advantageous position with respect to the rest of the industrialized world. In the Post–World War II economic expansion, the US was responsible for half of global industrial output, held 80 percent of the world's gold reserves, and was the world's sole nuclear power. The catastrophic destruction of life, infrastructure, and capital during the Second World War had exhausted the imperialism of the Old World, victor and vanquished alike. The largest economy in the world at the time, the United States recognized that it had come out of the war with its domestic infrastructure virtually unscathed and its military forces at unprecedented strength. Military officials recognized the fact that Pax Americana had been reliant on the effective United States air power, just as the instrument of Pax Britannica a century earlier was its sea power.[26] In addition, a unipolar moment was seen to have occurred following the collapse of the Soviet Union.[27] The term Pax Americana was explicitly used by John F. Kennedy in the 1960s, who advocated against the idea, arguing that the Soviet bloc was composed of human beings with the same individual goals as Americans and that such a peace based on "American weapons of war" was undesirable: I have, therefore, chosen this time and place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth too rarely perceived. And that is the most important topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, and the kind that enables men and nations to grow, and to hope, and build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace in all time.[28] Beginning around the Vietnam War, the 'Pax Americana' term had started to be used by the critics of American Imperialism. Here in the late 20th-century conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, the charge of Neocolonialism was often aimed at Western involvement in the affairs of the Third World and other developing nations.[29][30][31][32][33] NATO became regarded as a symbol of Pax Americana in West Europe: The visible political symbol of the Pax Americana was NATO itself … The Supreme Allied Commander, always an American, was an appropriate title for the American proconsul whose reputation and influence outweighed those of European premiers, presidents, and chancellors.[34] Contemporary power Main articles: Great power and Superpower See also: History of the United States (1980–1991) and History of the United States (1991–2008) Countries with a U.S. military presence in 2007 Currently, the Pax Americana is based on the military preponderance beyond challenge by any combination of powers and projection of power throughout the world's commons—neutral sea, air and space. This projection is coordinated by the Unified Command Plan which divides the world on regional branches controlled by a single command. Integrated with it are global network of military alliances (the Rio Pact, NATO, ANZUS and bilateral alliances with Japan and several other states) coordinated by Washington in a hub-and-spokes system and worldwide network of several hundreds of military bases and installations. Neither the Rio Treaty, nor NATO, for Robert J. Art, "was a regional collective security organization; rather both were regional imperia run and operated by the United States".[35] Former Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski drew an expressive summary of the military foundation of Pax Americana shortly after the unipolar moment: In contrast [to the earlier empires], the scope and pervasiveness of American global power today are unique. Not only does the United States control all the world's oceans, its military legions are firmly perched on the western and eastern extremities of Eurasia ... American vassals and tributaries, some yearning to be embraced by even more formal ties to Washington, dot the entire Eurasian continent ... American global supremacy is ... buttered by an elaborate system of alliances and coalitions that literally span the globe.[36] Besides the military foundation, there are significant non-military international institutions backed by American financing and diplomacy (like the United Nations and WTO). The United States invested heavily in programs such as the Marshall Plan and in the reconstruction of Japan, economically cementing defense ties that owed increasingly to the establishment of the Iron Curtain/Eastern Bloc and the widening of the Cold War. Street art in Caracas, depicting Uncle Sam and accusing the American government of imperialism Being in the best position to take advantage of free trade, culturally indisposed to traditional empires, and alarmed by the rise of communism in China and the detonation of the first Soviet atom bomb, the historically non-interventionist US also took a keen interest in developing multilateral institutions which would maintain a favorable world order among them. The International Monetary Fund and International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), part of the Bretton Woods system of international financial management was developed and, until the early 1970s, the existence of a fixed exchange rate to the US dollar. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was developed and consists of a protocol for normalization and reduction of trade tariffs. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, the demise of the notion of a Pax Sovietica, and the end of the Cold War, the US maintained significant contingents of armed forces in Europe and East Asia. The institutions behind the Pax Americana and the rise of the United States unipolar power have persisted into the early 21st century. The ability of the United States to act as "the world's policeman" has been constrained by its own citizens' historic aversion to foreign wars.[37] Though there has been calls for the continuation of military leadership, as stated in "Rebuilding America's Defenses": The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself. [... What is required is] a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.[38] This is reflected in the research of American exceptionalism, which shows that "there is some indication for [being a leader of an 'American peace'] among the [US] public, but very little evidence of unilateral attitudes".[7] Resentments have arisen at a country's dependence on American military protection, due to disagreements with United States foreign policy or the presence of American military forces. In the post-communism world of the 21st-century, the French Socialist politician and former Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine describes the US as a hegemonic hyperpower, while the US political scientists John Mearsheimer and Joseph Nye counter that the US is not a "true" hegemony, because it does not have the resources to impose a proper, formal, global rule; despite its political and military strength, the US is economically equal to Europe, thus, cannot rule the international stage.[39] Several other countries are either emerging or re-emerging as powers, such as China, Russia, India, and the European Union. Joseph Nye discredited the United States as not a "true" hegemony in his 2002 article titled "The New Rome Meets the New Barbarians".[40] His book of the same year he opens: "Not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others."[41] And his 1991 book he titled Bound to Lead.[42] Leadership, translated into Greek, renders hegemony; an alternative translation is archia – Greek common word for empire. Having defined the US hegemony as "not true", Nye looks for an analogy to the true empire: Decline, he writes, is not necessarily imminent. "Rome remained dominant for more than three centuries after the peak of its power ...[43] In fact, there are striking parallels with the early Pax Romana (especially between 189 BC when the supremacy over the Mediterranean was won and the first annexation in 168 BC). Under that Pax Romana other states remained formally independent and very seldom were called "clients". The latter term became widely used only in the late medieval period. Usually, other states were called "friends and allies"—a popular expression under the Pax Americana. One of the first to use the term Pax Americana was the Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy. In 1942, the Committee envisaged that the United States may have to supplant the British Empire. Therefore, the United States "must cultivate a mental view toward world settlement after this war which will enable us to impose our own terms, amounting perhaps to a Pax Americana".[44] According to Swen Holdar, the founder of geopolitics Rudolf Kjellen (1864–1922) predicted the era of US global supremacy using the term Pax Americana shortly after World War I.[45] Writing in 1945, Ludwig Dehio remembered that the Germans used the term Pax Anglosaxonica in a sense of Pax Americana since 1918: Now [1918] the [American colonial] cutting had grown into a tree that bade fair to overshadow the globe with its foliage. Amazed and shaken, we Germans began to discuss the possibility of a Pax Anglosaxonica as a world-wide counterpart to the Pax Romana. Suddenly the tendency toward global unification towered up, ready to gather the separate national states of Europe together under one banner and blanket in a larger cohesion ...[46] The United States, Dehio associates on the same page, withdrew to isolation on that occasion. "Rome, too, had taken a long time to understand the significance of her world role." Two years earlier, with the war still at its peak, the founder of the Paneuropean Union, Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, invoked the example of the two-centuries long "Pax Romana" which, he suggested, could be repeated if based on the preponderant US air power: During the third century BC the Mediterranean world was divided on five great powers—Roma and Carthage, Macedonia, Syria, and Egypt. The balance of power led to a series of wars until Rome emerged the queen of the Mediterranean and established an incomparable era of two centuries of peace and progress, the 'Pax Romana' ... It may be that America's air power could again assure our world, now much smaller than the Mediterranean at that period, two hundred years of peace ... This is the only realistic hope for a lasting peace.[47] One of the first criticisms of "Pax Americana" was written by Nathaniel Peffer in 1943: It is neither feasible nor desirable ... Pax Americana can be established and maintained only by force, only by means of a new, gigantic imperialism operating with the instrumentalities of militarism and the other concomitants of imperialism ... The way to dominion is through empire and the price of dominion is empire, and empire generates its own opposition.[48] He did not know if it would happen: "It is conceivable that ... America might drift into empire, imperceptibly, stage by stage, in a kind of power-politics gravitation." He also noted that America was heading precisely in that direction: "That there are certain stirrings in this direction is apparent, though how deep they go is unclear."[48] The depth soon became clarified. Two later critics of Pax Americana, Michio Kaku and David Axelrod, interpreted the outcome of Pax Americana: "Gunboat diplomacy would be replaced by Atomic diplomacy. Pax Britannica would give way to Pax Americana." After the war, with the German and British militaries in tatters, only one force stood on the way to Pax Americana: the Soviet Army.[49] Four years after this criticism was written, the Red Army withdrew, paving the way for the unipolar moment. Joshua Muravchik commemorated the event by titling his 1991 article, "At Last, Pax Americana". He detailed: Last but not least, the Gulf War marks the dawning of the Pax Americana. True, that term was used immediately after World War II. But it was a misnomer then because the Soviet empire—a real competitor with American power—was born at the same moment. The result was not a "pax" of any kind, but a cold war and a bipolar world ... During the past two years, however, Soviet power has imploded and a bipolar world has become unipolar.[50] The following year, in 1992, a US strategic draft for the post-Cold War period was leaked to the press. The person responsible for the confusion, former Assistant Secretary of State, Paul Wolfowitz, confessed seven years later: "In 1992 a draft memo prepared by my office at the Pentagon ... leaked to the press and sparked a major controversy." The draft's strategy aimed "to prevent any hostile power from dominating" a Eurasian region "whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power". He added: "Senator Joseph Biden ridiculed the proposed strategy as 'literally a Pax Americana ... It won't work ...' Just seven years later, many of these same critics seem quite comfortable with the idea of a Pax Americana."[51] The post-Cold War period, concluded William Wohlforth, much less ambiguously deserves to be called Pax Americana. "Calling the current period the true Pax Americana may offend some, but it reflects reality".[24] The ‘’Pax Americana’’ motif reached its peak in the context of the 2003 Iraq War. The phrase "American Empire" appeared in one thousand news stories over a single six-month period in 2003.[52] Jonathan Freedland observed: Of course, enemies of the United States have shaken their fist at its "imperialism" for decades ... What is more surprising, and much newer, is that the notion of an American empire has suddenly become a live debate inside the United States Accelerated by the post-9/11 debate on America's role in the world, the idea of the United States as a 21st-century Rome is gaining a foothold in the country's consciousness.[53] The New York Review of Books illustrated a 2002 piece on US might with a drawing of George Bush togged up as a Roman centurion, complete with shield and spears.[54] Bush's visits to Germany in 2002 and 2006 resulted in further Bush-as-Roman-emperor invective appearing in the German press. In 2006, freelance writer, political satirist, and correspondent for the left-leaning Die Tageszeitung, Arno Frank, compared the spectacle of the visit by Imperator Bush to "elaborate inspection tours of Roman emperors in important but not completely pacified provinces—such as Germania".[55] In September 2002, Boston's WBUR-FM radio station titled a special on US imperial power with the tag "Pax Americana".[56] "The Roman parallel", wrote Niall Ferguson in 2005,[57] "is in danger of becoming something of a cliché." Policy analyst Vaclav Smil titled his 2010 book by what he intended to explain: Why America Is Not a New Rome.[58] The very phenomenon of the Roman-American association became the subject of research for Classicist Paul J. Burton.[59] Peter Bender, in his 2003 article "America: The New Roman Empire",[60] summarized: "When politicians or professors are in need of a historical comparison in order to illustrate the United States' incredible might, they almost always think of the Roman Empire."[61] The article abounds with analogies: "When they later extended their power to overseas territories, they shied away from assuming direct control wherever possible." In the Hellenistic world, Rome withdrew its legions after three wars and instead settled for a role of all-powerful patron and arbitrator.[62] The factor for the overseas engagement is the same in both cases: the seas or oceans ceased to offer protection, or so it seemed. Rome and America both expanded in order to achieve security. Like concentric circles, each circle in need of security demanded the occupation of the next larger circle. The Romans made their way around the Mediterranean, driven from one challenger to their security to the next. The struggles ... brought the Americans to Europe and East Asia; the Americans soon wound up all over the globe, driven from one attempt at containment to the next. The boundaries between security and power politics gradually blurred. The Romans and Americans both eventually found themselves in a geographical and political position that they had not originally desired, but which they then gladly accepted and firmly maintained.[63] "Both claimed the unlimited right to render their enemies permanently harmless." Postwar treatments of Carthage, Macedon, Germany and Japan are similar.[64] "They became protective lords after each act of assistance provided to other states; in effect, they offered protection and gained control. The protected were mistaken when they assumed that they could use Rome or America to their own ends without suffering a partial loss of their sovereignty."[64] "World powers without rivals are a class unto themselves. They ... are quick to call loyal followers friends, or amicus populi Romani. They no longer know any foes, just rebels, terrorists, and rogue states. They no longer fight, merely punish. They no longer wage wars but merely create peace. They are honestly outraged when vassals fail to act as vassals."[65] Zbigniew Brzezinski comments on the latter analogy: "One is tempted to add, they do not invade other countries, they only liberate."[66] In 1998, American political author, Charles A. Kupchan, described the world order "After Pax Americana"[67] and the next year "The Life after Pax Americana".[68] In 2003, he announced "The End of the American Era".[69] In 2012, he projected: "America's military strength will remain as central to global stability in the years ahead as it has been in the past."[70] The Russian analyst Leonid Grinin argues that at present and in the nearest future Pax Americana will remain an effective tool of supporting the world order since the US concentrates too many leadership functions which no other country is able to take to the full extent. Thus, he warns that the destruction of Pax Americana will bring critical transformations of the World-system with unclear consequences.[71] American political analyst Ian Bremmer argued that with the election of Donald Trump and the subsequent rise in populism in the west,[72][73] as well as US withdrawal from international agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, NAFTA, and the Paris Climate Accords, that the Pax Americana is over.[74] American imperialism Main article: American imperialism Countries with McDonald's restaurants, showing their first year with a restaurant Spheres of influence during the Cold War. The US and USSR are shown in dark green and orange respectively, and their spheres of influence in light green and orange. History of U.S. expansion and influence Imperialism Exceptionalism Foreign policy Military history Military operations List of wars Military deployments Military bases abroad Territorial evolution Manifest destiny Non-interventionism Foreign interventions Pax Americana American Century America's Backyard Monroe Doctrine Involvement in regime change (Latin America) vte American imperialism is a term referring to the cultural and political outcomes or ideological elements of United States foreign policy. Since the start of the Cold War, the United States has economically and/or diplomatically supported friendly foreign governments, including many that overtly violated the civil and human rights of their own citizens and residents. American imperialism concepts were initially a product of capitalism critiques and, later, of theorists opposed to what they take to be aggressive United States policies and doctrines.[citation needed] Although there are various views of the imperialist nature of the United States, which describe many of the same policies and institutions as evidence of imperialism, explanations for imperialism vary widely. In spite of such literature, the historians Archibald Paton Thorton and Stuart Creighton Miller argue against the very coherence of the concept. Miller argues that the overuse and abuse of the term "imperialism" makes it nearly meaningless as an analytical concept.[75] See also Overseas interventions of the United States Timeline of United States military operations Truman Doctrine Reagan Doctrine Bush Doctrine Platt Amendment Bretton Woods system Cold War (1985–1991) Neoconservatism Anti-communism New world order War on Terror American Tianxia Pax Russica Pax Americana and the Weaponization of Space References Nye, Joseph S. (1990). "The Changing Nature of World Power". Political Science Quarterly. 105 (2): 177–192. doi:10.2307/2151022. JSTOR 2151022. Kirchwey, George W. (1917). "Pax Americana". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 72: 40–48. doi:10.1177/000271621707200109. S2CID 220723605. Abbott, Lyman, Hamilton Wright Mabie, Ernest Hamlin Abbott, and Francis Rufus Bellamy. The Outlook. New York: Outlook Co, 1898. "Expansion not Imperialism" p. 465. (cf. [...] Felix Adler [states ...] "if, instead of establishing the Pax Americana so far as our influence avails throughout this continent, we should enter into' the field of Old World strife, and seek the sort of glory that is written in human blood." Here it is assumed that we have failed in establishing self-government, and propose to substitute, at least in other lands, an Old World form of government. This sort of argument has no effect on the expansionist, because he believes that we have magnificently succeeded in our problem, in spite of failures, neglects, and violations of our own principles, and because what he wishes to do is, not to abandon the experiment, but, inspired by the successes of the past, extend the Pax Americana over lands not included in this continent.") "Definition of PAX AMERICANA". merriam-webster.com. Archived from the original on February 24, 2022. Retrieved August 1, 2018. Mee, Charles L. (1984). The Marshall Plan: The Launching of the Pax Americana. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-42149-6. "sagehistory.net". sagehistory.net. Archived from the original on June 29, 2009. Retrieved July 29, 2014. "American Exceptionalism" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 25, 2009. Lalor, John J., Cyclopaedia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States. Chicago: Rand, McNally, 1884. "The Union Archived 2017-03-30 at the Wayback Machine", p. 959. "Help". Oxford English Dictionary. Archived from the original on April 7, 2020. Retrieved April 2, 2021. Kirkpatrick, F. A. South America and the War: Being the Substance of a Course of Lectures Delivered in the University of London, King's College Under the Tooke Trust in the Lent Term, 1918. Cambridge [England]: University Press. Porter, Bernard. Empire and Superempire: Britain, America and the World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006. Gates, J. M. (1984). "War-related deaths in the Philippines 1898-1902". Pacific Historical Review. 53 (3): 367–78. doi:10.2307/3639234. JSTOR 3639234. PMID 11635503. Archived from the original on August 5, 2010. Kennedy, Paul. "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers." Vintage, January 1989. United States is listed as possessing 23.6% of world industrial capacity compared to 18.5% for the British. James, Harold. The Interwar Depression in an International Context. München: R. Oldenbourg, 2002. p. 96[permanent dead link]. Richard Little, Michael Smith, Perspectives on World Politics. Routledge, 2006. Page 365. Northrup, Cynthia Clark. The American Economy: A Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 2003. Great Depression pp. 135–36. Parchami, Ali (2009). "The Pax Americana Debate". Hegemonic Peace and Empire: The Pax Romana, Britannica and Americana. Taylor & Francis. p. 181. ISBN 9780203879290. Einstein, Lewis. A Prophecy of the War (1913–1914). New York: Columbia University Press, 1918. Keegan, John (1998), The First World War, Hutchinson, ISBN 0-09-180178-8 Roland Hugins, The Possible Peace, New York, 1916. Bismarck introduced this in the era of force. Ibañez Muñoz, Josep, "El desafío a la Pax americana: del 11 de septiembre a la guerra de Irak" in C. García and A. J. Rodrigo (eds) "El imperio inviable. El orden internacional tras el conflicto de Irak", Madrid: Tecnos, 2004. "Rebuilding America's Defenses Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century" (PDF). Newamericancentury.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2002. Retrieved July 29, 2014. Wohlforth, William C. (1999). "The Stability of a Unipolar World". International Security. 24 (1): 5–41. doi:10.1162/016228899560031. JSTOR 2539346. S2CID 57568539. p. 39. Labour's love-in with America is nothing new Archived October 7, 2020, at the Wayback Machine Daily Telegraph September 6, 2002 Futrell, Robert Frank, "Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: Basic Thinking in the United States Air Force 1907–1960". DIANE Publishing, 1989. p. 239. Cronin, Patrick P. From Globalism to Regionalism: New Perspectives on US Foreign and Defense Policies. [Washington, D.C.]: [National Defense Univ. Press], 1993. p. 213 Archived March 30, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. Michael E. Eidenmuller (June 10, 1963). "Commencement Address American University". Americanrhetoric.com. Archived from the original on May 2, 2021. Retrieved July 29, 2014. Chenoy, Anuradha M. (1992). "Soviet new thinking on national liberation movements: Continuity and change". In Kanet, Roger E; Miner, Deborah N; Resler, Tamara J (eds.). Soviet Foreign Policy in Transition. pp. 145–160. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511895449.009. ISBN 9780521413657. See especially pp. 149–50 of the internal definitions of neocolonialism in soviet bloc academia. Rosemary Radford Ruether. Christianity and Social Systems: Historical Constructions and Ethical Challenges. Rowman & Littlefield, (2008) ISBN 0-7425-4643-8 p. 138: "Neocolonialism means that European powers and the United States no longer rule dependent territories directly through their occupying troops and imperial bureaucracy. Rather, they control the area's resources indirectly through business corporations and the financial lending institutions they dominate..." Yumna Siddiqi. Anxieties of Empire and the Fiction of Intrigue. Columbia University Press, (2007) ISBN 0-231-13808-3 pp. 123–24 giving the classical definition limited to US and European colonial powers. Thomas R. Shannon. An introduction to the world-system perspective. Second Edition. Westview Press, (1996) ISBN 0-8133-2452-1 pp. 94–95 classicially defined as a capitalist phenomenon. William H. Blanchard. Neocolonialism American style, 1960–2000. Greenwood Publishing Group, (1996) ISBN 0-313-30013-5 pp. 3–12, definition p. 7. Kaplan, Lawrence S. (1982). "Western Europe in 'The American Century': A Retrospective View". Diplomatic History. 6 (2): 111–123. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7709.1982.tb00367.x. JSTOR 24911288. p. 115. Art, Robert J. (1998). "Geopolitics Updated: The Strategy of Selective Engagement". International Security. 23 (3): 79–113. doi:10.2307/2539339. JSTOR 2539339. p. 102. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, (Perseus Books, New York, 1997, p. 23). Westerfield, H. Bradford. The Instruments of America's Foreign Policy. New York: Crowell, 1963. p. 138. (cf. "the traditional American aversion to foreign wars, but also related to some recent disillusionment with the fruits of total wars ...") "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century" (PDF). September 2000. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 4, 2009. Retrieved May 30, 2007. Joseph S. Nye Sr., Understanding International Conflicts: An introduction to Theory and History, pp. 276–77 Nye, Joseph (March 21, 2002). "The new Rome meets the new barbarians". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Archived from the original on September 15, 2019. The Paradox of American Power, (Oxford University Press, New York, 2002). Bound To Lead: The Changing Nature Of American Power (Basic Books, 1991). "The Future of American Power: Dominance and Decline in Perspective Archived December 20, 2016, at the Wayback Machine", Foreign Affairs (November–December 2010). Cited in Michio Kaku and David Axelrod, To Win a Nuclear War: The Pentagon Secret War Plans, Boston: South End Press, 1987, p. 64. Holdar, Sven (1992). "The ideal state and the power of geography: The life-work of Rudolf Kjellén". Political Geography. 11 (3): 307–323. doi:10.1016/0962-6298(92)90031-N. p. 314. Ludwig Dehio, The Precarious Balance: Four Centuries of the European Power Struggle, 1945 (tr. Fullman, Charles, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962), p. 244. Crusade for Pan-Europe (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1943), pp. 299–304. Peffer, Nathaniel (1943). "America's Place in the Post-War World". Political Science Quarterly. 58 (1): 11–24. doi:10.2307/2144425. JSTOR 2144425. pp. 12, 14–15. To Win a Nuclear War, op. cit., p. 64. Joshua Muravchick, "At Last, Pax Americana Archived 2018-07-16 at the Wayback Machine", The New York Times (January 24, 1991) Wolfowitz, Paul (2000). "Remembering the Future". The National Interest (59): 35–45. JSTOR 42897259. Archived from the original on April 22, 2021. Retrieved October 3, 2020. p. 36. Julian Go, Patterns of Empire: The British and American Empires, 1688 to the Present (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 2. "Rome, AD ... Rome, DC Archived 2016-10-22 at the Wayback Machine", The Guardian (September 18, 2002) Ronald Dworkin, "The Threat to Patriotism Archived 2016-12-24 at the Wayback Machine", The New York Review of Books (February 28, 2002) Cited in Burton, Paul J. (2013). "Pax Romana/Pax Americana: Views of the "New Rome" from "Old Europe", 2000–2010". International Journal of the Classical Tradition. 20 (1–2): 15–40. doi:10.1007/s12138-013-0320-0. S2CID 162321437. Jonathan Freedland, "Rome, AD ... Rome, DC Archived 2016-10-22 at the Wayback Machine", The Guardian (September 18, 2002) Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire (New York: Penguin Books, 2005), p. 14. Smil, Vaclav (2010). Why America is Not a New Rome. Massachusetts: The MIT Press. ISBN 9780262288293. Burton, Paul J. (2013). "Pax Romana/Pax Americana: Views of the "New Rome" from "Old Europe", 2000–2010". International Journal of the Classical Tradition. 20 (1–2): 15–40. doi:10.1007/s12138-013-0320-0. S2CID 162321437. Bender, Peter (2003). "America: The New Roman Empire?". Orbis. 47: 145–159. doi:10.1016/S0030-4387(02)00180-1. "America: The New Roman Empire", p. 145. "America: The New Roman Empire", p. 147. "America: The New Roman Empire", pp. 148, 151. "America: The New Roman Empire", p. 152. "America: The New Roman Empire", p. 155. The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership (New York: Basic Books, 2004), p. 216. Kupchan, Charles A. (1998). "After Pax Americana: Benign Power, Regional Integration, and the Sources of a Stable Multipolarity". International Security. 23 (2): 40–79. doi:10.1162/isec.23.2.40. JSTOR 2539379. S2CID 57569142. Kupchan, Charles A. (1999). "Life after Pax Americana". World Policy Journal. 16 (3): 20–27. JSTOR 40209641. Charles Kupchan, The End of the American Era: US Foreign Policy and Geopolitics of the Twenty-First Century, New York: Vintage Books, 2003. Charles Kupchan, "Grand Strategy: The Four Pillars of the Future Archived 2022-02-24 at the Wayback Machine", Democracy Journal, 23, Winter 2012 Grinin, Leonid; Ilyin, Ilya V.; Andreev, Alexey I. 2016. "World Order in the Past, Present, and Future Archived 2017-12-01 at the Wayback Machine". In Social Evolution & History. Volume 15, Number 1, pp. 58–84 "BREMMER: 'The Pax Americana, as of tomorrow, is over'". Yahoo!. January 19, 2017. Retrieved April 16, 2022. "It really is the end of the world as we know it…". eurasiagroup.net. Retrieved April 16, 2022. Cheng, Evelyn (January 3, 2017). "'Pax Americana' is over, and that could mean a much more turbulent world: Ian Bremmer". CNBC. Retrieved April 16, 2022. Miller, Stuart Creighton (1982). "Benevolent Assimilation" The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899–1903. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-02697-9. p. 3. Further reading Ankerl, Guy (2000). "Global communication without universal civilization". Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese and Western. INU Societal Research. Vol. 1. Geneva: INU Press. pp. 256–332. ISBN 978-2-88155-004-1. Brown, Michael E. (2000). America's Strategic Choices. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262265249. Burton, Paul J. (2013). "Pax Romana/Pax Americana: Views of the "New Rome" from "Old Europe", 2000–2010". International Journal of the Classical Tradition. 20 (1–2): 15–40. doi:10.1007/s12138-013-0320-0. S2CID 162321437. Clarke, Peter. The last thousand days of the British empire: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the birth of the Pax Americana (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010) Gottlieb, Gidon (1993). Nation against State: A New Approach to Ethnic Conflicts and the Decline of Sovereignty. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press. ISBN 9780876091562. Hull, William I. (1915). The Monroe Doctrine: National or International. New York: G.P. Putnam. Kahrstedt, Ulrich (1920). Pax Americana; ein historische Betrachtung am Wendepunkte der europäischen Geschichte [Pax Americana, a historical look at the turning points in European history] (in German). Munich: Drei Masken Verlag. Kiernan, V. G. (2005). America, the New Imperialism: From White Settlement to World Hegemony. London: Verso. ISBN 9781844675227. Kupchan, Charles (2002). The End of the American Era: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Geopolitics of the 21st-century. New York: A. Knopf.[permanent dead link] Layne, Christopher (2012). "This Time It's Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana". International Studies Quarterly. 56 (1): 203–213. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2011.00704.x. JSTOR 41409832. LaFeber, Walter (1998). The New Empire: An Interpretation of American Expansion, 1860–1898. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0801485954. Lears, Jackson, "The Forgotten Crime of War Itself" (review of Samuel Moyn, Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021, 400 pp.), The New York Review of Books, vol. LXIX, no. 7 (April 21, 2022), pp. 40–42. "After September 11 [2001] no politician asked whether the proper response to a terrorist attack should be a US war or an international police action. [...] Debating torture or other abuses, while indisputably valuable, has diverted Americans from 'deliberating on the deeper choice they were making to ignore constraints on starting war in the first place.' [W]ar itself causes far more suffering than violations of its rules." (p. 40.) Louis, William Roger (2006). "The Pax Americana: Sir Keith Hancock, The British Empire, and American Expansion". Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez and Decolonization: Collected Essays. London: I.B. Tauris. pp. 999+. ISBN 9781845113476. Mee, Charles L. The Marshall Plan: The launching of the pax americana (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984) Narlikar, Amrita; Kumar, Rajiv (2012). "From Pax Americana to Pax Mosaica? Bargaining over a New Economic Order". The Political Quarterly. 83 (2): 384–394. doi:10.1111/j.1467-923X.2012.02294.x. Nye, Joseph S. (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 9780465007448. Snow, Francis Haffkine (1921). "American as a World Tyrant: A German Historian's Attempt to Prove That Europe is Becoming a Serf of the United States". Current History. 13. External links Wikiquote has quotations related to American benevolence. The end of the Pax Americana? by Michael Lind Why America Thinks it Has to Run the World by Benjamin Schwarz It’s Over, Over There: The Coming Crack-up in Transatlantic Relations by Christopher Layne War in the Contest for a New World Order by Peter Gowan So it must be for ever by Thomas Meaney Instrumental Internationalism: The American Origins of the United Nations, 1940–3 by Stephen Wertheim What are we there for? by Tom Stevenson Peter Gowan interview on U.S. foreign policy since 1945, Interview with Against the Grain vte Periods of regional and relative peace Contemporary Long Peace Pax Americana Pax Atomica Pax Europaea Pax Praetoriana Historical Pax Assyriaca Pax Austriaca Pax Britannica Pax Dei Pax Gupta Pax Helvetica Pax Hispanica Pax Italica Pax Khazarica Pax Kushana Pax Mafiosa Pax Minoica Pax Mongolica Pax Ottomana Pax Romana Pax Russica Pax Sinica Pax Sovietica Pax Sumerica Pax Syriana Pax Tokugawa vte History of the United States Timeline Outline Events Pre-Colonial Prehistoric Pre-Columbian Era Colonial Exploration of North America European colonization Native American epidemics Settlement of Jamestown Thirteen Colonies Atlantic slave trade King William's War Queen Anne's War Dummer's War First Great Awakening War of Jenkins' Ear King George's War Prelude to Revolution American Enlightenment French and Indian War Proclamation of 1763 Sugar Act Stamp Act Congress Sons of Liberty Boston Massacre Boston Tea Party Intolerable Acts First Continental Congress Continental Association 1776–1789 American Revolution War Second Continental Congress Lee Resolution Declaration of Independence Treaty of Paris Confederation period Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Pennsylvania Mutiny Shays' Rebellion Northwest Ordinance Drafting and ratification of the Constitution 1789–1815 Bill of Rights Federalist Era Whiskey Rebellion Quasi-War Jeffersonian era Louisiana Purchase War of 1812 1815–1849 Era of Good Feelings Missouri Compromise Monroe Doctrine Jacksonian era Trail of Tears Nat Turner's slave rebellion Nullification crisis Westward expansion Mexican–American War Seneca Falls Convention First Industrial Revolution Second Great Awakening 1849–1865 Antebellum Era California Gold Rush Prelude to War Compromise of 1850 Fugitive Slave Act Kansas–Nebraska Act Bleeding Kansas Dred Scott decision Election of Lincoln Secession Civil War Emancipation Proclamation Assassination of Abraham Lincoln 1865–1917 Reconstruction era Amendments First transcontinental railroad Ku Klux Klan Enforcement Acts Compromise of 1877 Second Industrial Revolution Gilded Age The Gospel of Wealth Chinese Exclusion Act Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act Haymarket affair Sherman Antitrust Act Progressive Era Spanish–American War Imperialism Square Deal Nadir of American race relations 1917–1945 World War I Paris Peace Conference First Red Scare Roaring Twenties Prohibition Women's suffrage Tulsa race massacre Second Klan Harlem Renaissance Great Depression Wall Street Crash of 1929 Dust Bowl New Deal World War II home front Manhattan Project 1945–1964 Strike wave of 1945–1946 Start of Cold War Truman Doctrine Early Cold War North Atlantic Treaty Korean War Ivy Mike McCarthyism Postwar Boom Civil Rights Movement Early–mid Cold War Cuban Missile Crisis Assassination of John F. Kennedy 1964–1980 Great Society Mid Cold War Détente Space Race Vietnam War Fall of Saigon Counterculture Second-wave feminism Gay liberation Stonewall riots Watergate scandal Iran hostage crisis Moral Majority 1980–1991 Reagan era Reaganomics Iran–Contra affair Late Cold War Invasion of Grenada Reagan Doctrine End of the Cold War War on drugs Invasion of Panama 1991–2008 Gulf War NAFTA Los Angeles riots WTC bombing Republican Revolution Oklahoma City bombing Columbine Bush v. Gore September 11 attacks War on terror War in Afghanistan Iraq War Hurricane Katrina 2008–present Great Recession Killing of Osama bin Laden Rise in mass shootings Black Lives Matter Obergefell v. Hodges Unite the Right rally COVID-19 pandemic recession January 6 insurrection Afghanistan withdrawal Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Support of Ukraine Indictments of Donald Trump Topics American Century Antisemitism Cultural Cinema Music Newspapers Sports Demography Immigration Economy Banking Education Higher education Flag Government Abortion Capital punishment Civil Rights Corruption The Constitution Debt ceiling Direct democracy Foreign policy Law enforcement Postal service Taxation Voting rights Journalism Merchant Marine Military Army Marine Corps Navy Air Force Space Force Coast Guard Party Systems First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Religion Genocide Slavery Sexual slavery Technology and industry Agriculture Labor Lumber Medicine Railway Groups African American Asian American Chinese American Filipino American Indian American Japanese American Korean American Thai American Vietnamese American European American Albanian American English American Estonian American Finnish American Irish American Italian American Lithuanian American Polish American Serbian American Hispanic and Latino American Mexican American Jewish American Middle Eastern American Egyptian American Iranian American Iraqi American Lebanese American Palestinian American Saudi American Native Americans Cherokee Comanche Women LGBT Gay men Lesbians Transgender people Places Territorial evolution Admission to the Union Historical regions American frontier Manifest destiny Indian removal Regions New England The South The West Coast States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Federal District Washington, D.C. Insular areas American Samoa Guam Northern Mariana Islands Puerto Rico U.S. Virgin Islands Outlying islands Baker Island Howland Island Jarvis Island Johnston Atoll Kingman Reef Midway Atoll Navassa Island Palmyra Atoll Wake Island Cities Urban history Cities List of years Historiography Category Portal Categories: Political terminologyEras of United States historyLatin political words and phrasesPaxInternational securityAmerican exceptionalism Haskell Wexler ASC (February 6, 1922 – December 27, 2015) was an American cinematographer, film producer, and director. Wexler was judged to be one of film history's ten most influential cinematographers in a survey of the members of the International Cinematographers Guild.[2] He won the Academy Award for Best Cinematography twice, in 1966 and 1976, out of five nominations. In his obituary in The New York Times, Wexler is described as being "renowned as one of the most inventive cinematographers in Hollywood."[3] Early life and education Wexler was born to a Jewish family in Chicago in 1922.[4] His parents were Simon and Lottie Wexler, whose children included Jerrold, Joyce (Isaacs) and Yale. He attended the progressive Francis Parker School, where he was best friends with Barney Rosset. After a year of college at the University of California, Berkeley, he volunteered as a seaman in the Merchant Marine in 1941, as the U.S. was preparing to enter World War II. He became friends with fellow sailor Woody Guthrie, who later gained fame as a folk singer.[5] While in the Merchant Marine, Wexler advocated for the desegregation of seamen.[6] In November 1942, his ship was torpedoed by a German submarine and sank off the coast of South Africa. He spent 10 days on a lifeboat before being rescued.[6] After the war, Wexler received the Silver Star and was promoted to the rank of second officer.[6][7] He returned to Chicago after his discharge in 1946 and began working in the stockroom at his father's company, Allied Radio. He decided he wanted to become a filmmaker, although he had no experience, and his father helped him set up a small studio in Des Plaines, Illinois. He began by shooting industrial films at Midwest factories. When his studio lost too much money, it was eventually shut down, but the business served as an unofficial film school for Wexler.[6] He later took freelance jobs as a cameraman, joining the International Photographers Guild in 1947. He worked his way up to more technical positions after beginning as an assistant cameraman on various projects.[6] He made a number of documentaries, including The Living City, which was nominated for an Academy Award. Film career Wexler briefly made industrial films in Chicago, then in 1947 became an assistant cameraman. Wexler worked on documentary features and shorts; low-budget docu-dramas such as 1959's The Savage Eye, television's The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet and TV commercials (he would later found Wexler-Hall, a television commercial production company, with Conrad Hall). He made ten documentary films with director Saul Landau, including Paul Jacobs and the Nuclear Gang, which aired on PBS and won an Emmy A

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Mao Zedong[a] (26 December 1893 – 9 September 1976) was a Chinese politician, Marxist theorist, military strategist, poet, and revolutionary who was the founder of the People's Republic of China (PRC). He led the country from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976, while also serving as the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party during that time. His theories, military strategies and policies are known as Maoism. Mao was the son of a prosperous peasant in Shaoshan, Hunan. He supported Chinese nationalism and had an anti-imperialist outlook early in his life, and was particularly influenced by the events of the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 and May Fourth Movement of 1919. He later adopted Marxism–Leninism while working at Peking University as a librarian and became a founding member of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), leading the Autumn Harvest Uprising in 1927. During the Chinese Civil War between the Kuomintang (KMT) and the CCP, Mao helped to found the Chinese Red Army, led the Jiangxi Soviet's radical land reform policies, and ultimately became head of the CCP during the Long March. Although the CCP temporarily allied with the KMT under the Second United Front during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), China's civil war resumed after Japan's surrender, and Mao's forces defeated the Nationalist government, which withdrew to Taiwan in 1949. On 1 October 1949, Mao proclaimed the foundation of the PRC, a Marxist–Leninist single-party state controlled by the CCP. In the following years he solidified his control through the land reform campaign against landlords, the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries, the "Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns", and through a truce in the Korean War, which altogether resulted in the deaths of several million Chinese. From 1953 to 1958, Mao played an important role in enforcing command economy in China, constructing the first Constitution of the PRC, launching an industrialisation program, and initiating military projects such as the "Two Bombs, One Satellite" project and Project 523. His foreign policies during this time were dominated by the Sino-Soviet split which drove a wedge between China and the Soviet Union. In 1955, Mao launched the Sufan movement, and in 1957 he launched the Anti-Rightist Campaign, in which at least 550,000 people, mostly intellectuals and dissidents, were persecuted. In 1958, he launched the Great Leap Forward that aimed to rapidly transform China's economy from agrarian to industrial, which led to the Great Chinese Famine and the deaths of 15–55 million people between 1958 and 1962. In 1963, Mao launched the Socialist Education Movement, and in 1966 he initiated the Cultural Revolution, a program to remove "counter-revolutionary" elements in Chinese society which lasted 10 years and was marked by violent class struggle, widespread destruction of cultural artifacts, and an unprecedented elevation of Mao's cult of personality. Tens of millions of people were persecuted during the Revolution, while the estimated number of deaths ranges from hundreds of thousands to millions. After years of ill health, Mao suffered a series of heart attacks in 1976 and died at the age of 82. During the Mao era, China's population grew from around 550 million to over 900 million while the government did not strictly enforce its family planning policy. During his leadership tenure, China was heavily involved with other Asian communist conflicts such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cambodian Civil War. Considered one of the most influential figures of the 20th century, Mao has been credited with transforming China from a semi-colony to a leading world power, with advanced literacy, women's rights, basic healthcare, primary education and improved life expectancy. He became an ideological figurehead behind his ideology and a prominent influence over the international communist movement, being endowed with remembrance, admiration and cult of personality both during life and after death. Mao's policies were responsible for vast numbers of deaths, with estimates ranging from 40 to 80 million victims due to starvation, persecution, prison labour, and mass executions, and his government was described as totalitarian. English romanisation of name During Mao's lifetime, the English-language media universally rendered his name as Mao Tse-tung, using the Wade–Giles system of transliteration for Standard Chinese though with the circumflex accent in the syllable Tsê dropped. Due to its recognizability, the spelling was used widely, even by PRC's foreign ministry after Hanyu Pinyin became the PRC's official romanisation system for Mandarin Chinese in 1958; the well-known booklet of Mao's political statements, The Little Red Book, was officially entitled Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung in English translations. While the pinyin-derived spelling Mao Zedong is increasingly common, the Wade–Giles-derived spelling Mao Tse-tung continues to be used in modern publications to some extent.[2] Early life Main article: Early life of Mao Zedong Youth and the Xinhai Revolution: 1893–1911 Mao Zedong c. 1910s Mao Zedong was born on 26 December 1893, in Shaoshan village, Hunan.[3] His father, Mao Yichang, was a formerly impoverished peasant who had become one of the wealthiest farmers in Shaoshan. Growing up in rural Hunan, Mao described his father as a stern disciplinarian, who would beat him and his three siblings, the boys Zemin and Zetan, as well as an adopted girl, Zejian.[4] Mao's mother, Wen Qimei, was a devout Buddhist who tried to temper her husband's strict attitude.[5] Mao too became a Buddhist, but abandoned this faith in his mid-teenage years.[5] At age 8, Mao was sent to Shaoshan Primary School. Learning the value systems of Confucianism, he later admitted that he did not enjoy the classical Chinese texts preaching Confucian morals, instead favouring classic novels like Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Water Margin.[6] At age 13, Mao finished primary education, and his father united him in an arranged marriage to the 17-year-old Luo Yixiu, thereby uniting their land-owning families. Mao refused to recognise her as his wife, becoming a fierce critic of arranged marriage and temporarily moving away. Luo was locally disgraced and died in 1910 at 21 years old.[7] Mao Zedong's childhood home in Shaoshan, in 2010, by which time it had become a tourist destination While working on his father's farm, Mao read voraciously[8] and developed a "political consciousness" from Zheng Guanying's booklet which lamented the deterioration of Chinese power and argued for the adoption of representative democracy.[9] Mao also read translations of works by Western authors including Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Charles Darwin, and Thomas Huxley.[10]: 34  Interested in history, Mao was inspired by the military prowess and nationalistic fervour of George Washington and Napoleon Bonaparte.[11] His political views were shaped by Gelaohui-led protests which erupted following a famine in Changsha, the capital of Hunan; Mao supported the protesters' demands, but the armed forces suppressed the dissenters and executed their leaders.[12] The famine spread to Shaoshan, where starving peasants seized his father's grain. He disapproved of their actions as morally wrong, but claimed sympathy for their situation.[13] At age 16, Mao moved to a higher primary school in nearby Dongshan,[14] where he was bullied for his peasant background.[15] In 1911, Mao began middle school in Changsha.[16] Revolutionary sentiment was strong in the city, where there was widespread animosity towards Emperor Puyi's absolute monarchy and many were advocating republicanism. The republicans' figurehead was Sun Yat-sen, an American-educated Christian who led the Tongmenghui society.[17] In Changsha, Mao was influenced by Sun's newspaper, The People's Independence (Minli bao),[18] and called for Sun to become president in a school essay.[19] As a symbol of rebellion against the Manchu monarch, Mao and a friend cut off their queue pigtails, a sign of subservience to the emperor.[20] Inspired by Sun's republicanism, the army rose up across southern China, sparking the Xinhai Revolution. Changsha's governor fled, leaving the city in republican control.[21] Supporting the revolution, Mao joined the rebel army as a private soldier, but was not involved in fighting or combat. The northern provinces remained loyal to the emperor, and hoping to avoid a civil war, Sun—proclaimed "provisional president" by his supporters—compromised with the monarchist general Yuan Shikai. The monarchy was abolished, creating the Republic of China, but the monarchist Yuan became president. The revolution over, Mao resigned from the army in 1912, after six months as a soldier.[22] Around this time, Mao discovered socialism from a newspaper article; proceeding to read pamphlets by Jiang Kanghu, the student founder of the Chinese Socialist Party, Mao remained interested yet unconvinced by the idea.[23] Fourth Normal School of Changsha: 1912–1919 Over the next few years, Mao Zedong enrolled and dropped out of a police academy, a soap-production school, a law school, an economics school, and the government-run Changsha Middle School.[24] Studying independently, he spent much time in Changsha's library, reading core works of classical liberalism such as Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations and Montesquieu's The Spirit of the Laws, as well as the works of western scientists and philosophers such as Darwin, Mill, Rousseau, and Spencer.[25] Viewing himself as an intellectual, years later he admitted that at this time he thought himself better than working people.[26] He was inspired by Friedrich Paulsen, a neo-Kantian philosopher and educator whose emphasis on the achievement of a carefully defined goal as the highest value led Mao to believe that strong individuals were not bound by moral codes but should strive for a great goal.[27] His father saw no use in his son's intellectual pursuits, cut off his allowance and forced him to move into a hostel for the destitute.[28] Mao in 1913 Mao desired to become a teacher and enrolled at the Fourth Normal School of Changsha, which soon merged with the First Normal School of Hunan, widely seen as the best in Hunan.[29] Befriending Mao, professor Yang Changji urged him to read a radical newspaper, New Youth (Xin qingnian), the creation of his friend Chen Duxiu, a dean at Peking University. Although he was a supporter of Chinese nationalism, Chen argued that China must look to the west to cleanse itself of superstition and autocracy.[30] In his first school year, Mao befriended an older student, Xiao Zisheng; together they went on a walking tour of Hunan, begging and writing literary couplets to obtain food.[31] A popular student, in 1915 Mao was elected secretary of the Students Society. He organised the Association for Student Self-Government and led protests against school rules.[32] Mao published his first article in New Youth in April 1917, instructing readers to increase their physical strength to serve the revolution.[33] He joined the Society for the Study of Wang Fuzhi (Chuan-shan Hsüeh-she), a revolutionary group founded by Changsha literati who wished to emulate the philosopher Wang Fuzhi.[34] In spring 1917, he was elected to command the students' volunteer army, set up to defend the school from marauding soldiers.[35] Increasingly interested in the techniques of war, he took a keen interest in World War I, and also began to develop a sense of solidarity with workers.[36] Mao undertook feats of physical endurance with Xiao Zisheng and Cai Hesen, and with other young revolutionaries they formed the Renovation of the People Study Society in April 1918 to debate Chen Duxiu's ideas. Desiring personal and societal transformation, the Society gained 70–80 members, many of whom would later join the Communist Party.[37] Mao graduated in June 1919, ranked third in the year.[38] Early revolutionary activity Beijing, anarchism, and Marxism: 1917–1919 Mao Zedong in 1924 Mao moved to Beijing, where his mentor Yang Changji had taken a job at Peking University.[39] Yang thought Mao exceptionally "intelligent and handsome",[40] securing him a job as assistant to the university librarian Li Dazhao, who would become an early Chinese Communist.[41] Li authored a series of New Youth articles on the October Revolution in Russia, during which the Communist Bolshevik Party under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin had seized power. Lenin was an advocate of the socio-political theory of Marxism, first developed by the German sociologists Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and Li's articles added Marxism to the doctrines in Chinese revolutionary movement.[42] Becoming "more and more radical", Mao was initially influenced by Peter Kropotkin's anarchism, which was the most prominent radical doctrine of the day. Chinese anarchists, such as Cai Yuanpei, Chancellor of Peking University, called for complete social revolution in social relations, family structure, and women's equality, rather than the simple change in the form of government called for by earlier revolutionaries. He joined Li's Study Group and "developed rapidly toward Marxism" during the winter of 1919.[43] Paid a low wage, Mao lived in a cramped room with seven other Hunanese students, but believed that Beijing's beauty offered "vivid and living compensation".[44] A number of his friends took advantage of the anarchist-organised Mouvement Travail-Études to study in France, but Mao declined, perhaps because of an inability to learn languages.[45] Mao raised funds for the movement, however.[10]: 35  At the university, Mao was snubbed by other students due to his rural Hunanese accent and lowly position. He joined the university's Philosophy and Journalism Societies and attended lectures and seminars by the likes of Chen Duxiu, Hu Shih, and Qian Xuantong.[46] Mao's time in Beijing ended in the spring of 1919, when he travelled to Shanghai with friends who were preparing to leave for France.[47] He did not return to Shaoshan, where his mother was terminally ill. She died in October 1919 and her husband died in January 1920.[48] New Culture and political protests: 1919–1920 On 4 May 1919, students in Beijing gathered at Tiananmen to protest the Chinese government's weak resistance to Japanese expansion in China. Patriots were outraged at the influence given to Japan in the Twenty-One Demands in 1915, the complicity of Duan Qirui's Beiyang government, and the betrayal of China in the Treaty of Versailles, wherein Japan was allowed to receive territories in Shandong which had been surrendered by Germany. These demonstrations ignited the nationwide May Fourth Movement and fuelled the New Culture Movement which blamed China's diplomatic defeats on social and cultural backwardness.[49] In Changsha, Mao had begun teaching history at the Xiuye Primary School[50] and organising protests against the pro-Duan Governor of Hunan Province, Zhang Jingyao, popularly known as "Zhang the Venomous" due to his corrupt and violent rule.[51] In late May, Mao co-founded the Hunanese Student Association with He Shuheng and Deng Zhongxia, organising a student strike for June and in July 1919 began production of a weekly radical magazine, Xiang River Review. Using vernacular language that would be understandable to the majority of China's populace, he advocated the need for a "Great Union of the Popular Masses", strengthened trade unions able to wage non-violent revolution.[clarification needed] His ideas were not Marxist, but heavily influenced by Kropotkin's concept of mutual aid.[52] Students in Beijing rallying during the May Fourth Movement Zhang banned the Student Association, but Mao continued publishing after assuming editorship of the liberal magazine New Hunan (Xin Hunan) and offered articles in popular local newspaper Ta Kung Pao. Several of these advocated feminist views, calling for the liberation of women in Chinese society; Mao was influenced by his forced arranged-marriage.[53] In fall 1919, Mao organized a seminar in Changsha studying economic and political issues, as well as ways to unite the people, the feasibility of socialism, and issues regarding Confucianism.[54] During this period, Mao involved himself in political work with manual laborers, setting up night schools and trade unions.[54] In December 1919, Mao helped organise a general strike in Hunan, securing some concessions, but Mao and other student leaders felt threatened by Zhang, and Mao returned to Beijing, visiting the terminally ill Yang Changji.[55] Mao found that his articles had achieved a level of fame among the revolutionary movement, and set about soliciting support in overthrowing Zhang.[56] Coming across newly translated Marxist literature by Thomas Kirkup, Karl Kautsky, and Marx and Engels—notably The Communist Manifesto—he came under their increasing influence, but was still eclectic in his views.[57] Mao visited Tianjin, Jinan, and Qufu,[58] before moving to Shanghai, where he worked as a laundryman and met Chen Duxiu, noting that Chen's adoption of Marxism "deeply impressed me at what was probably a critical period in my life". In Shanghai, Mao met an old teacher of his, Yi Peiji, a revolutionary and member of the Kuomintang (KMT), or Chinese Nationalist Party, which was gaining increasing support and influence. Yi introduced Mao to General Tan Yankai, a senior KMT member who held the loyalty of troops stationed along the Hunanese border with Guangdong. Tan was plotting to overthrow Zhang, and Mao aided him by organising the Changsha students. In June 1920, Tan led his troops into Changsha, and Zhang fled. In the subsequent reorganisation of the provincial administration, Mao was appointed headmaster of the junior section of the First Normal School. Now receiving a large income, he married Yang Kaihui, daughter of Yang Changji, in the winter of 1920.[59][60] Founding the Chinese Communist Party: 1921–1922 Location of the first Congress of the Chinese Communist Party in July 1921, in Xintiandi, former French Concession, Shanghai The Chinese Communist Party was founded by Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao in the Shanghai French Concession in 1921 as a study society and informal network. Mao set up a Changsha branch, also establishing a branch of the Socialist Youth Corps and a Cultural Book Society which opened a bookstore to propagate revolutionary literature throughout Hunan.[61] He was involved in the movement for Hunan autonomy, in the hope that a Hunanese constitution would increase civil liberties and make his revolutionary activity easier. When the movement was successful in establishing provincial autonomy under a new warlord, Mao forgot his involvement.[62][clarification needed] By 1921, small Marxist groups existed in Shanghai, Beijing, Changsha, Wuhan, Guangzhou, and Jinan; it was decided to hold a central meeting, which began in Shanghai on 23 July 1921. The first session of the National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party was attended by 13 delegates, Mao included. After the authorities sent a police spy to the congress, the delegates moved to a boat on South Lake near Jiaxing, in Zhejiang, to escape detection. Although Soviet and Comintern delegates attended, the first congress ignored Lenin's advice to accept a temporary alliance between the Communists and the "bourgeois democrats" who also advocated national revolution; instead they stuck to the orthodox Marxist belief that only the urban proletariat could lead a socialist revolution.[63] Mao was party secretary for Hunan stationed in Changsha, and to build the party there he followed a variety of tactics.[64] In August 1921, he founded the Self-Study University, through which readers could gain access to revolutionary literature, housed in the premises of the Society for the Study of Wang Fuzhi, a Qing dynasty Hunanese philosopher who had resisted the Manchus.[64] He joined the YMCA Mass Education Movement to fight illiteracy, though he edited the textbooks to include radical sentiments.[65] He continued organising workers to strike against the administration of Hunan Governor Zhao Hengti.[66] Yet labour issues remained central. The successful and famous Anyuan coal mines strikes [zh] (contrary to later Party historians) depended on both "proletarian" and "bourgeois" strategies. Liu Shaoqi and Li Lisan and Mao not only mobilised the miners, but formed schools and cooperatives and engaged local intellectuals, gentry, military officers, merchants, Red Gang dragon heads and even church clergy.[67] Mao's labour organizing work in the Anyuan mines also involved his wife Yang Kaihui, who worked for women's rights, including literacy and educational issues, in the nearby peasant communities.[68] Although Mao and Yang were not the originators of this political organizing method of combining labor organizing among male workers with a focus on women's rights issues in their communities, they were among the most effective at using this method.[68] Mao's political organizing success in the Anyuan mines resulted in Chen Duxiu inviting him to become a member of the Communist Party's Central Committee.[69] Mao claimed that he missed the July 1922 Second Congress of the Communist Party in Shanghai because he lost the address. Adopting Lenin's advice, the delegates agreed to an alliance with the "bourgeois democrats" of the KMT for the good of the "national revolution". Communist Party members joined the KMT, hoping to push its politics leftward.[70] Mao enthusiastically agreed with this decision, arguing for an alliance across China's socio-economic classes, and eventually rose to become propaganda chief of the KMT.[60] Mao was a vocal anti-imperialist and in his writings he lambasted the governments of Japan, the UK and US, describing the latter as "the most murderous of hangmen".[71] Collaboration with the Kuomintang: 1922–1927 Duration: 26 seconds.0:26 Mao giving a speech (no audio) At the Third Congress of the Communist Party in Shanghai in June 1923, the delegates reaffirmed their commitment to working with the KMT. Supporting this position, Mao was elected to the Party Committee, taking up residence in Shanghai.[72] At the First KMT Congress, held in Guangzhou in early 1924, Mao was elected an alternate member of the KMT Central Executive Committee, and put forward four resolutions to decentralise power to urban and rural bureaus. His enthusiastic support for the KMT earned him the suspicion of Li Li-san, his Hunan comrade.[73] In late 1924, Mao returned to Shaoshan, perhaps to recuperate from an illness. He found that the peasantry were increasingly restless and some had seized land from wealthy landowners to found communes. This convinced him of the revolutionary potential of the peasantry, an idea advocated by the KMT leftists but not the Communists.[74] Mao and many of his colleagues also proposed the end of cooperation with the KMT, which was rejected by the Comintern representative Mikhail Borodin.[75] In the winter of 1925, Mao fled to Guangzhou after his revolutionary activities attracted the attention of Zhao's regional authorities.[76] There, he ran the 6th term of the KMT's Peasant Movement Training Institute from May to September 1926.[77][78] The Peasant Movement Training Institute under Mao trained cadre and prepared them for militant activity, taking them through military training exercises and getting them to study basic left-wing texts.[79] Mao in Guangzhou in 1925 When party leader Sun Yat-sen died in May 1925, he was succeeded by Chiang Kai-shek, who moved to marginalise the left-KMT and the Communists.[80] Mao nevertheless supported Chiang's National Revolutionary Army, who embarked on the Northern Expedition attack in 1926 on warlords.[81] In the wake of this expedition, peasants rose up, appropriating the land of the wealthy landowners, who were in many cases killed. Such uprisings angered senior KMT figures, who were themselves landowners, emphasising the growing class and ideological divide within the revolutionary movement.[82] Third Plenum of the KMT Central Executive Committee in March 1927. Mao is third from the right in the second row. In March 1927, Mao appeared at the Third Plenum of the KMT Central Executive Committee in Wuhan, which sought to strip General Chiang of his power by appointing Wang Jingwei leader. There, Mao played an active role in the discussions regarding the peasant issue, defending a set of "Regulations for the Repression of Local Bullies and Bad Gentry", which advocated the death penalty or life imprisonment for anyone found guilty of counter-revolutionary activity, arguing that in a revolutionary situation, "peaceful methods cannot suffice".[83][84] In April 1927, Mao was appointed to the KMT's five-member Central Land Committee, urging peasants to refuse to pay rent. Mao led another group to put together a "Draft Resolution on the Land Question", which called for the confiscation of land belonging to "local bullies and bad gentry, corrupt officials, militarists and all counter-revolutionary elements in the villages". Proceeding to carry out a "Land Survey", he stated that anyone owning over 30 mou (four and a half acres), constituting 13% of the population, were uniformly counter-revolutionary. He accepted that there was great variation in revolutionary enthusiasm across the country, and that a flexible policy of land redistribution was necessary.[85] Presenting his conclusions at the Enlarged Land Committee meeting, many expressed reservations, some believing that it went too far, and others not far enough. Ultimately, his suggestions were only partially implemented.[86] Civil War Main articles: Chinese Civil War and Chinese Communist Revolution Nanchang and Autumn Harvest Uprisings: 1927 Flag of the Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army Fresh from the success of the Northern Expedition against the warlords, Chiang turned on the Communists, who by now numbered in the tens of thousands across China. Chiang ignored the orders of the Wuhan-based left KMT government and marched on Shanghai, a city controlled by Communist militias. As the Communists awaited Chiang's arrival, he loosed the White Terror, massacring 5,000 with the aid of the Green Gang.[84][87] In Beijing, 19 leading Communists were killed by Zhang Zuolin.[88][89] That May, tens of thousands of Communists and those suspected of being communists were killed, and the CCP lost approximately 15,000 of its 25,000 members.[89] The CCP continued supporting the Wuhan KMT government, a position Mao initially supported,[89] but by the time of the CCP's Fifth Congress he had changed his mind, deciding to stake all hope on the peasant militia.[90] The question was rendered moot when the Wuhan government expelled all Communists from the KMT on 15 July.[90] The CCP founded the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army of China, better known as the "Red Army", to battle Chiang. A battalion led by General Zhu De was ordered to take the city of Nanchang on 1 August 1927, in what became known as the Nanchang Uprising. They were initially successful, but were forced into retreat after five days, marching south to Shantou, and from there they were driven into the wilderness of Fujian.[90] Mao was appointed commander-in-chief of the Red Army and led four regiments against Changsha in the Autumn Harvest Uprising, in the hope of sparking peasant uprisings across Hunan. On the eve of the attack, Mao composed a poem—the earliest of his to survive—titled "Changsha". His plan was to attack the KMT-held city from three directions on 9 September, but the Fourth Regiment deserted to the KMT cause, attacking the Third Regiment. Mao's army made it to Changsha, but could not take it; by 15 September, he accepted defeat and with 1000 survivors marched east to the Jinggang Mountains of Jiangxi.[91] Base in Jinggangshan: 1927–1928 Mao in 1927 �命�是請客�飯，�是�文章，�是繪畫繡花，�能那樣雅緻，那樣從容�迫，文質彬彬，那樣溫良�讓。�命是暴動，是一個階級推翻一個階級的暴烈的行動。 Revolution is not a dinner party, nor an essay, nor a painting, nor a piece of embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. — Mao, February 1927[92] The CCP Central Committee, hiding in Shanghai, expelled Mao from their ranks and from the Hunan Provincial Committee, as punishment for his "military opportunism", for his focus on rural activity, and for being too lenient with "bad gentry". The more orthodox Communists especially regarded the peasants as backward and ridiculed Mao's idea of mobilizing them.[60] They nevertheless adopted three policies he had long championed: the immediate formation of workers' councils, the confiscation of all land without exemption, and the rejection of the KMT. Mao's response was to ignore them.[93] He established a base in Jinggangshan City, an area of the Jinggang Mountains, where he united five villages as a self-governing state, and supported the confiscation of land from rich landlords, who were "re-educated" and sometimes executed. He ensured that no massacres took place in the region, and pursued a more lenient approach than that advocated by the Central Committee.[94] In addition to land redistribution, Mao promoted literacy and non-hierarchical organizational relationships in Jinggangshan, transforming the area's social and economic life and attracted many local supporters.[95] Mao proclaimed that "Even the lame, the deaf and the blind could all come in useful for the revolutionary struggle", he boosted the army's numbers,[96] incorporating two groups of bandits into his army, building a force of around 1,800 troops.[97] He laid down rules for his soldiers: prompt obedience to orders, all confiscations were to be turned over to the government, and nothing was to be confiscated from poorer peasants. In doing so, he moulded his men into a disciplined, efficient fighting force.[96] 敵進我退， 敵�我騷， 敵疲我打， 敵退我追。 When the enemy advances, we retreat. When the enemy rests, we harass him. When the enemy avoids a battle, we attack. When the enemy retreats, we advance. — Mao's advice in combating the Kuomintang, 1928[98][99] Chinese Communist revolutionaries in the 1920s In spring 1928, the Central Committee ordered Mao's troops to southern Hunan, hoping to spark peasant uprisings. Mao was skeptical, but complied. They reached Hunan, where they were attacked by the KMT and fled after heavy losses. Meanwhile, KMT troops had invaded Jinggangshan, leaving them without a base.[100] Wandering the countryside, Mao's forces came across a CCP regiment led by General Zhu De and Lin Biao; they united, and attempted to retake Jinggangshan. They were initially successful, but the KMT counter-attacked, and pushed the CCP back; over the next few weeks, they fought an entrenched guerrilla war in the mountains.[98][101] The Central Committee again ordered Mao to march to south Hunan, but he refused, and remained at his base. Contrastingly, Zhu complied, and led his armies away. Mao's troops fended the KMT off for 25 days while he left the camp at night to find reinforcements. He reunited with the decimated Zhu's army, and together they returned to Jinggangshan and retook the base. There they were joined by a defecting KMT regiment and Peng Dehuai's Fifth Red Army. In the mountainous area they were unable to grow enough crops to feed everyone, leading to food shortages throughout the winter.[102] In 1928, Mao met and married He Zizhen, an 18-year-old revolutionary who would bear him six children.[103][104] Jiangxi Soviet Republic of China: 1929–1934 Mao in Yan'an (1930s) In January 1929, Mao and Zhu evacuated the base with 2,000 men and a further 800 provided by Peng, and took their armies south, to the area around Tonggu and Xinfeng in Jiangxi.[105] The evacuation led to a drop in morale, and many troops became disobedient and began thieving; this worried Li Lisan and the Central Committee, who saw Mao's army as lumpenproletariat, that were unable to share in proletariat class consciousness.[106][107] In keeping with orthodox Marxist thought, Li believed that only the urban proletariat could lead a successful revolution, and saw little need for Mao's peasant guerrillas; he ordered Mao to disband his army into units to be sent out to spread the revolutionary message. Mao replied that while he concurred with Li's theoretical position, he would not disband his army nor abandon his base.[107][108] Both Li and Mao saw the Chinese revolution as the key to world revolution, believing that a CCP victory would spark the overthrow of global imperialism and capitalism. In this, they disagreed with the official line of the Soviet government and Comintern. Officials in Moscow desired greater control over the CCP and removed Li from power by calling him to Russia for an inquest into his errors.[109] They replaced him with Soviet-educated Chinese Communists, known as the "28 Bolsheviks", two of whom, Bo Gu and Zhang Wentian, took control of the Central Committee. Mao disagreed with the new leadership, believing they grasped little of the Chinese situation, and he soon emerged as their key rival.[110][111] Military parade at the founding of a Chinese Soviet Republic in 1931 In February 1930, Mao created the Southwest Jiangxi Provincial Soviet Government in the region under his control.[112] In November, he suffered emotional trauma after his second wife Yang Kaihui and sister were captured and beheaded by KMT general He Jian.[113] Facing internal problems, members of the Jiangxi Soviet accused him of being too moderate, and hence anti-revolutionary. In December, they tried to overthrow Mao, resulting in the Futian incident, during which Mao's loyalists tortured many and executed between 2000 and 3000 dissenters.[114] The CCP Central Committee moved to Jiangxi which it saw as a secure area. In November, it proclaimed Jiangxi to be the Soviet Republic of China, an independent Communist-governed state. Although he was proclaimed Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, Mao's power was diminished, as his control of the Red Army was allocated to Zhou Enlai. Meanwhile, Mao recovered from tuberculosis.[115] The KMT armies adopted a policy of encirclement and annihilation of the Red armies. Outnumbered, Mao responded with guerrilla tactics influenced by the works of ancient military strategists like Sun Tzu, but Zhou and the new leadership followed a policy of open confrontation and conventional warfare. In doing so, the Red Army successfully defeated the first and second encirclements.[116][117] Angered at his armies' failure, Chiang Kai-shek personally arrived to lead the operation. He too faced setbacks and retreated to deal with the further Japanese incursions into China.[118] As a result of the KMT's change of focus to the defence of China against Japanese expansionism, the Red Army was able to expand its area of control, eventually encompassing a population of 3 million.[117] Mao proceeded with his land reform program. In November 1931 he announced the start of a "land verification project" which was expanded in June 1933. He also orchestrated education programs and implemented measures to increase female political participation.[119] Chiang viewed the Communists as a greater threat than the Japanese and returned to Jiangxi, where he initiated the fifth encirclement campaign, which involved the construction of a concrete and barbed wire "wall of fire" around the state, which was accompanied by aerial bombardment, to which Zhou's tactics proved ineffective. Trapped inside, morale among the Red Army dropped as food and medicine became scarce. The leadership decided to evacuate.[120] Long March: 1934–1935 An overview map of the Long March Triumvirate of Zhou Enlai, Mao Zedong, and Zhu De during the Long March. On 14 October 1934, the Red Army broke through the KMT line on the Jiangxi Soviet's south-west corner at Xinfeng with 85,000 soldiers and 15,000 party cadres and embarked on the "Long March". In order to make the escape, many of the wounded and the ill, as well as women and children, were left behind, defended by a group of guerrilla fighters whom the KMT massacred.[121] The 100,000 who escaped headed to southern Hunan, first crossing the Xiang River after heavy fighting,[122] and then the Wu River, in Guizhou where they took Zunyi in January 1935. Temporarily resting in the city, they held a conference; here, Mao was elected to a position of leadership, becoming Chairman of the Politburo, and de facto leader of both Party and Red Army, in part because his candidacy was supported by Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin. Insisting that they operate as a guerrilla force, he laid out a destination: the Shenshi Soviet in Shaanxi, Northern China, from where the Communists could focus on fighting the Japanese. Mao believed that in focusing on the anti-imperialist struggle, the Communists would earn the trust of the Chinese people, who in turn would renounce the KMT.[123] From Zunyi, Mao led his troops to Loushan Pass, where they faced armed opposition but successfully crossed the river. Chiang flew into the area to lead his armies against Mao, but the Communists outmanoeuvred him and crossed the Jinsha River.[124] Faced with the more difficult task of crossing the Tatu River, they managed it by fighting a battle over the Luding Bridge in May, taking Luding.[125] Marching through the mountain ranges around Ma'anshan,[126] in Moukung, Western Sichuan, they encountered the 50,000-strong CCP Fourth Front Army of Zhang Guotao, and together proceeded to Maoerhkai and then Gansu. Zhang and Mao disagreed over what to do; the latter wished to proceed to Shaanxi, while Zhang wanted to retreat west to Tibet or Sikkim, far from the KMT threat. It was agreed that they would go their separate ways, with Zhu De joining Zhang.[127] Mao's forces proceeded north, through hundreds of kilometres of grasslands, an area of quagmire where they were attacked by Manchu tribesman and where many soldiers succumbed to famine and disease.[128] Finally reaching Shaanxi, they fought off both the KMT and an Islamic cavalry militia before crossing the Min Mountains and Mount Liupan and reaching the Shenshi Soviet; only 7,000–8,000 had survived.[129] The Long March cemented Mao's status as the dominant figure in the party. In November 1935, he was named chairman of the Military Commission. From this point onward, Mao was the Communist Party's undisputed leader, even though he would not become party chairman until 1943.[130] Alliance with the Kuomintang: 1935–1940 Main article: Second Sino-Japanese War Zhang Guotao (left) and Mao in Yan'an, 1937 Mao's troops arrived at the Yan'an Soviet during October 1935 and settled in Pao An, until spring 1936. While there, they developed links with local communities, redistributed and farmed the land, offered medical treatment, and began literacy programs.[131] Mao now commanded 15,000 soldiers, boosted by the arrival of He Long's men from Hunan and the armies of Zhu De and Zhang Guotao returned from Tibet.[132] In February 1936, they established the North West Anti-Japanese Red Army University in Yan'an, through which they trained increasing numbers of new recruits.[133] In January 1937, they began the "anti-Japanese expedition", that sent groups of guerrilla fighters into Japanese-controlled territory to undertake sporadic attacks.[134] In May 1937, a Communist Conference was held in Yan'an to discuss the situation.[135] Western reporters also arrived in the "Border Region" (as the Soviet had been renamed); most notable were Edgar Snow, who used his experiences as a basis for Red Star Over China, and Agnes Smedley, whose accounts brought international attention to Mao's cause.[136] In an effort to defeat the Japanese, Mao (left) agreed to collaborate with Chiang (right). Mao in 1938, writing On Protracted War On the Long March, Mao's wife He Zizhen had been injured by a shrapnel wound to the head. She travelled to Moscow for medical treatment; Mao proceeded to divorce her and marry an actress, Jiang Qing.[137][138] He Zizhen was reportedly "dispatched to a mental asylum in Moscow to make room" for Qing.[139] Mao moved into a cave-house and spent much of his time reading, tending his garden and theorising.[140] He came to believe that the Red Army alone was unable to defeat the Japanese, and that a Communist-led "government of national defence" should be formed with the KMT and other "bourgeois nationalist" elements to achieve this goal.[141] Although despising Chiang Kai-shek as a "traitor to the nation",[142] on 5 May, he telegrammed the Military Council of the Nanjing National Government proposing a military alliance, a course of action advocated by Stalin.[143] Although Chiang intended to ignore Mao's message and continue the civil war, he was arrested by one of his own generals, Zhang Xueliang, in Xi'an, leading to the Xi'an Incident; Zhang forced Chiang to discuss the issue with the Communists, resulting in the formation of a United Front with concessions on both sides on 25 December 1937.[144] The Japanese had taken both Shanghai and Nanjing—resulting in the Nanjing Massacre, an atrocity Mao never spoke of all his life—and was pushing the Kuomintang government inland to Chongqing.[145] The Japanese's brutality led to increasing numbers of Chinese joining the fight, and the Red Army grew from 50,000 to 500,000.[146][147] In August 1938, the Red Army formed the New Fourth Army and the Eighth Route Army, which were nominally under the command of Chiang's National Revolutionary Army.[148] In August 1940, the Red Army initiated the Hundred Regiments Offensive, in which 400,000 troops attacked the Japanese simultaneously in five provinces. It was a military success that resulted in the death of 20,000 Japanese, the disruption of railways and the loss of a coal mine.[147][149] From his base in Yan'an, Mao authored several texts for his troops, including Philosophy of Revolution, which offered an introduction to the Marxist theory of knowledge; Protracted Warfare, which dealt with guerrilla and mobile military tactics; and On New Democracy, which laid forward ideas for China's future.[150] Mao with Kang Sheng in Yan'an, 1945 Resuming civil war: 1940–1949 In 1944, the U.S. sent a special diplomatic envoy, called the Dixie Mission, to the Chinese Communist Party. The American soldiers who were sent to the mission were favourably impressed. The party seemed less corrupt, more unified, and more vigorous in its resistance to Japan than the Kuomintang. The soldiers confirmed to their superiors that the party was both strong and popular over a broad area.[151] In the end of the mission, the contacts which the U.S. developed with the Chinese Communist Party led to very little.[151] After the end of World War II, the U.S. continued their diplomatic and military assistance to Chiang Kai-shek and his KMT government forces against the People's Liberation Army (PLA) led by Mao Zedong during the civil war and abandoned the idea of a coalition government which would include the CCP.[152] Likewise, the Soviet Union gave support to Mao by occupying north-eastern China, and secretly giving it to the Chinese communists in March 1946.[153] PLA troops, supported by captured M5 Stuart light tanks, attacking the Nationalist lines in 1948 In 1948, under direct orders from Mao, the People's Liberation Army starved out the Kuomintang forces occupying the city of Changchun. At least 160,000 civilians are believed to have perished during the siege, which lasted from June until October. PLA lieutenant colonel Zhang Zhenglu, who documented the siege in his book White Snow, Red Blood, compared it to Hiroshima: "The casualties were about the same. Hiroshima took nine seconds; Changchun took five months."[154] On 21 January 1949, Kuomintang forces suffered great losses in decisive battles against Mao's forces.[155] In the early morning of 10 December 1949, PLA troops laid siege to Chongqing and Chengdu on mainland China, and Chiang Kai-shek fled from the mainland to Taiwan.[155][156] Leadership of China Establishment of the People's Republic of China Mao declares the founding of the People's Republic of China on 1 October 1949 Mao proclaimed the establishment of the People's Republic of China from the Gate of Heavenly Peace (Tian'anmen) on 1 October 1949, and later that week declared "The Chinese people have stood up" (中国人民从此站起�了).[157] Mao went to Moscow for long talks in the winter of 1949–50. Mao initiated the talks which focused on the political and economic revolution in China, foreign policy, railways, naval bases, and Soviet economic and technical aid. The resulting treaty reflected Stalin's dominance and his willingness to help Mao.[158][159] Mao's views as a Marxist were strongly influenced by Lenin, particularly with regard to the vanguardism.[160] Mao believed that only the correct leadership of the Communist Party could advance China into socialism.[160] Conversely, Mao also believed that mass movements and mass criticism were necessary in order to check the bureaucracy.[160] Mao with his fourth wife, Jiang Qing, called "Madame Mao", 1946 Korean War Mao pushed the Party to organise campaigns to reform society and extend control. These campaigns were given urgency in October 1950, when Mao made the decision to send the People's Volunteer Army, a special unit of the People's Liberation Army, into the Korean War and fight as well as to reinforce the armed forces of North Korea, the Korean People's Army, which had been in full retreat. The United States placed a trade embargo on the People's Republic as a result of its involvement in the Korean War, lasting until Richard Nixon's improvements of relations. At least 180 thousand Chinese troops died during the war.[161] Mao directed operations to the minutest detail. As the Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), he was also the Supreme Commander in Chief of the PLA and the People's Republic and Chairman of the Party. Chinese troops in Korea were under the overall command of then newly installed Premier Zhou Enlai, with General Peng Dehuai as field commander and political commissar.[162] Social Reform During the land reform campaigns, large numbers of landlords and rich peasants were beaten to death at mass meetings organised by the Communist Party as land was taken from them and given to poorer peasants, which significantly reduced economic inequality.[163][164] The Campaign to Suppress Counter-revolutionaries[165] targeted bureaucratic bourgeoisie, such as compradors, merchants and Kuomintang officials who were seen by the party as economic parasites or political enemies.[166] In 1976, the U.S. State Department estimated as many as a million were killed in the land reform, and 800,000 killed in the counter-revolutionary campaign.[167] Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 people were killed in attacks on "counter-revolutionaries" during the years 1950–1952.[168] Because there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution",[169] the number of deaths range between 2 million[169][170][165] and 5 million.[171][172] In addition, at least 1.5 million people,[173] perhaps as many as 4 to 6 million,[174] were sent to "reform through labour" camps where many perished.[174] Mao played a personal role in organising the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas,[175] which were often exceeded.[165] He defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power.[176] Mao at Joseph Stalin's 70th birthday celebration in Moscow, December 1949 The Mao government is credited with eradicating both consumption and production of opium during the 1950s using unrestrained repression and social reform.[177][178] Ten million addicts were forced into compulsory treatment, dealers were executed, and opium-producing regions were planted with new crops. Remaining opium production shifted south of the Chinese border into the Golden Triangle region.[178] Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns Starting in 1951, Mao initiated two successive movements in an effort to rid urban areas of corruption by targeting wealthy capitalists and political opponents, known as the Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns. Whereas the three-anti campaign was a focused purge of government, industrial and party officials, the five-anti campaign set its sights slightly broader, targeting capitalist elements in general.[179] Workers denounced their bosses, spouses turned on their spouses, and children informed on their parents; the victims were often humiliated at struggle sessions, where a targeted person would be verbally and physically abused until they confessed to crimes. Mao insisted that minor offenders be criticised and reformed or sent to labour camps, "while the worst among them should be shot". These campaigns took several hundred thousand additional lives, the vast majority via suicide.[180] Mao and Zhou Enlai meeting with the Dalai Lama (right) and Panchen Lama (left) to celebrate the Tibetan New Year, Beijing, 1955 In Shanghai, suicide by jumping from tall buildings became so commonplace that residents avoided walking on the pavement near skyscrapers for fear that suicides might land on them.[181] Some biographers have pointed out that driving those perceived as enemies to suicide was a common tactic during the Mao-era. In his biography of Mao, Philip Short notes that Mao gave explicit instructions in the Yan'an Rectification Movement that "no cadre is to be killed" but in practice allowed security chief Kang Sheng to drive opponents to suicide and that "this pattern was repeated throughout his leadership of the People's Republic".[182] Photo of Mao sitting, published in "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung", ca. 1955 Five-year plans of China Following the consolidation of power, Mao launched the first five-year plan (1953–1958), which emphasised rapid industrial development. Within industry, iron and steel, electric power, coal, heavy engineering, building materials, and basic chemicals were prioritised with the aim of constructing large and highly capital-intensive plants. Many of these plants were built with Soviet assistance and heavy industry grew rapidly.[183] Agriculture, industry and trade was organised on a collective basis (socialist cooperatives).[184] This period marked the beginning of China's rapid industrialisation and it resulted in an enormous success.[185] Despite being initially sympathetic towards the reformist government of Imre Nagy, Mao feared the "reactionary restoration" in Hungary as the Hungarian crisis continued and became more hardline. Mao opposed the withdrawal of Soviet troops by asking Liu Shaoqi to inform the Soviet representatives to use military intervention against "Western imperialist-backed" protestors and Nagy's government. However, it was unclear if Mao's stance played a crucial role, if any role, in Khrushchev's decision to invade Hungary. It was also unclear if China was forced to conform to the Soviet position due to economic concerns and China's poor power projections compared to the USSR. Despite his disagreements with Moscow's hegemony in the Socialist Camp, Mao viewed the integrity of the international communist movement as more important than the national autonomy of the countries in the Soviet sphere of influence. The Hungarian Revolution also influenced Mao's Hundred Flowers Campaign. Mao decided to soften his stance on Chinese intelligentsia and allow them to express their social dissatisfaction and criticisms of the errors of the government. Mao wanted to use this movement to prevent a similar uprising in China. However, as people in China began to criticize the CCP's policies and Mao's leadership following the Hundred Flowers Campaign, Mao cracked down the movement he initiated and compared it to the "counter-revolutionary" Hungarian Revolution.[186] Programs pursued during this time include the Hundred Flowers Campaign, in which Mao indicated his supposed willingness to consider different opinions about how China should be governed. Given the freedom to express themselves, liberal and intellectual Chinese began opposing the Communist Party and questioning its leadership. This was initially tolerated and encouraged. After a few months, Mao's government reversed its policy and persecuted those who had criticised the party, totalling perhaps 500,000,[187] as well as those who were merely alleged to have been critical, in what is called the Anti-Rightist Movement. The movement led to the persecution of at least 550,000 people, mostly intellectuals and dissidents.[188] Li Zhisui, Mao's physician, suggested that Mao had initially seen the policy as a way of weakening opposition to him within the party and that he was surprised by the extent of criticism and the fact that it came to be directed at his own leadership.[189] Military projects Under Mao's "Two Bombs, One Satellite" program, China developed the atomic and hydrogen bombs in record time and launched a satellite only a few years after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik.[190]: 218  Project 523 (Chinese: 523项目)[191] is a code name for a 1967 secret military project of the People's Republic of China to find antimalarial medications.[192] Named after the date the project launched, 23 May, it addressed malaria, an important threat in the Vietnam War. At the behest of Ho Chi Minh, Prime Minister of North Vietnam, Zhou Enlai convinced Mao Zedong to start the mass project "to keep [the] allies' troops combat-ready", as the meeting minutes put it. More than 500 Chinese scientists were recruited. The project was divided into three streams.[193] The one for investigating traditional Chinese medicine discovered and led to the development of a class of new antimalarial drugs called artemisinins.[193][194] Launched during and lasting throughout the Cultural Revolution, Project 523 was officially terminated in 1981. Great Leap Forward Main article: Great Leap Forward Mao with Nikita Khrushchev, Ho Chi Minh, and Soong Ching-ling during a state dinner in Beijing, 1959 In January 1958, Mao launched the second five-year plan, known as the Great Leap Forward, a plan intended to turn China from an agrarian nation to an industrialised one[195] and as an alternative model for economic growth to the Soviet model focusing on heavy industry that was advocated by others in the party. Under this economic program, the relatively small agricultural collectives that had been formed to date were rapidly merged into far larger people's communes, and many of the peasants were ordered to work on massive infrastructure projects and on the production of iron and steel. Some private food production was banned, and livestock and farm implements were brought under collective ownership.[196] Under the Great Leap Forward, Mao and other party leaders ordered the implementation of a variety of unproven and unscientific new agricultural techniques by the new communes. The combined effect of the diversion of labour to steel production and infrastructure projects, and cyclical natural disasters led to an approximately 15% drop in grain production in 1959 followed by a further 10% decline in 1960 and no recovery in 1961.[197] In an effort to win favour with their superiors and avoid being purged, each layer in the party exaggerated the amount of grain produced under them. Based upon the falsely reported success, party cadres were ordered to requisition a disproportionately high amount of that fictitious harvest for state use, primarily for use in the cities and urban areas but also for export. The result, compounded in some areas by drought and in others by floods, was that farmers were left with little food for themselves and many millions starved to death in the Great Chinese Famine. The people of urban areas in China were given food stamps each month, but the people of rural areas were expected to grow their own crops and give some of the crops back to the government. The death count in rural parts of China surpassed the deaths in the urban centers. Additionally, the Chinese government continued to export food that could have been allocated to the country's starving citizens.[198] The famine was a direct cause of the death of some 30 million Chinese peasants between 1959 and 1962.[199] Furthermore, many children who became malnourished during years of hardship died after the Great Leap Forward came to an end in 1962.[197] In late autumn 1958, Mao condemned the practices that were being used during Great Leap Forward such as forcing peasants to do exhausting labour without enough food or rest which resulted in epidemics and starvation. He also acknowledged that anti-rightist campaigns were a major cause of "production at the expense of livelihood." He refused to abandon the Great Leap Forward to solve these difficulties, but he did demand that they be confronted. After the July 1959 clash at Lushan Conference with Peng Dehuai, Mao launched a new anti-rightist campaign along with the radical policies that he previously abandoned. It wasn't until the spring of 1960, that Mao would again express concern about abnormal deaths and other abuses, but he did not move to stop them. Bernstein concludes that the Chairman "wilfully ignored the lessons of the first radical phase for the sake of achieving extreme ideological and developmental goals".[200] Jasper Becker notes that Mao was dismissive of reports he received of food shortages in the countryside and refused to change course, believing that peasants were lying and that rightists and kulaks were hoarding grain. He refused to open state granaries,[201] and instead launched a series of "anti-grain concealment" drives that resulted in numerous purges and suicides.[202] Other violent campaigns followed in which party leaders went from village to village in search of hidden food reserves, and not only grain, as Mao issued quotas for pigs, chickens, ducks and eggs. Many peasants accused of hiding food were tortured and beaten to death.[203] The extent of Mao's knowledge of the severity of the situation has been disputed. Mao's personal physician, Li Zhisui, said that Mao may have been unaware of the extent of the famine, partly due to a reluctance of local officials to criticise his policies, and the willingness of his staff to exaggerate or outright fake reports.[204] Li writes that upon learning of the extent of the starvation, Mao vowed to stop eating meat, an action followed by his staff.[205] Mao shaking hands with a people's commune farmer, 1959 Mao stepped down as President of China on 27 April 1959; however, he retained other top positions such as Chairman of the Communist Party and of the Central Military Commission.[206] The Presidency was transferred to Liu Shaoqi.[206] He was eventually forced to abandon the policy in 1962, and he lost political power to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.[207] The Great Leap Forward was a tragedy for the vast majority of the Chinese. Although the steel quotas were officially reached, almost all of the supposed steel made in the countryside was iron, as it had been made from assorted scrap metal in home-made furnaces with no reliable source of fuel such as coal. This meant that proper smelting conditions could not be achieved. According to Zhang Rongmei, a geometry teacher in rural Shanghai during the Great Leap Forward: "We took all the furniture, pots, and pans we had in our house, and all our neighbours did likewise. We put everything in a big fire and melted down all the metal".[citation needed] The worst of the famine was steered towards enemies of the state.[208] Jasper Becker explains: "The most vulnerable section of China's population, around five percent, were those whom Mao called 'enemies of the people'. Anyone who had in previous campaigns of repression been labeled a 'black element' was given the lowest priority in the allocation of food. Landlords, rich peasants, former members of the nationalist regime, religious leaders, rightists, counter-revolutionaries and the families of such individuals died in the greatest numbers."[209] According to official Chinese statistics for Second Five-Year Plan (1958–1962):"industrial output value value had doubled; the gross value of agricultural products increased by 35 percent; steel production in 1962 was between 10.6 million tons or 12 million tons; investment in capital construction rose to 40 percent from 35 percent in the First Five-Year Plan period; the investment in capital construction was doubled; and the average income of workers and farmers increased by up to 30 percent."[210] At a large Communist Party conference in Beijing in January 1962, dubbed the "Seven Thousand Cadres Conference", State Chairman Liu Shaoqi denounced the Great Leap Forward, attributing the project to widespread famine in China.[211] The overwhelming majority of delegates expressed agreement, but Defense Minister Lin Biao staunchly defended Mao.[211] A brief period of liberalisation followed while Mao and Lin plotted a comeback.[211] Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping rescued the economy by disbanding the people's communes, introducing elements of private control of peasant smallholdings and importing grain from Canada and Australia to mitigate the worst effects of famine.[212] Mao with Henry Kissinger and Zhou Enlai, Beijing, 1972 At the Lushan Conference in July/August 1959, several ministers expressed concern that the Great Leap Forward had not proved as successful as planned. The most direct of these was Minister of Defence and Korean War veteran General Peng Dehuai. Following Peng's criticism of the Great Leap Forward, Mao orchestrated a purge of Peng and his supporters, stifling criticism of the Great Leap policies. Senior officials who reported the truth of the famine to Mao were branded as "right opportunists."[213] A campaign against right-wing opportunism was launched and resulted in party members and ordinary peasants being sent to prison labour camps where many would subsequently die in the famine. Years later the CCP would conclude that as many as six million people were wrongly punished in the campaign.[214] The number of deaths by starvation during the Great Leap Forward is deeply controversial. Until the mid-1980s, when official census figures were finally published by the Chinese Government, little was known about the scale of the disaster in the Chinese countryside, as the handful of Western observers allowed access during this time had been restricted to model villages where they were deceived into believing that the Great Leap Forward had been a great success. There was also an assumption that the flow of individual reports of starvation that had been reaching the West, primarily through Hong Kong and Taiwan, must have been localised or exaggerated as China was continuing to claim record harvests and was a net exporter of grain through the period. Because Mao wanted to pay back early to the Soviets debts totalling 1.973 billion yuan from 1960 to 1962,[215] exports increased by 50%, and fellow Communist regimes in North Korea, North Vietnam and Albania were provided grain free of charge.[201] Censuses were carried out in China in 1953, 1964 and 1982. The first attempt to analyse this data to estimate the number of famine deaths was carried out by American demog

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ John Henry Faulk (August 21, 1913 – April 9, 1990) was an American storyteller and radio show host. His successful lawsuit against the entertainment industry helped to bring an end to the Hollywood blacklist. Early life John Henry Faulk was born in Austin, Texas, to Methodist parents Henry Faulk and his wife Martha Miner Faulk. John Henry had four siblings.[1][2] Faulk spent his childhood years in Austin in the noted Victorian house Green Pastures. A journalist acquaintance from Austin has written that the two of them came from "extremely similar family backgrounds – the old Southern wealth with rich heritage and families dedicated to civil rights long before it was hip to fight racism."[3] Education and military service Faulk enrolled at the University of Texas in Austin in 1932. He became a protégé of J. Frank Dobie, Walter Prescott Webb, Roy Bedichek, and Mody C. Boatright, enabling Faulk to hone his skills as a folklorist. He earned a master's degree in folklore with his thesis "Ten Negro Sermons". He further began to craft his oratory style as a part-time English teacher at the university 1940–1942, relating Texas folk tales peppered with his gift of character impersonations.[2][4] He was initially unfit for service with the United States Army because of an eye problem. Instead, Faulk joined the Merchant Marine in 1942 for a one-year stint,[3] spending 1943 in Cairo, Egypt, serving the American Red Cross. World War II had caused the United States Army to relax its enlistment standards, and Faulk finally enlisted in 1944. He served as a medic at Camp Swift, Texas.[2] During this period, Faulk also joined the American Civil Liberties Union.[4] Career While a soldier at Camp Swift, Faulk began writing his own radio scripts. An acquaintance facilitated an interview for him at WCBS in New York City. The network executives were sufficiently impressed to offer him his own radio show. Upon his 1946 discharge from the Army, Faulk began his Johnny's Front Porch radio show for WCBS. The show featured Faulk's characterizations that he had been developing since his university years.[4][5] Faulk eventually went to another radio station, but returned to WCBS for a four-hour morning talk show. The John Henry Faulk Show ran for six years.[6] His radio successes provided opportunity for him to appear as himself on television, in shows including the 1951 Mark Goodson and William Todman game show It's News to Me, hosted by John Charles Daly.[7][8] He also appeared on Leave It to the Girls in 1953 and The Name's the Same in 1955.[9] Cactus Pryor met Faulk in the studios of KLBJ (then KTBC) where Faulk stopped by to thank Pryor for letting his mother hear his New York show. Pryor had been "accidentally" broadcasting Faulk's radio show in Texas where Faulk was not otherwise heard. Although the broadcast happened repeatedly, Pryor always claimed he just hit the wrong button in the studio. Pryor visited Faulk at a Manhattan apartment he shared with Alan Lomax and became introduced to the movers and shakers of the East Coast celebrity scene of that era. When Pryor stood by Faulk during the blacklisting and tried to find him work, Pryor's children were harassed, a prominent Austin physician circulated a letter questioning Pryor's patriotism, and an Austin attorney tried to convince Lyndon B. Johnson to discharge Pryor from the airwaves. The Pryor family and the Faulk family remained close and supportive of each other for the rest of Faulk's life.[10][11] In December 1955, Faulk was elected second vice president of the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). Orson Bean was the first vice president and Charles Collingwood was the president of the union.[12] Collingwood, Bean, and Faulk were part of a middle-of-the-road slate of non-communist, anti-AWARE organization candidates that Faulk had helped draft. Twenty-seven of thirty-five vacant seats on the board went to the middle-of-the-road slate.[13] Faulk's public position during the campaign had been that the union should be focused on jobs and security, not blacklisting of members.[3][14] In the 1970s in Austin, he was also befriended by the young co-editor of the Texas Observer, Molly Ivins, and became an early supporter of hers.[15] Blacklist controversy Faulk's radio career at CBS[3] ended in 1957, a victim of the Cold War and the blacklisting of the 1950s. AWARE, Inc., a for-profit corporation inspired by Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, offered a "clearance" service to major media advertisers and radio and television networks; for a fee, AWARE would investigate the backgrounds of entertainers for signs of Communist sympathy or affiliation. In 1955, Faulk earned the ill will of the blacklisting organization when other members and he wrested control of their union, the AFTRA, from officers backed by AWARE. In reprisal, AWARE labeled Faulk a communist.[16] When he discovered that AWARE was actively keeping radio stations from offering him employment, Faulk sought compensation. Several prominent radio personalities along with CBS News vice president Edward R. Murrow supported Faulk's attempt to put an end to blacklisting. With financial backing from Murrow, Faulk engaged New York attorney Louis Nizer. Attorneys for AWARE, including McCarthy-committee counsel Roy Cohn, managed to stall the suit, originally filed in 1957, for five years. When the trial finally concluded in a New York courtroom, the jury had determined that Faulk should receive more compensation than he sought in his original petition. On June 28, 1962, the jury awarded him the largest libel judgment in history to that date — $3.5 million.[16] An appeals court lowered the amount to $500,000. Legal fees and accumulated debts erased most of the balance of the award.[16] He netted some $75,000.[17] Faulk's book, Fear on Trial, published in 1963, tells the story of the experience. The book was remade into an Emmy Award-winning TV movie in 1975 by CBS Television with William Devane portraying Faulk and George C. Scott playing Faulk's lawyer, Louis Nizer. Other supporters in the blacklist struggle included radio pioneer and Wimberley, Texas, native Parks Johnson, and reporter and CBS television news anchor Walter Cronkite.[3] Personal life and death In 1940, John Henry Faulk and Harriet Elizabeth ("Hally") Wood, a music student at the University of Texas Fine Arts School, were married, six weeks after they met.[4] The marriage ended in divorce in 1947; the couple had one daughter, Cynthia Tannehill. In 1948, Faulk and New Yorker Lynne Smith were married some six weeks after they met. That marriage also ended in divorce because of fallout from the blacklisting upheaval. Faulk and Smith had two daughters, Johanna and Evelyn, and one son, Frank Dobie Faulk.[18] In 1965, Faulk and Elizabeth Peake were married; they had one son, John Henry Faulk III.[2] John Henry Faulk died in Austin of cancer on April 9, 1990, and is interred there at Oakwood Cemetery. Austin restaurateur Mary Faulk Koock (1910–1996) was Faulk's sister.[19] Awards and tributes (1980) "The Ballad of John Henry Faulk", by artist Phil Ochs, is on his album The Broadside Tapes 1, Folkways Records.[20] (1983) Faulk was the recipient of a Paul Robeson Award, which recognizes exemplification of principles by which Paul Robeson lived his life.[21] (1995) John Henry Faulk Public Library, the main branch of the Austin Public Library, originally named Central Library when constructed in 1979, was renamed to honor Faulk.[22] The John Henry Faulk Award, Tejas Storytelling Association, is presented annually in Denton, Texas, to the individual who has made a significant contribution to the art of storytelling in the Southwest.[23] Film and television credits Film All the Way Home (1963) – Walter Starr The Best Man (1964) – Governor T.T. Claypoole Lovin' Molly (1974) – Mr. Grinsom The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) – Storyteller Leadbelly (1976) – Governor Neff Trespasses (1986) – Doctor Silver (final film role) Television It's News to Me (1951–1954) – Self Leave It to the Girls (Oct 3, 1953) – Self The Name's the Same (Feb 21, 1955) – Self For the People (1965) – Reynolds Fear on Trial (1975) – Writer, biographical film of John Henry Faulk Hee Haw (1975–1982) – Self Adam (1983) – Strom Thurmond Cronkite Remembers (1997) – Uncredited archive footage Discography John Henry Faulk, recordings of Negro religious services. Part 1 [sound recording] (July 1941) 47 sound discs : analog, 33 1/3 and 78 rpm; 12 in. John Henry Faulk recordings of Negro religious services. Part 2 [sound recording] (Aug–Sept 1941) 42 sound discs : analog, 33 1/3 rpm; 12 in. John Henry Faulk Texas recordings collection [sound recording] (Oct–Nov 1941) 33 sound discs : analog, 33 1/3 rpm; 12 in. John Henry Faulk collection of Texas prison songs [sound recording] (1942) 10 sound discs : analog, 78 rpm; 12 in. + documentation. John Henry Faulk and others, "Man-on-the-Street" interviews collection [sound recording] (1941) 6 sound discs : analog; 16 in.; 15 sound discs : analog; 12 in. American people speak on the war [sound recording] (1941) 1 sound disc (ca. 15 min.) : analog, 33 1/3 rpm; 16 in. The people speak to the president, or, Dear, Mr. President [sound recording] (1942) 1 sound disc : analog, 33 1/3 rpm; 16 in. CBS news with Stuart Metz.[sound recording]. (May 13, 1957) 1 sound tape reel (5 min.) : analog, 7 1/2 ips, full track, mono.; 7 in John Henry Faulk show (May 13, 1957) 1 sound tape reel (25 min.) : analog, 7 1/2 ips, full track, mono.; 7 in Blacklist: a failure in political imagination [Sound recording] (1960) reel. 7 in. 3 3/4 ips. 1/2 track. cassette. 2 1/2 × 4 in Help unsell the war. American report [sound recording] (1972) 1 sound disc : analog, 33 1/3 rpm; 12 in Selected radio programs from The Larry King show [sound recording] (1982–1985) 116 sound cassettes : analog African-American Slave Audio Recordings (2008) Radio appearances and speeches Faulk recorded his "Christmas Story" in 1974 for the NPR program Voices in the Wind. Faulk made speeches on the First Amendment and civil rights for many colleges and universities. Bibliography Faulk, John Henry (1940). Quickened by De Spurit; Ten Negro Sermons. Faulk, John Henry (1983) [1964]. Fear on Trial. Reprint. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-72442-6. Faulk, John Henry (1983). The Uncensored John Henry Faulk. Texas Monthly Press. ISBN 978-0-87719-013-4. Faulk, John Henry (1987). To Secure the Blessings of Liberty. Univ of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-78095-8. Plays Deep in the Heart (one-man play) Pear Orchard, Texas (one-man play) Further reading "John Henry Faulk Papers". Dolph Briscoe Center for American History, The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved October 30, 2013. Gerard, Jeremy (April 10, 1990). "John Henry Faulk, 76, Dies; Humorist Who Challenged Blacklist". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2011. Nizer, Louis (1966). The Jury Returns. Doubleday & Company Inc. Burton, Michael C. John Henry Faulk: The Making of a Liberated Mind: A Biography. Austin: Eakin Press, 1993. ISBN 0-89015-923-8 Moyers, Bill (1990). A World of Ideas II. Main Street Books. ISBN 978-0-385-41665-8. Drake, Chris (2007). You Gotta Stand Up: The Life and High Times of John Henry Faulk. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84718-164-0. Biography portalRadio portaliconTelevision portaliconComedy portalflagTexas portal References "Texana Faulk Conn". 4 Hearing Loss. Archived from the original on July 7, 2011. Retrieved January 31, 2011. Foshee, Page S. "John Henry Faulk". Handbook of Texas Online. Texas State Historical Association. Retrieved January 31, 2011. "As Faulk learned, Cronkite was giving behind the scenes" by Charles McClure, Lake Travis [TX] View, July 29, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2009. McClure writes that his own father shared the same professors with Faulk at UT. Lief, Caldwell (2004) p.122 Lief, Caldwell (2004) p.109 Lief, Caldwell (2004) p.123 McDermott, Mark. "Mark Goodson and Bill Todman". The Museum of Broadcast Communications. Archived from the original on May 14, 2013. Retrieved February 1, 2011. Grace, Roger M (February 23, 2003). "TV Anchors Host Game Shows". Metropolitan News Company. Retrieved February 1, 2011. Timberg, Erler (2002) p.232 Pryor, Cactus (March 1992). "He Called Me Puddin'". Texas Monthly: 101, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137. Biffle (1993) p.227 Sterling (2003) p.270 Foerstel (1997) p.77 Smith, Ostroff, Wright (1998) p.60 "Troublemaker" Book review by Lloyd Grove, The New York Times Book Review, December 24, 2009 (December 27, 2009, p. BR17 of NY ed.). Book reviewed: Molly Ivins: A Rebel Life by Bill Minutaglio and W. Michael Smith, illustrated, 335 pp. PublicAffairs. Ivins, Molly (July–August 1990). "Johnny's Fight". Mother Jones: 8, 9. "Humorist will address United Way volunteers", Minden Press-Herald, Minden, Louisiana, September 19, 1984, p. 2B Gerard, Jeremy (April 10, 1990). "John Henry Faulk, 76, Dies; Humorist Who Challenged Blacklist". The New York Times. Retrieved February 1, 2011. Koock, Mary Faulk (2001). The Texas Cookbook: From Barbecue to Banquet-an Informal View of Dining and Entertaining the Texas Way. University of North Texas Press. p. Back cover. ISBN 978-1-57441-136-2. "The Broadside Tapes 1". Phil Ochs discography. Discogs. Retrieved January 31, 2011. "Paul Robeson Award". Actor's Equity Association. Archived from the original on December 12, 2010. Retrieved January 31, 2011. "John Henry Faulk Public Library". City of Austin. Archived from the original on April 24, 2011. Retrieved January 31, 2011. "Tejas-John Henry Faulk Award". Tejas Storytelling Association. Archived from the original on March 16, 2011. Retrieved February 2, 2011. Additional sourcing Berman, Phillip L (1993). The Search for Meaning: Americans Talk About What They Believe and Why. Ballantine Books. ISBN 978-0-345-37777-7. Biffle, Kent (1993). A Month of Sundays. University of North Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-929398-56-3. Foerstel, Herbert N (1997). Free Expression and Censorship in America: An Encyclopedia. Greenwood. ISBN 978-0-313-29231-6. Smith, F. Leslie; Ostroff, David H; Wright, John W II (1998). Perspectives on Radio and Television: Telecommunication in the United States. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-8058-2092-8. Timberg, Bernard; Erler, Bob (2002). Television Talk: A History of the TV Talk Show. University of Texas Press. ISBN 978-0-292-78176-4. Sterling, Christopher H (2003). Encyclopedia of Radio. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-57958-249-4. Lief, Michael S; Caldwell, Harry M (2004). And the Walls Came Tumbling Down: Greatest Closing Arguments Protecting Civil Liberties. Scribner. ISBN 978-0-7432-4666-8. External links John Henry Faulk: The Making of a Liberated Mind, Eakin Press NPR John Henry Faulk's 'Christmas Story' John Henry Faulk at IMDb The Ballad of John Henry Faulk – lyrics by Phil Ochs Tejas Story Telling John Henry Faulk Award Archived March 16, 2011, at the Wayback Machine Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata International FAST ISNI VIAF National Germany Israel United States Netherlands Other SNAC IdRef Categories: 1913 births1990 deaths20th-century American male actorsFree speech activistsHollywood blacklistWriters from Austin, TexasBurials at Oakwood Cemetery (Austin, Texas)

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Ixtoc 1 was an exploratory oil well being drilled by the semi-submersible drilling rig Sedco 135 in the Bay of Campeche of the Gulf of Mexico, about 100 km (62 mi) northwest of Ciudad del Carmen, Campeche in waters 50 m (164 ft) deep.[2] On 3 June 1979, the well suffered a blowout resulting in the largest oil spill in history at its time. To-date, it remains the second largest oil spill in history after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[3] Accident Mexico's state-owned oil company Pemex (Petróleos Mexicanos) was drilling a 3 km (1.9 mi) deep oil well when the drilling rig Sedco 135 lost drilling mud circulation. In modern rotary drilling, mud is circulated down the drillpipe and back up the wellbore to the surface. The goal is to equalize the pressure through the shaft and to monitor the returning mud for gas. Without the counter-pressure provided by the circulating mud, the pressure in the formation allowed oil to fill the well column, blowing out the well. The oil caught fire, and Sedco 135 was extensively burned then scuttled.[2] At the time of the accident, Sedco 135 was drilling at a depth of about 3,600 metres (11,800 ft) below the seafloor.[4] The day before Ixtoc suffered the blowout and resulting fire that caused her to sink, the drill bit hit a region of soft strata. Subsequently, the circulation of drilling mud was lost resulting in a loss of hydrostatic pressure.[5] Rather than returning to the surface, the drilling mud was escaping into fractures that had formed in the rock at the bottom of the hole. Pemex officials decided to remove the bit, run the drill pipe back into the hole and pump materials down this open-ended drill pipe to seal off the fractures that were causing the loss of circulation. During the removal of the pipe on Sedco 135, the dancing mud suddenly began to flow up towards the surface; by removing the drillstring the well was swabbed (an effect observed when mud must flow down the annulus to replace displaced drill pipe volume below the bit) leading to a kick. Normally, this flow can be stopped by activating shear rams contained in the blowout preventer (BOP). These rams are designed to sever and seal off the well on the ocean floor; however, in this case, the drill collars had been brought in line with the BOP and the BOP rams were not able to sever the thick steel walls of the drill collars leading to a catastrophic blowout. The drilling mud was followed by a large quantity of oil and gas at a flow rate that was still increasing. The oil and gas fumes exploded on contact with the operating pump motors, starting a fire which led to the collapse of the Sedco 135 drilling rig riser. The collapse caused damage to the BOP stack at the seafloor. The damage to the BOP led to the release of significant quantities of oil into the Gulf.[4] Volume and extent of spill Spill c. September 1979 In the initial stages of the spill, an estimated 30,000 barrels (5,000 m3) of oil per day were flowing from the well. One barrel of oil is equivalent to 159 liters (or 42 gallons) of liquid. In July 1979, the pumping of mud into the well reduced the flow to 20,000 barrels (3,000 m3) per day, and early in August the pumping of nearly 100,000 steel, iron, and lead balls into the well reduced the flow to 10,000 barrels (2,000 m3) per day. Pemex claimed that half of the released oil burned when it reached the surface, a third of it evaporated, and the rest was contained or dispersed.[6] Mexican authorities also drilled two relief wells into the main well to lower the pressure of the blowout, however, the oil continued to flow for three months following the completion of the first relief well.[7] In total, around 138,600,000 US gallons (3,300,000 barrels) were spilled throughout the roughly 10 months it took for the oil to stop leaking.[8] Pemex contracted Conair Aviation to spray the chemical dispersant Corexit 9527 on the oil. A total of 493 aerial missions were flown, treating 1,100 square miles (2,800 km2) of oil slick. Dispersants were not used in the U.S. area of the spill because of the dispersant's inability to treat weathered oil. Eventually the on-scene coordinator (OSC) requested that Mexico stop using dispersants north of 25°N.[6] In Texas, an emphasis was placed on coastal countermeasures protecting the bays and lagoons formed by the barrier islands. Impacts of oil on the barrier island beaches were ranked as second in importance to protecting inlets to the bays and lagoons. This was done with the placement of skimmers and booms. Efforts were concentrated on the Brazos-Santiago Pass, Port Mansfield Channel, Aransas Pass, and Cedar Bayou which during the spill was sealed with sand. Economically and environmentally sensitive barrier island beaches were cleaned daily. Laborers used rakes and shovels to clean beaches rather than heavier equipment which removed too much sand. Ultimately, 71,500 barrels (11,000 m3) of oil impacted 162 miles (260 km) of U.S. beaches, and over 10,000 cubic yards (8,000 m3) of oiled material were removed.[6] Containment In the next nine months, experts and divers including Red Adair were brought in to contain and cap the oil well.[6] An average of approximately 10,000 to 30,000 barrels (2,000 to 5,000 m3) per day were discharged into the Gulf until it was finally capped on 23 March 1980, nearly 10 months later.[9] In similarity to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 31 years later, the list of methods attempted to remediate the leak included lowering a cap over the well, plugging the leak with mud and "junk", use of dispersants, and spending months attempting to drill relief wells.[10][11] Aftermath Prevailing currents carried the oil towards the Texas coastline. The US government had two months to prepare booms to protect major inlets. Pemex spent $100 million to clean up the spill and avoided most compensation claims by asserting sovereign immunity as a state-run company.[12] The oil slick surrounded Rancho Nuevo, in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which is one of the few nesting sites for Kemp's ridley sea turtles. Thousands of baby sea turtles were airlifted to a clean portion of the Gulf of Mexico to help save the rare species. Long-term effects This article may contain citations that do not verify the text. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please check for citation inaccuracies. (July 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) The oil that was lost during the blow-out polluted a considerable part of the offshore region in the Gulf of Mexico as well as much of the coastal zone, which consists primarily of sandy beaches and barrier islands often enclosing extensive shallow lagoons. The oil on Mexican beaches in early September was calculated to be about 6000 metric tons. Based on reports from various groups and individuals, five times that figure is thought to represent a fair estimate of what had landed on Mexican beaches. Investigations along the Texas coast show that approximately 4000 metric tons of oil or less than 1 percent was deposited there. The rest of the oil, about 120,000 metric tons or 25 percent, sank to the bottom of the Gulf.[13] The oil had a severe impact on the littoral crab and mollusk fauna of the beaches which were contaminated. The populations of crabs, e.g. the ghost crab Ocypode quadrata, was almost eliminated over a wide area. The crab populations on coral islands along the coast were also reduced to only a few percents of the normal populations about nine months after the spill.[13] A study concluded that the most persistent problems were the coastal lagoons lining the bay, as well as the pollution of estuaries. Specifically, they had problematic effects on the breeding and growth of several different species of food fish species.[14] The oil washed ashore, 30 cm (1 ft.) deep in some places, as it was pushed north by prevailing winds and currents until it crossed the Texas border two months later and eventually coated almost 170 miles (270 km) of US beaches. The beach that caused most international concern in Mexico was Rancho Nuevo, a key nesting ground for critically endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtles which had already moved inland in their hundreds to lay eggs. By the time the eggs hatched, the oil had reached the shore. Fishing was banned or restricted by Mexican authorities in contaminated areas north and south of the well. Fish and octopus catches dropped by 50 to 70% from the 1978 levels.[13] Other species that had longer life spans took longer to recover, and it took until the late 1980s for the population of Kemp's ridley turtles to begin to recover. Ridley turtles only produce a few hundred eggs each year, in contrast with the millions of eggs that shrimp lay.[15] There is much less information on the impact of the Ixtoc 1 spill on benthic species (bottom dwellers). The best studies were on the Texas coast over 1000 km from the spill. Massive kills can occur when oil reaches the benthos in sufficient quantity. The only indication of a massive kill may be the remains of the dead organisms, but if they lack hard parts there will be little evidence.[16] A report prepared for the US Bureau of Land Management concluded concerning the spill's effect on US waters: Despite a massive intrusion of petroleum hydrocarbon pollutants from the Ixtoc 1 event into the study region of the South Texas Outer Continental Shelf during 1979-1980, no definitive damage can be associated with this or other known spillage events (e.g., Burmah Agate) on either the epibenthic commercial shrimp population (based on chemical evidence) or the benthic infaunal community. Such conclusions have no bearing on intertidal or littoral communities, which were not the subject of this study.[17] See also flagMexico portaliconEnergy portal List of oil spills Notable offshore well blowouts Deepwater Horizon oil spill Ocean Ranger Piper Alpha References Marshall, Jessica (2010-06-01). "Gulf Oil Spill Not the Biggest Ever". Discovery News. Retrieved 2010-06-14. John Charles Milne (2 Nov 2008). "Sedco 135 Series". OilCity. Archived from the original on 20 December 2008. Retrieved 20 May 2010. Elena Egawhary (7 May 2010). "How big is the Deepwater Horizon oil spill?". BBC News. "oil spilled ... first Iraq War, 1991. ... Although not a single offshore spill, it saw massive oil leaks that easily dwarf Ixtoc 1" Linda Garmon (25 October 1980). "Autopsy of an Oil Spill". Science News. Vol. 118, no. 17. pp. 267–270. "Ixtoc 1 Oil Spill Economic Impact Study" (PDF). Bureau of Land Management. pp. 4–6. Retrieved 2010-05-06. Emergency Response Division Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service. "Ixtoc I". IncidentNews. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. Archived from the original on 3 May 2012. Retrieved 30 May 2010. Robert Campbell (May 24, 2010). "BP's Gulf battle echoes monster '79 Mexico oil spill". Reuters. Julian Miglierini. "Mexicans still haunted by 1979 Ixtoc spill". BBC News. Retrieved April 1, 2020. Emergency Response Division Office of Response and Restoration, National Ocean Service. "Ixtoc I: Countermeasures / Mitigation". IncidentNews. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. Archived from the original on 10 May 2010. Retrieved 30 May 2010. "Catastrophic Thinking: How to Ensure Oil Spill Disasters Do Not Happen Again", Scientific American, July 27, 2010 "The lost legacy of the last great oil spill", Scientific American, July 14, 2010 "BP's Gulf battle echoes monster '79 Mexico oil spill". Reuters. 2010-05-24. Jernelöv, Arne; Lindén, Olof (1981). "The Caribbean: Ixtoc I: A Case Study of the World's Largest Oil Spill". Ambio. 10 (6). Allen Press for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences: 299–306. JSTOR 4312725. Berger, Matthew O.; Godoy, Emilio (2010-06-27). "Ixtoc Disaster Holds Clues to Evolution of an Oil Spill". Inter Press Service News Agency. Archived from the original on 2010-06-20. Glenn Garvin (2010-06-27). "After big 1979 spill, a stunning recovery". The News Observer. Archived from the original on 24 July 2010. Teal, John M.; Howarth, Robert W. (January 1984). "Oil spill studies: A review of ecological effects". Environmental Management. 8 (1): 27–43. Bibcode:1984EnMan...8...27T. doi:10.1007/BF01867871. ERCO/Energy Resources Co. Inc. (19 March 1982). "Ixtoc Oil Spill Assessment, Final Report, Executive Summary Prepared for the US Bureau of Land Management, Contract No. AA851-CTO-71" (.PDF). US Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service Mission. p. 27. Retrieved 14 July 2010. External links Photo gallery by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. TV news reports from the 1970s regarding the Ixtoc spill and comparisons with the BP spill of 2010 Categories: Oil spills in MexicoOil fields in Mexico1979 industrial disasters1979 in MexicoIndustrial fires and explosions in MexicoOil spills in the Gulf of MexicoOil platform disasters1979 in the environment1979 disasters in Mexico

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ The film delves into the poignant stories of five disabled American veterans of the Vietnam War, making a distinction between the people and the politicians steering their fate. This gripping documentary lays bare the haunting realities faced by these veterans who fought in a war labeled as 'the cause of nothing.' The film unravels the stark disparity between the glamorous portrayal of war in media and the brutal truth experienced by those on the battlefield. Through the heartfelt narratives of individuals like Bob Muller, a US Marine who, despite being shot in the spine, advocated for fellow veterans by founding the Vietnam Veterans of America, the film crafts a compelling narrative of resilience amidst neglect. Viewers are exposed to the shattered dreams of soldiers like Jay Thomas, whose idealized vision of the military clashed harshly with the gruesome scenes of Vietnam, plunging him into a downward spiral of addiction upon his return. Alonza Gibbs sheds light on the shocking treatment of Vietnamese prisoners, exposing the harrowing atrocities committed in the name of war. Dave Christian's journey, marked by severe physical wounds inflicted by napalm and subsequent censorship for his outspokenness, further underscores the disillusionment and neglect faced by these valiant individuals. The film's assertion that these veterans returned not to parades but to a purgatory of silence, shame, and indifference resonates deeply throughout the film. It serves as a stark reminder of the unacknowledged sacrifices made by these heroes, highlighting their absence from national monuments and the heartbreaking lack of recognition for their fallen comrades. Its impact was profound, eventually leading to a shift in the United States' relationship with Vietnam, culminating in the erection of a long-overdue monument and a parade honoring the American dead. A 59-minute emotional journey that compels viewers to confront the harsh realities faced by these veterans, igniting conversations about the often-overlooked human cost of war. A Vietnam veteran is an individual who performed active military, naval, or air service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam War.[1] New Zealand Army veteran Rob Munro (left), receiving a Mention-in-dispatch award from Governor-General Patsy Reddy for action in Vietnam. The term has been used to describe veterans who served in the armed forces of South Vietnam, the United States Armed Forces, and other South Vietnam–backed allies, whether or not they were stationed in Vietnam during their service. However, the more common usage distinguishes between those who served "in-country" and those who did not serve in Vietnam by referring to the "in-country" veterans as "Vietnam veterans" and the others as "Vietnam-era veterans." Regardless, the U.S. government officially refers to all as "Vietnam-era veterans."[2] In the United States, the term "Vietnam veteran" is not typically used in relation to members of the People's Army of Vietnam or the Viet Cong (also known as the National Liberation Front) due to the United States' alliance with South Vietnamese forces.[3] However, in many parts of east and southeast Asia, the term "Vietnam veteran" may also apply to allies of the North Vietnamese, including the People's Army of Vietnam, the Viet Cong (National Liberation Front), the People's Liberation Army of China, and the Korean People's Army of North Korea. South Vietnamese veterans While the exact numbers are not entirely known, it is estimated that several million served in the South Vietnamese armed forces, the vast majority in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). From 1969 to 1971, there were around 22,000 ARVN combat deaths per year. The army reached its peak strength of about 1,000,000 soldiers in 1972. The official number of South Vietnamese personnel killed in action was 220,357. Following the North Vietnamese victory on April 30, 1975, South Vietnamese veterans were arrested and detained in labor camps in desolate areas. The veterans and their families were detained without trial for decades at a time. After being released, they faced significant discrimination from the Communist government. A significant proportion of the surviving South Vietnamese veterans left the country for Western countries including the United States and Australia, either by or through the Humanitarian Operation (HO). U.S. veterans The Frederick Hart bronze statue Three Soldiers at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA) states, "A Vietnam era veteran" is a person who: served on active duty anywhere in the world for a period of 180+ days, any part of which occurred between August 5, 1964, and May 7, 1975, and was discharged or released with anything other than a dishonorable discharge; was discharged or released from active duty for a service-connected disability if any part of such active duty was performed between August 5, 1964, and May 7, 1975." In 2004, the U.S. Census Bureau reported there were 8.2 million Vietnam-era veterans who were living in the United States,[needs update] with 2.59 million of them being reported to have actually served "in-country." More than 58,000 U.S. military personnel died as a result of the conflict.[4] That includes deaths from all categories including deaths while missing, captured, non-hostile deaths, homicides, and suicides. The Department of Veterans Affairs recognizes veterans that served in the country, then known as the Republic of Vietnam, from February 28, 1961, to May 7, 1975, as being eligible for such programs as the department's Readjustment Counseling Services program, also known as the Vet Centers. The Vietnam War was the last American war in which the U.S. government employed conscription. American servicemen who served between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, are presumed to have been exposed to herbicides, such as Agent Orange.[5] PTSD Many Vietnam veterans suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in unprecedented numbers, with PTSD affecting as many as 15.2% of Vietnam veterans. Referred to as the first "pharmacological war" in history, the U.S. war in Vietnam was so called because of the unprecedented level of psychoactive drugs that U.S. servicemen used. The U.S. military had routinely provided heavy psychoactive drugs, including amphetamines, to American servicemen, which left them unable to process adequately their war traumas at the time. The U.S. armed forces readily distributed large amounts of "speed" (stimulants), in the form of Dexedrine (dextroamphetamine), an amphetamine twice as strong as Benzedrine, to American servicemen. Soldiers embarking on long-range reconnaissance missions or ambushes, according to standard military instruction, were supposed to be given 20 milligrams of dextroamphetamine for 48 hours of combat readiness. But this instruction for heavy drugs was rarely followed: the drug was issued, according to veterans, "like candies," with little or no attention paid to the dose and frequency of administering the drug. In the period 1966–1969, the U.S. military provided 225 million tablets of stimulants, mostly dextroamphetamine, according to a 1971 report by the Select Committee on Crime of the U.S. House of Representatives.[6] According to a member of a long-range reconnaissance platoon, the drugs "gave you a sense of bravado as well as keeping you awake. Every sight and sound was heightened. You were wired into it all and at times you felt really invulnerable." Servicemen who participated in infiltrating Laos, a secret intervention by the United States in the Laotian Civil War, on four-day missions received 12 tablets of an opioid (Darvon), 24 tablets of codeine (an opioid analgesic), and 6 pills of dextroamphetamine. Also, those serving in special units departing for a tough, long mission were injected with steroids. However, pumping the soldiers with speed and heavy anti-psychotics like Thorazine (chlorpromazine) came with a price that veterans paid later. By alleviating the symptoms, the anti-psychotics and narcotics offered temporary relief. However, these serious drugs administered in the absence of professional psychiatric supervision and proper psychotherapy merely suppressed the problems and symptoms, but veterans years later often experienced those problems untreated and amplified. This is a large part of the reason why very few servicemen, compared to previous wars, required medical evacuation due to combat-stress breakdowns, but PTSD levels among veterans after the war are at unprecedented levels compared to previous wars.[6] Veterans from other nations South Vietnam military regions, 1967 Nationals of other nations fought in the American-led anti-communist coalition, usually as armed forces of allied nations, such as Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, and South Korea, but sometimes as members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The Republic of China (Taiwan), Spain,[7] and the Philippines contributed assistance in non-combat roles. Members of the Royal Australian Regiment during a patrol in September 1967 Australian veterans Australia deployed approximately three battalions of infantry, one regiment of Centurion tanks, three RAAF Squadrons (2SQN Canberra Bombers, 9SQN Iroquois Helicopters, and 35 SQN Caribou Transports), 2 batteries of Royal Australian Artillery and a Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) Squadron. The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) performed a variety of operational tasks at sea, ashore and in the air. The 1st Australian Task Force consisted of Army, Navy, and Air Force personnel and commanded all Australian operations from 1966 until 1972. 1st Australian Logistic Support Group (1 ALSG) was 1 ATF's ground support unit, composed of engineer, transport, ordnance, medical, and service corps units. Australian Army training teams followed the withdrawal of combat forces in 1971. According to the Australian Government Nominal Roll of Vietnam Veterans[8] 13,600 members of the Royal Australian Navy, 41,720 members of the Australian Army, and 4,900 members of the Royal Australian Air Force served in Vietnam from 1962 to 1975. According to official statistics, 501 personnel died or went missing in action during the Vietnam War[9] and 2,400 were wounded.[9] Canadian veterans During the Vietnam era, more than 30,000 Canadians served in the U.S. Armed Forces; 110 Canadians died in Vietnam, and seven are listed as missing in action. Fred Griffin, a military historian with the Canadian War Museum, estimated in Vietnam Magazine (Perspectives) that approximately 12,000 of these personnel served in Vietnam. Most of these were Canadians who lived in the United States. The military of Canada did not officially participate in the war effort, as it was appointed to the UN truce commissions and thus had to remain officially neutral in the conflict. New Zealand veterans Initially, New Zealand provided a 25-man team of RNZE engineers from 1964 to 1965. In May 1965, New Zealand replaced the engineers with a 4-gun artillery battery (140 men) which served until 1971. 750 men served with the battery during this time. In 1967 the first of two rifle companies of infantry, designated Victor Company, arrived shortly thereafter followed by Whiskey company. Over 1,600 New Zealand soldiers saw action in these companies, over 5 years and 9 tours. Also in 1967 a military medical team consisting of RNZAF, RNZN, and RNZAMC medical staff arrived and remained until 1971. (This team was additional but separate from the civilian medical team that had arrived in 1963 and left in 1975.) In 1968 an NZSAS troop arrived, serving 3 tours before their withdrawal. Most New Zealanders operated in Military Region 3 with 1 ATF, in Nui Dat in Phuoc Thuy Province, North East of Saigon. RNZAF flew troops and supplies, did helicopter missions (as part of RAAF), or worked as Forward Air Controllers in the USAF. Other New Zealanders from various branches of service were stationed at 1 ALSG in Vung Tau and New Zealand V Force Headquarters in Saigon. At the height of New Zealand's involvement in 1968, the force was 580 men. Along with the United States and Australia, New Zealand contributed 2 combined-service training teams to train ARVN and Cambodian troops from 1971 until 1972. New Zealand and Australian combat forces were withdrawn in 1971. New Zealand's total contribution numbered nearly 4,000 personnel from 1964 until 1972. 37 were killed and 187 were wounded. As of 2010, no memorial has been erected to remember these casualties. Like the United States and Australia, the New Zealand veterans were rejected by the people and the government after returning and did not receive a welcome home parade until 2008. The Tribute also included a formal Crown Apology.[10] Despite high mortality rates among New Zealand Vietnam veterans attributed to Agent Orange, the New Zealand Government has been accused of ignoring the issue until only recently. The New Zealand documentary "Jungle Rain: The NZ Story Of Agent Orange and the Vietnam War"[11] (2006) discusses the Agent Orange issue in depth. South Korean veterans South Korea deployed approximately two army divisions (Capital Mechanized Infantry Division, 9th Infantry Division), one Marine Coprs Birgade (2nd Marine Brigade) and other support units. Throughout the Vietnam War, South Korea sent approximately 320,000 servicemen to Vietnam. At the peak of their commitment, in 1968, South Korea maintained a force of approximately 48,000 men in the country. All troops were withdrawn in 1973. About 5,099 South Koreans were killed and 10,962 wounded during the war. Thai veterans Thailand sent nearly 40,000 volunteer soldiers to South Vietnam during the war and peaked at 11,600 by 1969.[12] Units included the elite Queen's Cobras and the renowned Black Panther Division of the Royal Thai Army Volunteer Force. The Royal Thai Air Force provided personnel transport and supply runs in liaison with the Republic of Vietnam Air Force and the United States Air Force (USAF). The Royal Thai Navy also contributed personnel. The last of the Thai troops left Vietnam in April 1972, with 351 killed and 1,358 wounded. Philippine veterans The Philippines sent the "Philippine Civic Action Group" (PHILCAG-V), which entered Vietnam in September 1966, to set up operations in a base camp in Tay Ninh Province northwest of Saigon. The non-combat force included an engineer construction battalion, medical and rural community development teams, a security battalion, and a logistics and headquarters element. The team's strength peaked at 2068. Even though the role of PHILCAG-V was humanitarian, 9 personnel were killed and 64 wounded[13] throughout their 40-month stay through sniper attacks, land mines, and booby traps. The team left Vietnam in 1969. Chinese veterans A Chinese Vietnam veteran of the People's Liberation Army The People's Republic of China deployed the most foreign troops to assist North Vietnam, with nearly 320,000 troops of the People's Liberation Army. The logistical support provided by China allowed for continuous operations and guerrilla warfare tactics used by the North Vietnamese forces, regardless of American-led attempts to stop the flow of resources down the "Ho Chi Minh trail" to South Vietnam (Republic of Vietnam). American forces were unable to retaliate against Chinese targets, as it was believed that by doing so, America would escalate the already strained effects of the Cold War, and believed it would invite retaliation by the Soviet Union.[14] USSR veterans The Soviet Union deployed roughly 4,500 soldiers, technicians, and pilots to Vietnam, surreptitiously, to help turn the war in favor of the North. Whilst their presence was never acknowledged by the USSR or any of her successor nations, Soviet involvement was an open secret. The Soviet Union's policy on the units deployed was to label them "military consultants."[15][16] This deployment resulted in the development of the North Vietnamese air force, then it was formed against the United States' involvement in the war.[17] From 1975 to 2002, forty-four Soviet servicemen were killed in Vietnam, mainly in aviation accidents.[18] The military collaboration at Cam Ranh Base was continued by the later government of Russia until 2002.[19] Stereotypes There are persistent stereotypes about Vietnam veterans as psychologically devastated, bitter, homeless, drug-addicted people, who had a hard time readjusting to society, primarily because of the uniquely divisive nature of the Vietnam War in the context of U.S. history. That social division has expressed itself by the lack both of public and institutional support for the former servicemen that would be expected by returning combatants of most conflicts in most nations. In a material sense also, veterans benefits for Vietnam-era veterans were dramatically less than those enjoyed after World War II. The Vietnam-Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974, as amended, 38 U.S.C. § 4212, was meant to try to help the veterans overcome the issues. In 1979, Public Law 96-22 established the first Vet Centers,[20] after a decade of effort by combat vets and others who realized that Vietnam veterans in America and elsewhere (including Australia) were facing specific kinds of readjustment problems, later identified as post-traumatic stress (PTS). In the early days, most Vet Center staffers were Vietnam veterans themselves, many of them combat veterans. Some representatives of organizations, like the Disabled American Veterans, started advocating for combat veterans to receive benefits for their war-related psychological trauma. Some U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital personnel also encouraged the veterans working at the Vet Centers to research and expand treatment options for veterans who were suffering the particular symptoms of the newly recognized syndrome. It was a controversial time, but eventually, the Department of Veterans Affairs opened Vet Centers nationwide. They helped develop many of the debriefing techniques that are now used for traumatized populations from all walks of life. The veterans who started working in the early Vet Centers eventually began to reach out and serve World War II and Korean vets as well, many of whom had suppressed their traumas or had self-medicated for years. Veterans, particularly in Southern California, were responsible for many of those early lobbying and subsequent Vet Center treatment programs. They founded one of the first local organizations by and for Vietnam veterans in 1981, now known as Veterans Village.[21] Vets were also largely responsible for taking debriefing and treatment strategies into the larger community where they were adapted for use in conjunction with populations impacted by violent crime, abuse, and man-made and natural disasters and those in law enforcement and emergency response. Other notable organizations that were founded then included the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies and the National Organization for Victim Assistance. The organizations continue to study and/or certify post-traumatic stress disorder responders and clinicians. There are still, however, many proven cases of individuals who have suffered psychological damage from their time in Vietnam. Many others were physically wounded, some permanently disabled. However, advocates ignore the many successful and well-adjusted Vietnam veterans who have played important roles in America since the end of the Vietnam War such as Jim Nicholson (former Secretary of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See), Al Gore, Frederick W. Smith (founder and president of Federal Express), Colin Powell, John McCain, Craig Venter (famed for being the first to map the human genome), and many others. To find closure, thousands of former American soldiers have visited and some have decided to move permanently to Vietnam to confront the psychological and physical remnants of the Vietnam War. They participate in the removal of unexplored mines and bombs, help people affected by Agent Orange, teach English to the Vietnamese and conduct Vietnam War battlefield tours for tourists.[22] In popular culture See also: Category:Fictional Vietnam War veterans The Vietnam veteran has been depicted in fiction and film of variable quality. A major theme is the difficulties of soldiers readjusting from combat to civilian life. This theme had occasionally been explored in the context of World War Two in such films as The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) and The Men (1950). However, films featuring Vietnam veterans constitute a much larger genre.[23] The first appearance of a Vietnam veteran in a film seems to be The Born Losers (1967) featuring Tom Laughlin as Billy Jack. Bleaker in tone are such films as Hi, Mom! (1970) in which vet Robert De Niro films pornographic home movies before deciding to become an urban guerrilla, The Strangers in 7A where a team of former paratroopers blow up a bank and threaten to blow up a residential apartment building, The Hard Ride (1971) and Welcome Home, Soldier Boys (1972) in which returning vets are met with incomprehension and violence. In many films, like Gordon's War (1973) and Rolling Thunder (1977), the veteran uses his combat skills developed in Vietnam to wage war on evil-doers in America.[23] This is also the theme of Taxi Driver (1976) in which Robert De Niro plays Vietnam veteran Travis Bickle who wages a one-man war against society whilst he makes plans to assassinate a presidential candidate. This film inspired John W. Hinckley to make a similar attempt against President Ronald Reagan.[24] In a similar vein is First Blood (1982), which stars Sylvester Stallone in the iconic role of John Rambo, a Vietnam vet who comes into conflict with a small-town police department. Such films as Welcome Home, Johnny Bristol (1972), and The Ninth Configuration (1979) were innovative in depicting veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder before this syndrome became widely known.[23] In Born on the Fourth of July (1989) Tom Cruise portrays disenchanted Vietnam veteran Ron Kovic who, wounded in action and requiring the use of a wheelchair, leads rallies against the war. A more recent example is Bruce Dern's portrayal of a down-and-out veteran in the film Monster (2003). In television, the first Vietnam veteran to be a regular character in a U.S. dramatic series was Lincoln Case on Route 66. Case, played by Glenn Corbett, was introduced in 1963, long before the major U.S. buildup in Vietnam. "Linc" Case was initially portrayed as an angry, embittered man, not only because of his harrowing wartime experiences (which included being taken prisoner and escaping a POW camp) but also because of his grim childhood and continuing estrangement from much of his family. The show depicted his effort to make peace with himself and others. In the 1980s and 1990s, service in Vietnam was part of the backstory of many TV characters, particularly in police or detective roles. The wartime experiences of some of these characters, such as MacGyver, Rick Simon of Simon & Simon, or Sonny Crockett on Miami Vice, were mentioned only occasionally and rarely became central to story lines. To a degree, writing in a Vietnam background provided a logical chronology, but also served to give these characters more depth, and explain their skills, e.g. MacGyver having served in a bomb disposal unit. China Beach, which aired in the late 1980s, was the only television program that featured women who were in Vietnam as military personnel or civilian volunteers. Thomas Magnum of Magnum, P.I., Stringfellow Hawke of Airwolf, and the characters of The A-Team were characters whose experiences in Vietnam were more frequently worked into plot lines. They were part of an early 1980s tendency to rehabilitate the image of the Vietnam vet in the public eye.[citation needed] The documentary In the Shadow of the Blade (released in 2004) reunited Vietnam veterans and families of the war dead with a restored UH-1 "Huey" helicopter in a cross-country journey to tell the stories of Americans affected by the war. An example in print is Marvel Comics' the Punisher, also known as Frank Castle. Castle learned all of his combat techniques from his time as a Marine as well as from his three tours of combat during Vietnam. It is also where he acquired his urge to punish the guilty, which goes on to be a defining trait in Castles' character. See also Post-traumatic stress disorder Post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders Vietnam Veterans of America Vietnam Veterans Memorial References "Definition: Vietnam veteran from 38 USC § 1831(2) | LII / Legal Information Institute". www.law.cornell.edu. Retrieved January 12, 2023. "Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA) of 1974". U.S. Department of Labor. "Vietnam Veteran Commemoration website's definition of Vietnam Veteran". vietnamwar50th. Retrieved September 12, 2022. "Statistical information about casualties of the Vietnam Conflict". National Archives and Records Administration. August 15, 2016. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, "Vietnam Veterans" The Atlantic, 8 Apr. 2016, "The Drugs That Built a Super Soldier: During the Vietnam War, the U.S. Military Plied Its Servicemen with Speed, Steroids, and Painkillers to Help Them Handle Extended Combat" Marín, Paloma (April 9, 2012). "Spain's secret support for US in Vietnam". El País. Retrieved May 20, 2020. "DVA's Nominal Rolls". nominal-rolls.dva.gov.au. "Vietnam War 1962–1972". Retrieved April 3, 2008. "Homecoming | VietnamWar.govt.nz, New Zealand and the Vietnam War". vietnamwar.govt.nz. "JUNGLE RAIN". Archived from the original on May 25, 2014. Retrieved May 25, 2014. "In Buddha's Company: Thai Soldiers in the Vietnam War". "Asian Allies in Vietnam" (PDF). VIET-NAM Bulletin. 26. "Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search". news.google.com. Л�щенко �. (July 29, 2003). ""Бур� на Карибах"". Krasnai︠a︡ Zvezda : T︠s︡entralýĭ Organ Revoli︠u︡t︠s︡ionnogo Voennogo Soveta SSSR (Центральный печатный орган Мини�тер�тва обороны Ро��ий�кой Федерации) (Кра�на� звезда ed.). М.: Редакционно-издатель�кий центр МО РФ. ISSN 0023-4559. Иванов С. В. (2000). "Годы учёбы". Боевое применение МиГ-17, МиГ-19 во Вьетнаме. Война в воздухе. М.: ООО «�РС». p. 7. Ivanov, S.V. (2000). "Boyevoye primenenye MiG-17 i MiG-19 vo Vietnamye (Боевое применение МиГ-17 и МиГ-19 во Вьетнаме)". Voyna V Vozdukhye (16). �гуен Куинь Хыонг. (2009). "Открытие Мемориала в Камрани" (Иллю�трированный журнал. Печатный орган Мини�тер�тва культуры СРВ и вьетнам�кого комитета по культурным �в�з�м � зарубежными �транами) (Вьетнам ed.). Ханой: Вьетнам�кое информационное агент�тво. ISSN 1728-726X. Arthurs, Clare (March 26, 2002). "Russia to stress Vietnam ties". BBC News. Retrieved January 4, 2008. Veterans Health Administration - Readjustment Counseling Service (October 5, 2010). "Vet Center Home". Vetcenter.va.gov. Retrieved December 4, 2010. "Veterans Village of San Diego :: VVSD History". Vvsd.net. Retrieved December 4, 2010. Rhee, Nissa. Why US veterans are returning to Vietnam. The Christian Science Monitor, November 10, 2013. Michael Parris (1987) "The American Film Industry and Vietnam" in History Today Volume 37: 19–26 Jay Hyams (1984) War Movies: 197 External links Library resources about Vietnam veterans Online books Resources in your library Resources in other libraries Vietnam Veterans at Curlie Vietnam Views – marking the 30th anniversary of its end, a social journal that captured stories from those affected by the war Vietnam Veterans Home Page – the original Vietnam veteran presence on the Web, launched on Veteran's Day, 1994, with stories, poems, maps, and other information by and for the Vietnam veteran. Vietnam Veterans Guide to Understanding the VA Process. Since 2008 Categories: Aftermath of the Vietnam War Military personnel of the Vietnam War Veterans' affairs in Australia Veterans' affairs in Canada Veterans' affairs in China Veterans' affairs in Russia Veterans' affairs in the United States

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Svetozar "Sveta" Stojanović (Serbian Cyrillic: Светозар Стојановић) (18 October 1931 – 7 May 2010) was a Serbian philosopher and political theorist. Biography Stojanović was an intellectual in the European tradition, an academic who contributed to philosophical theory and engaged in practical politics. He bridged the divide between the more grand and speculative Continental philosophy and analytic Anglo-American ethical theory. His doctoral dissertation on Contemporary Meta-ethics was grounded on his study of ordinary language analysis at the University of Oxford and later he met weekly at the University of Michigan to discuss ethical issues with William Frankena, Richard Brandt and Charles Stevenson. But the focus of his important contributions to philosophy was always critical Marxism, Marxism creatively interpreted as a critique of social institutions destructive of humanistic values. He is best known for his rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat and advocacy of a democratic socialism. Svetozar Stojanović was born in 1931 in Kragujevac, Kingdom of Yugoslavia (present day Serbia) and received a PhD in philosophy from the University of Belgrade in 1962. Together with seven other professors and teachers, called The Praxis Group, he was expelled from the University of Belgrade in January 1975 for dissident activities during Josip Broz Tito's regime in Yugoslavia. He returned to the University in the early nineties as socialist Yugoslavia was falling apart. In 1992 and 1993 he served as a special adviser to former Yugoslav President Dobrica Ćosić. Stojanović was a longtime critic of Slobodan Milošević, and one of the protagonists in the October 2000 Serbian democratic revolution which culminated in the overthrow of Milošević. He was appointed to the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation by former Yugoslav President Vojislav Koštunica, and later became a member of the Council for Foreign Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Serbia. Stojanovic was a member of the Council for Secular Humanism's International Academy of Humanism, a member of the Paris International Institute of Philosophy (Institut International de Philosophie) and the Academy of Humanistic Studies in Moscow. In 1973 he was one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto II.[1] He was co-chairman of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, 1985-87.[2] He was a long-time director of the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory in Belgrade and the member of the governing board of Kor�ula Summer School. Stojanović was a visiting professor at many prominent universities in the United States, Germany, Great Britain, Austria, and India. With Djuro Kovacevic, another Serbian political theorist, Stojanović was a co-founder and president of the Serbian-American Center in Belgrade, which developed into the Center for National Strategy, and the Forum for Serbian-American Dialogue and Cooperation. He was the chief editor of Praxis International from 1987–1990 and, most recently, a member of the editorial council of Philosophy & Social Criticism, based in Boston. Stojanović authored seven books, four brochures, and 130 journal articles. His works have been translated into fourteen languages, including English, German, French, Russian, Spanish, and Japanese. Books in English include: Between Ideals and Reality: A Critique of Socialism and Its Future, Oxford University Press, 1973; In Search of Democracy in Socialism, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1981; From Marxism and Bolshevism to Gorbachev, Prometheus Books, 1988; The Fall of Yugoslavia: Why Communism Failed, Prometheus Books, 1997; and Serbia: The Democratic Revolution, Humanity Books, Buffalo, NY, 2003. Selected works Stojanovic S. (1973) Between Ideals and Reality: A Critique of Socialism and its Future. Oxford University Press Stojanovic S. (1981) In Search of Democracy in Socialism: History and Party Consciousness. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books Stojanovic S. (1988) Perestoika: from Marxism and Bolshevism to Gorbachev. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books Stojanovic S. (1997) The Fall of Yugoslavia: Why Communism Failed. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books Stojanovic S. (2003) Serbia: The Democratic Revolution. Buffalo, NY: Humanity Books References "Humanist Manifesto II". American Humanist Association. Retrieved October 18, 2012. "Humanists International". External links A profile in The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research [1] An article and profile in [The Guardian] [2] Serbia: The Democratic Revolution reviewed in [Foreign Affairs] [3] A 1971 article in [The New York Review of Books] [4] A 2010 Essay/Documentary from RTS - Serbian TV [RTS - Pravo na Budućnost] [5] Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata International FAST ISNI VIAF National France BnF data Germany Israel Belgium United States Czech Republic Netherlands Poland People Deutsche Biographie Other IdRef Categories: 20th-century Serbian philosophers Serbian political philosophers Academic staff of the University of Belgrade University of Belgrade Faculty of Philosophy alumni 1931 births 2010 deaths Real socialism, better known as actually existing socialism[1] was an ideological catchphrase popularized during the Brezhnev era in the Eastern Bloc countries and the Soviet Union.[2] The term referred to the Soviet-type economic planning implemented by the Eastern Bloc at that particular time.[2] From the 1960s onward, Eastern Bloc countries such as Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia began to argue that their policies represented what was realistically feasible given their level of productivity. The concept of real socialism alluded to a highly developed socialist system in the future. The actual party claims of nomenclatory socialism began to acquire not only negative, but also sarcastic meanings. In later years and especially after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the term began to be remembered as only one thing, i.e. as a reference for Soviet-style socialism.[note 1] The executive committee of the Comecon in session Definition After World War II, the terms "real socialism" or "really existing socialism" gradually became the predominating euphemisms used as self-description of the Eastern Bloc states' political and economical systems and their society models.[3] De jure often referred to as "people's republics", these states were ruled by a communist party, some of which were ruled autocratically and had adapted a form of planned economy and propagated socialism and/or communism as their ideology.[3] The term "real (-ly existing) socialism" was introduced to explain the obvious gap between the propagated ideological framework and the political and economical reality faced by these states' societies.[3][4][5] As US Communist Party activist Irwin Silber put it in 1994, The term 'actually existing socialism’ is not (despite the quotation marks) a sarcasm; in fact, while obviously containing an implicit irony, the phrase itself was coined by Soviet Marxist-Leninists and was widely used by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and its supporters in polemics with those who postulated a model of socialism significantly different from the system developed in the Soviet Union. Its point was that various alternatives to the Soviet-derived model existed only in the minds of their advocates, while 'actual socialism' existed in the real world.[6] The term was also taken up by some dissidents, such as Rudolf Bahro, who used it in a more critical way.[7][8] The role of the Sino-Soviet split Another aspect of the term real socialism related to the Sino-Soviet split and other ideological disagreements between the Soviet Union and its satellite states on one side and the People's Republic of China and the followers of a more Maoist brand of communist ideology on the other. The Sino-inspired communist movement, which had grown so rapidly worldwide as a "radical left" alternative to Soviet ideas, had claimed that the Soviet Union was no longer socialist and had betrayed the revolution. To counter this claim of Marxist revisionism, the Soviets called their version "real socialism", implying that other models of socialism were unrealistic.[9] See also Actually existing capitalism Communist state Marxism–Leninism Moderately prosperous society Primary stage of socialism Soviet-type economic system State socialism Transition economy Notes See definitions and descriptions of "real socialism" in the following: Kyu-Young Lee, "System Transformation in Poland since 1989: A view on the transformation of the real-socialist system. Including List of References. Graduate School of International Studies, Sogang University. Krzysztof Brzechczyn, The Collapse of Real Socialism in Eastern Europe. Adam Mickiewicz University, Department of Philosophy. The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in History and Archaeology. Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 105–133 Tittenbrun, Jacek (1993). The Collapse of 'Real Socialism' in Poland. Paul & Co Pub Consortium. ISBN 1-85756-043-4. Robert W. Cox, "Real socialism" in historical perspective. Pages 177–183. Retrieved November 3, 2011. See term: "actually existing socialism" in Rudolph Bahro's The Alternative in Eastern Europe, Note 3, p. 190. References Citations Sebestyen, Victor (2010). Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire. Phoenix. ISBN 978-0-7538-2709-3. "Socjalizm Realny" [Real Socialism]. Encyklopedia Interia (in Polish). Retrieved 22 November 2013. Hey, Patrizia (2010). Die sowjetische Polenpolitik Anfang der 1980er Jahre und die Verhängung des Kriegsrechts in der Volksrepublik Polen. Tatsächliche sowjetische Bedrohung oder erfolgreicher Bluff? [The Soviet policy towards Poland in the early 1980s and the imposition of martial law in the People's Republic of Poland. Actual Soviet threat or successful bluff?]. Studien zu Konflikt und Kooperation im Osten (in German). Vol. 19. Münster: LIT. p. 31. ISBN 9783643107718. "A Guide To The Left". New Internationalist. 5 November 1985. Retrieved 21 September 2021. Lebowitz, Michael A. The Contradictions of "Real Socialism". Silber, Irwin (1994). Socialism: What went wrong? (PDF). Pluto Press – via Marxists Internet Archive. Bahro, Rudolf (November–December 1977). "The Alternative in Eastern Europe" (PDF). New Left Review (I/106): 3–37. Retrieved 21 September 2021. "Socialism as it actually exists, irrespective of its many achievements, is characterized by: the persistence of wage-labour, commodity production and money; the rationalization of the traditional division of labour; a cultivation of social inequalities that extends far beyond the range of money incomes; official corporations for the ordering and tutelage of the population; liquidation of the freedoms conquered by the masses in the bourgeois era, instead of the preservation and realization of these freedoms (only consider the all-embracing censorship, and the pronounced formality and factual unreality of so-called socialist democracy). It is also characterized by: a staff of functionaries, a standing army and police, which are all responsible only to those above them; the duplication of the unwieldy state machine into a state and a party apparatus; its isolation within national frontiers." Frank, Pierre; Rosenzweig, Mark; Vale, Michel (1980). "Was". International Journal of Politics. 10 (2/3). Taylor & Francis, Ltd.: 152–167. ISSN 0012-8783. JSTOR 40470166. Retrieved 21 September 2021. Sarnov, Benedikt (2002). "Real Socialism". Our Soviet Newspeak: A Short Encyclopedia of Real Socialism (�аш �овет�кий ново�з. Маленька� �нциклопеди� реального �оциализма). Moscow. pp. 472–474. ISBN 5-85646-059-6. Sources General Real socialism from A Dictionary of Sociology, 1998, originally published by Oxford University Press. vte Socialism History - Outline Schools of thought 21st century Agrarian Communist Democratic Ethical Feminist Green Guild Labourism Syndicalism Liberal Market Marxian Nationalist Reformist Revolutionary Scientific Social democracy Utopian Fourierism Icarianism Owenism Saint-Simonianism Technocracy Libertarian (from below) Anarchism Collectivist Communist Free-market Left-wing laissez-faire Left-wing market Green Individualist Insurrectionary Magonism Mutualism Neozapatismo Platformism Communalism Social Syndicalist Left-libertarianism Libertarian Marxism Left communism Council communism Luxemburgism Mao-Spontex Trotskyism Pabloism Posadism Orthodox Trotskyism Third camp Authoritarian (from above) Barracks Nechayevism Blanquism Bolshevism Leninism Marxism–Leninism Brezhnevism Castroism Ceaușism Guevarism Ho Chi Minh Thought Hoxhaism Husakism Juche Kadarism Khrushchevism Maoism Dengism Maoism–Third Worldism Marxism–Leninism–Maoism Marxism–Leninism–Maoism–Gonzalo Thought Marxism–Leninism–Maoism–Prachanda Path Xi Jinping Thought Stalinism Neo-Stalinism Tkachevism State Lassallism Religious Buddhist Christian anarchism communism Islamic Jewish Regional variants African African-Caribbean Arab Bolivarian Chinese Communist Nationalist European Eurocommunism Indian Israeli Indonesian Melanesian Mexican Soviet In one country Real Sri Lankan Third World Yugoslav Key topics and issues Anarchist economics Anti-revisionism Criticism of capitalism Criticism of socialism Critique of political economy Critique of work Class struggle Democracy Dictatorship of the proletariat Egalitarianism Equal liberty Equality of opportunity Equality of outcome History of anarchism History of communism History of socialism Impossibilism "The Internationale" Internationalism State-owned enterprise Land reform Left-wing politics Mixed economy Mode of production Nanosocialism Nationalization Planned economy Post-capitalism Proletarian revolution Reformism Revisionism Socialisation of production Socialist economics Socialist market economy Socialist state State capitalism Trade union Welfare state Workers' council Concepts Adhocracy Anarchist economics Basic income Calculation in kind Common ownership Cooperative ownership Decentralized planning Direct democracy Economic democracy Economic planning Equal opportunity Free association of producers Industrial democracy Labor-time calculation Labour voucher Organizational self-management Production for use Public ownership Social dividend Socialist mode of production Technocracy Workplace democracy People 16th c. Tommaso Campanella Thomas More 18th c. Gracchus Babeuf Victor d'Hupay Gabriel Bonnot de Mably Sylvain Maréchal Étienne-Gabriel Morelly 19th c. Stephen Pearl Andrews Mikhail Bakunin John Goodwyn Barmby Enrico Barone August Bebel Edward Bellamy Eduard Bernstein Louis Blanc Louis Auguste Blanqui Philippe Buchez Georg Büchner Philippe Buonarroti Francisco Largo Caballero Étienne Cabet Edward Carpenter Nikolay Chernyshevsky James Connolly Victor Prosper Considerant Claire Démar Théodore Dézamy W. E. B. Du Bois Prosper Enfantin Friedrich Engels Charles Fourier Emma Goldman William Batchelder Greene Charles Hall Alexander Herzen Thomas Hodgskin Jean Jaurès Mother Jones Karl Kautsky Peter Kropotkin Paul Lafargue Ferdinand Lassalle Pyotr Lavrov Alexandre Ledru-Rollin Pierre Leroux Helen Macfarlane Errico Malatesta Karl Marx Louise Michel Nikolay Mikhaylovsky William Morris Robert Owen Antonie Pannekoek Giovanni Pascoli Constantin Pecqueur Georgi Plekhanov Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Luis Emilio Recabarren Henri de Saint-Simon Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin George Sand Friedrich Wilhelm Schulz Eugène Sue Lysander Spooner Fred M. Taylor William Thompson Pyotr Tkachev Benjamin Tucker Suzanne Voilquin Alfred Russel Wallace Josiah Warren Wilhelm Weitling Oscar Wilde 20th c. Tariq Ali Salvador Allende Inejir� Asanuma Hafez al-Assad Clement Attlee Aung San Deng Xiaoping Jiang Zemin Henri Barbusse Jyoti Basu Simone de Beauvoir Walter Benjamin Tony Benn Léon Blum Grace Lee Boggs Murray Bookchin Bertolt Brecht Aristide Briand Nikolai Bukharin Cornelius Castoriadis Noam Chomsky M. N. Roy G. D. H. Cole Jeremy Corbyn Marcel Déat Guy Debord Eugene V. Debs John Dewey Alexander Dub�ek Albert Einstein Faiz Ahmad Faiz Muammar Gaddafi Einar Gerhardsen Mikhail Gorbachev Maxim Gorky Antonio Gramsci Safdar Hashmi Eric Hobsbawm Saddam Hussein Dolores Ibárruri Pablo Iglesias Posse Jayaprakash Narayan Kim Jong-il Martin Luther King Jr. Alexandra Kollontai James Larkin E. M. S. Namboodiripad Jack Layton Henri Lefebvre Claude Lefort Vladimir Lenin György Lukács Rosa Luxemburg Lu Xun Nestor Makhno Nelson Mandela José Carlos Mariátegui Adrien Marquet Mao Dun Salama Moussa François Mitterrand Imre Nagy Gamal Abdel Nasser Jawaharlal Nehru Ne Win George Orwell Sylvia Pankhurst Fred Paterson Karl Polanyi Pierre Renaudel B. T. Ranadive Bertrand Russell Gaetano Salvemini Bernie Sanders Jean-Paul Sartre Arthur Scargill Léopold Sédar Senghor George Bernard Shaw Sukarno Sun Yat-sen R. H. Tawney E. P. Thompson Ernst Toller Leon Trotsky Ram Manohar Lohia H. G. Wells Cornel West Clara Zetkin Howard Zinn J. Posadas 21st c. Pedro Castillo Hugo Chávez Bob Crow Hu Jintao Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu Kim Jong Un Lula da Silva Evo Morales Yanis Varoufakis Xi Jinping Organizations International socialist organizations Socialist parties See also Anarchism Communism Economic calculation problem Marxist philosophy New Left Old Left Socialism by country Socialist calculation debate Categories Socialism WikiProject icon Socialism portal Communism portal icon Organized Labour portal vte Marxism–Leninism Concepts Administrative-command system Aggravation of class struggle under socialism Anti-imperialism Anti-fascism Anti-revisionism Central planning Soviet-type economic planning Commanding heights of the economy Developed socialism Dialectical logic Dialectical materialism Foco Labour aristocracy Marxist–Leninist atheism Partiinost' Popular front Proletarian internationalism Self-criticism Social fascism Socialism in one country Socialist patriotism Soviet Yugoslav Theory of the productive forces Third Period Wars of national liberation Class system Dictatorship of the proletariat People's democratic dictatorship People's democratic state National-democratic state Socialist state State of socialist orientation Socialist state of the whole people Political system Central committee Civilian control of the military Collective leadership Cult of personality Democratic centralism General Secretary of the Communist Party Highest organ of state power Leading role of the party Politburo State Transmission belt Unified power Vanguardism Variants Cuban Castroism Guevarism Ho Chi Minh Thought Hoxhaism Husakism Juche Songun Kimilsungism–Kimjongilism Kimjongunism Kadarism Khrushchevism Maoism Marxism–Leninism–Maoism Gonzalo Thought Prachanda Path Pantherism Intercommunalism New Communism Kaysone Phomvihane Thought National Pol Potism African Sankarism Nkrumaism Socialism with Chinese characteristics Dengism Three Represents Scientific Outlook on Development Xi Jinping Thought Stalinism American Bill of Rights socialism Browderism Lovestoneism Marcyism Titoism �ilasism Rankovićism Dub�ekism Zachariadism Brezhnevism People Joseph Stalin Mao Zedong Ernst Thälmann Khorloogiin Choibalsan Ehmetjan Qasim José Díaz Maurice Thorez Palmiro Togliatti Dolores Ibárruri Ho Chi Minh Võ Nguyên Giáp Earl Browder Nikita Khrushchev Walter Ulbricht Josip Broz Tito Mátyás Rákosi Lazar Kaganovich Georgi Dimitrov Bolesław Bierut Valko Chervenkov Klement Gottwald Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej Enver Hoxha Kaysone Phomvihane Khalid Bakdash Leonid Brezhnev Deng Xiaoping Pol Pot Nikos Zachariadis Che Guevara Fidel Castro Agostinho Neto Mengistu Haile Mariam Kim Il Sung Chin Peng Sanz� Nosaka Nicolae Ceaușescu Gustáv Husák János Kádár Maurice Bishop Erich Honecker Władysław Gomułka Samora Machel Thomas Sankara Mathieu Kérékou Siad Barre Nur Muhammad Taraki Alfonso Cano Pushpa Kamal Dahal Rohana Wijeweera Abimael Guzmán Gus Hall Gennady Zyuganov Xi Jinping Theoretical works Foundations of Leninism Dialectical and Historical Materialism The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) Britain's Road to Socialism Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR A Critique of Soviet Economics Fundamentals of Marxism–Leninism Guerrilla Warfare History Soviet Union (1927–1953 1953–1964 1964–1982 1982–1991) Great Break Collectivization in the Soviet Union Industrialization in the Soviet Union Great Purge Spanish Civil War Great Patriotic War Greek Civil War Cold War Eastern Bloc Chinese Communist Revolution China (1949–1976 1976–1989 1989–2002 2002–present) Korean War Cuban Revolution De-Stalinization Warsaw Pact Non-Aligned Movement Vietnam War Sino-Soviet split Hungarian Revolution of 1956 Great Leap Forward Portuguese Colonial War Black Power movement Nicaraguan Revolution Cultural Revolution Prague Spring Naxalite insurgency Communist rebellion in the Philippines Maoist insurgency in Turkey Internal conflict in Peru Nepalese Civil War Revolutions of 1989 By country Afghanistan Albania Angola Benin Bulgaria Cambodia (Democratic Kampuchea People's Republic of Kampuchea) China Congo Cuba Czechoslovakia (Czechia Slovakia) East Germany Ethiopia Grenada Hungary Laos Mongolia Mozambique North Korea Poland Romania Somalia Soviet Union (Armenia Azerbaijan Byelarus Estonia Georgia Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Latvia Lithuania Moldova Russia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan) Vietnam Yemen Yugoslavia (Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia Macedonia Montenegro Serbia Slovenia) Organizations Albanian Party of Labour Comecon Comintern Chinese Communist Party Communist Party of Brazil Communist Party of Cuba Communist Party of India Communist Party of India (Marxist) Communist Party of Kampuchea Communist Party of the Philippines Communist Party of the Russian Federation Communist Party of the Soviet Union Communist Party of Vietnam Communist Party of Malaya Indochinese Communist Party Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party Lao People's Revolutionary Party Nepal Communist Party Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine Sandinista National Liberation Front Shining Path (Militarized Communist Party of Peru) Workers' Party of Korea Portuguese Communist Party Related topics Bolshevism Leninism Trotskyism See also All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) Anti-communism (Mass killings) Cold War Crimes against humanity under Marxist–Leninist regimes (Mass killings) Criticism of Marxist–Leninist party rule Marxist schools of thought National Bolshevism New class Post-Marxism–Leninism Red fascism Red Scare (Second) Second World State capitalism State socialism State ideology of China State ideology of the Soviet Union Third-Worldism Totalitarianism icon Socialism portal Communism portal vte Marxist phraseology and terminology Philosophy and politics (Marxist) Barracks communism Base and superstructure Bourgeoisie Bourgeois democracy Bourgeois nationalism Bourgeois revolution Bourgeois socialism Capitalist mode of production Class struggle Commodification Dialectics Dictatorship of the proletariat Historical materialism Imperialism Liquidationism Lumpenproletariat Means of labor Metabolic rift Petite bourgeoisie Primitive accumulation of capital Proletarian internationalism Proletarian revolution Pure communism Revisionism Revolutionary spontaneity Revolutionary wave Scientific socialism Socialist mode of production Super-imperialism Theoretician Two-stage theory Wage slavery Workers of the world, unite! Workers' council Workers' control World communism World revolution Sociology and economics (Marxian) Critique of political economy Accumulation of capital Capital Capitalist mode of production Crisis of capitalism Commanding heights of the economy Commodity Commodity production Dominant ideology Exchange value Free association Law of value Materialism Means of production Mode of production Productive forces Production for use Relations of production Ruling class Simple commodity production Socialist mode of production Socially necessary labour time Socialization Social murder Subject of labor Surplus value Use value Value Worker cooperative Marxist–Leninist Anti-revisionism Cadre Central Committee Democratic centralism Dual power Enemy of the people Foco General line of the party National liberation New class People's democratic state Politburo Political rehabilitation Popular front Real socialism Revisionism Revolutionary terror Self-criticism Socialist accumulation Socialism in one country Social fascism Social imperialism Soviet democracy Democracy in Marxism United front Vanguardism Trotskyist Deformed workers' state Degenerated workers' state French Turn Permanent revolution Social revolution Transitional demand Uneven and combined development United front World revolution Maoist Antagonistic contradiction Anti-revisionism Capitalist roader Continuous revolution theory The East wind prevails over the West wind Four Olds Marxism–Leninism–Maoism Mass line New Democracy Whole-process people's democracy One Divides Into Two People's war Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun Revisionism Revolutionary base area Revolution is not a dinner party Social imperialism Struggle session Other People's Multiparty Democracy Authority control databases: National Edit this at Wikidata Czech Republic Categories: Ideology of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Socialism Comecon Economy of the Soviet Union Soviet phraseology Political economy

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Feudalism as practiced in the Kingdoms of England during the medieval period was a state of human society that organized political and military leadership and force around a stratified formal structure based on land tenure. As a military defence and socio-economic paradigm designed to direct the wealth of the land to the king while it levied military troops to his causes, feudal society was ordered around relationships derived from the holding of land. Such landholdings are termed fiefdoms, traders, fiefs, or fees. Origins See also: Feudalism § Etymology The word, "feudalism", was not a medieval term, but an invention of sixteenth century French and English lawyers to describe certain traditional obligations between members of the warrior aristocracy. Not until 1748 did it become a popular and widely used word, thanks to Montesquieu's De L'Esprit des Lois ("The Spirit of the Laws"). The coined word feudal derives from an ancient Gothic source faihu signifying simply "property" which in its most basic sense was "cattle" and is a cognate of the classical Latin word pecus, which means both "cattle", "money" and "power".[1] European feudalism had its roots in the Roman manorial system (in which workers were compensated with protection while living on large estates) and in the 8th century CE Kingdom of the Franks where a king gave out land for life (benefice) to reward loyal nobles and receive service in return.[2] Anglo-Saxon feudal structures Following the end of Roman rule in Britain, feudalism emerged in the subsequent Anglo-Saxon period, though not in as comprehensive or uniform manner as in the later Norman era. Anglo-Saxon kings, within the Heptarchy period and united English kingdom post-King Athelstan, often granted supporters and nobles lands in exchange for military service. These were often thegns, who were warriors controlling lands and often fought with kings at their call-up and behest. Similarly, ealdormen ruled counties or groups of counties, and similarly were appointed by the king to grant service accordingly when called upon. Various writs survive from Anglo-Saxon monarchs, where specific grants of land were given to nobility throughout England. Thegns often worked along with ealdormen and shire reeves to enforce law and order and collect taxes in given areas. This system was indigenous to the Anglo-Saxons, and greatly mimicked feudalism as practiced in Europe at the time. Armies used in various conflicts were drawn from such arrangements. The invasion of Scotland by King Athelstan in the 930s drew from thegns whom he had established. The English army at the Battle of Hastings also was similar, and as the English lost to the Normans, much of the standing native English nobility had been wiped out following the loss. A primary difference between this form of feudalism, as practiced in Anglo-Saxon England vis a vis the Norman period, was that it was a more native form of ties between the king and his nobles. It drew heavily on longstanding Germanic practices, distinct in evolution from the Frankish models employed contemporaneously. By 1066, England was a steady patchwork of lands owned by thegns and ealdormen, though the Anglo-Saxon nobility would steadily lose their lands after the Norman Conquest. The Domesday Book often remarked on who owned lands prior to the Conquest, which often were native English lords or King Edward the Confessor himself. Classic English feudalism Feudalism took root in England with William of Normandy's conquest in 1066. Before that, the seven relatively small individual English kingdoms, known collectively as the Heptarchy, maintained an unsteady relationship of raids, ransoms, and truces with Vikings from Denmark and Normandy from around the seventh-to-tenth centuries.[3] Viking dominance led to separation of an eastern segment of the land into a region known as the Danelaw that generated income for the Danes rather than for any of the English kingdoms.[4] This fracture in the stability of the Heptarchy paved the way for the successful Norman Conquest, and England's new king, William I, initiated a system of land grants to his vassals, the powerful knights who fought alongside him, in order to have them maintain his new order throughout the kingdom.[5][clarification needed] The feudal system of governance and economics thrived in England throughout the high medieval period, a time in which the wealthy prospered while the poor labored on the land with relatively little hope of economic autonomy or representative government. In the later medieval period, feudalism began to diminish in England with the eventual centralization of government that began around the first quarter of the fourteenth century,[6] and it remained in decline until its eventual abolition in England with the Tenures Abolition Act 1660. By then, a deeply embedded socio-economic class disparity had laid the foundation for the rise of capitalism to take the place of feudalism as the British Empire grew.[7] Under the English feudal system, the person of the king (asserting his allodial right) was the only absolute "owner" of land. All nobles, knights and other tenants, termed vassals, merely "held" land from the king, who was thus at the top of the "feudal pyramid". When feudal land grants were of indefinite or indeterminate duration, such grants were deemed freehold, while fixed term and non-hereditable grants were deemed non-freehold. However, even freehold fiefs were not unconditionally heritable—before inheriting, the heir had to pay a suitable feudal relief. Beneath the king in the feudal pyramid was a tenant-in-chief (generally a baron or knight) who, as the king's vassal, held and drew profit from a piece of the king's land. At the next tier of feudalism, holding land from the vassal was a mesne tenant (generally a knight, sometimes a baron, including tenants-in-chief in their capacity as holders of other fiefs) who in turn held parcels of land when sub-enfeoffed by the tenant-in-chief. Below the mesne tenant, further mesne tenants could hold from each other in series, creating a thriving, if complicated, feudal pyramid. Vassalage Before a lord (or king) could grant land (a fief) to a tenant, he had to make that person a vassal. This was done at a formal and symbolic ceremony called a commendation ceremony, composed of the two-part act of homage and oath of fealty. During homage, the lord and vassal entered a contract in which the vassal promised to fight for the lord at his command, whilst the lord agreed to protect the vassal from external forces, a valuable right in a society without police and with only a rudimentary justice system. The contract, once entered, could not be broken lightly. It was often sworn on a relic like a saint's bone or on a copy of the Gospel, and the gravitas of the commendation was accentuated by the clasping of the vassal's hands between the lord's as the oath was spoke.[8] A ceremonial kiss often sealed the contract though the kiss was less significant than the ritual of homage and the swearing of fealty.[8] The word fealty derives from the Latin fidelitas and denotes the fidelity owed by a vassal to his feudal lord. Fealty also refers to an oath that more explicitly reinforces the commitments of the vassal made during homage. Once the commendation was complete, the lord and vassal were now in a feudal relationship with agreed-upon mutual obligations to one another. The vassal's principal obligation to the lord was the performance of military service. Using whatever equipment the vassal could obtain by virtue of the revenues from the fief, the vassal was responsible to answer calls to military service on behalf of the lord. The equipment required and the duration of the service was usually agreed upon between the parties in detail in advance. For example, a vassal such as a baron, with a wealthy fiefdom lived well off the revenues of his lands and was able (and required) to provide a correspondingly impressive number of knights when called upon. Considering that each knight needed to attend his service with horses, armor, weapons, and even food and provisions to keep himself, his animals, and his attendants for the demanded period of time, a baron's service to the king could be costly in the extreme.[8] This security of military help was the primary reason the lord entered into the feudal relationship, but the vassal had another obligation to his lord, namely attendance at his court, whether manorial, baronial or at the king's court itself in the form of parliament.[9] This involved the vassal providing "counsel", so that if the lord faced a major decision he would summon all his vassals and hold a council. On the manorial level this might be a fairly mundane matter of agricultural policy, but the duty also included service as a juror when the lord handed down sentences for criminal offenses, up to and including in cases of capital punishment. Concerning the king's feudal court, the prototype of parliament, such deliberation could include the question of declaring war. Depending on the period of time and the location of the court, baronial, or manorial estate, feudal customs and practices varied. See examples of feudalism. Varieties of feudal tenure Main article: Feudal land tenure Under the feudal system several different forms of land tenure existed, each effectively a contract with differing rights and duties attached thereto. The main varieties are as follows: Military tenure Freehold (indeterminate & hereditable): by barony (per baroniam). Such tenure constituted the holder a feudal baron, and was the highest degree of tenure. It imposed duties of military service. In time barons were differentiated between greater and lesser barons, with only greater barons being guaranteed attendance at parliament.[10] All such holders were necessarily tenants-in-chief. by knight-service. This was a tenure ranking below barony, and was likewise for military service, of a lesser extent. It could be held in capite from the king or as a mesne tenancy from a tenant-in-chief. by castle-guard. This was a form of military service which involved guarding a nearby castle for a specified number of days per year. by scutage where the military service obligations had been commuted, or replaced, by money payments. Common during the decline of the feudal era and symbolic of the change from tenure by personal service to tenure for money rent. As such tenure had at one time been military, the jurist Henry de Bracton (d.1268) deemed it to be still categorised as a military tenure.[citation needed] Non-military tenure Freehold (indeterminate & hereditable): by serjeanty. Such tenure was in return for acting as a servant to the king, in a non-military capacity. Service in a ceremonial form is termed “grand serjeanty� whilst that of a more functional or menial nature is termed “petty sergeanty�. by frankalmoinage, generally a tenure restricted to clerics. Non-freehold (fixed-term & non-hereditable): by copyhold, where the duties and rights were tailored to the requirements of the lord of the manor and a copy of the terms agreed was entered on the roll of the manorial court as a record of such non-standard terms. by socage. This was the lowest form of tenure, involving payment in produce or in money. See also Bastard feudalism Cestui que Charter of Liberties Chivalry Concordat of Worms English feudal barony Feudal Lords (play-by-mail game) Gentry Landed property Majorat Manorialism Medieval demography Middle Ages Nulle terre sans seigneur Quia Emptores Sark Serfdom Statutes of Mortmain Knights Medieval warfare Fengjian – China Indian feudalism References and sources References Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th.ed. vol. 9, p.119. Cartwright, Mark. "Feudalism". World History Encyclopedia. Morris, Marc (2021). The Anglo-Saxons A History of the Beginnings of England: 406-1066. UK: Hutchinson Publishing. pp. 190–300. Carpenter, D. A. (2000-08-01). "The Second Century of English Feudalism". Past & Present. 168 (1): 30–71. doi:10.1093/past/168.1.30. ISSN 0031-2746. Strickland, Matthew (1996). War and Chivalry : the Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy, 1066-1217. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 31. Writs of Summons for the last general feudal levy of the English kingdom were issued in 1385, per Sanders, I.J., English Baronies, A Study of their Origin & Descent, 1086-1327, Oxford, 1960, preface, p. vii Comninel, George C. (2000). "English feudalism and the origins of capitalism". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 27 (4): 1–53. doi:10.1080/03066150008438748. ISSN 0306-6150. S2CID 59130738. Gies, Joseph & Frances (1974). Life in a Medieval Castle. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. pp. 40–52. Encyc. Brit. It was a standard part of the feudal contract that every tenant was under the obligation to attend his overlord's court to advise and support him; Sir Harris Nicholas, in Historic Peerage of England, ed. Courthope, p.18, quoted by Encyc. Brit, p. 388: "It was the principle of the feudal system that every tenant should attend the court of his immediate superior" From Magna Carta: "And for obtaining the common counsel of the kingdom and the assessing of an aid (except in the three cases aforesaid) or of a scutage, we will cause to be summoned the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons, severally by our letters". See also the Dialogus de Scaccario. Sources Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th. ed. vol. 9, pp. 119–123, "Feudalism" Further reading Barlow, F. (1988) The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042-1216. 4th edition, London. Round, J. Horace. (1909) Feudal England. London. Molyneux-Child, J.W. (1987) The Evolution of the English Manorial System. Lewes: The Book Guild. ISBN 0863322581 External links "Feudalism", by Thomas. D. Crage. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. "Feudalism?", by Paul Halsall. Internet Medieval Sourcebook. Categories: Feudalism in England Economy of medieval England The English overseas possessions, also known as the English colonial empire, comprised a variety of overseas territories that were colonised, conquered, or otherwise acquired by the former Kingdom of England during the centuries before the Acts of Union of 1707 between the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland created the Kingdom of Great Britain. The many English possessions then became the foundation of the British Empire and its fast-growing naval and mercantile power, which until then had yet to overtake those of the Dutch Republic, the Kingdom of Portugal, and the Crown of Castile. The first English overseas settlements were established in Ireland, followed by others in North America, Bermuda, and the West Indies, and by trading posts called "factories" in the East Indies, such as Bantam, and in the Indian subcontinent, beginning with Surat. In 1639, a series of English fortresses on the Indian coast was initiated with Fort St George. In 1661, the marriage of King Charles II to Catherine of Braganza brought him as part of her dowry new possessions which until then had been Portuguese, including Tangier in North Africa and Bombay in India. In North America, Newfoundland and Virginia were the first centres of English colonisation. During the 17th century, Maine, Plymouth, New Hampshire, Salem, Massachusetts Bay, New Scotland, Connecticut, New Haven, Maryland, and Rhode Island and Providence were settled. In 1664, New Netherland and New Sweden were taken from the Dutch, becoming New York, New Jersey, and parts of Delaware and Pennsylvania. Origins A replica of Cabot's ship the Matthew The Kingdom of England is generally dated from the rule of Æthelstan from 927.[1] During the rule of the House of Knýtlinga, from 1013 to 1014 and 1016 to 1042, England was part of a personal union that included domains in Scandinavia. In 1066, William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, conquered England, making the Duchy a Crown land of the English throne. Through the remainder of the Middle Ages the kings of England held extensive territories in France, based on their history in this Duchy. Under the Angevin Empire, England formed part of a collection of lands in the British Isles and France held by the Plantagenet dynasty. The collapse of this dynasty led to the Hundred Years' War between England and France. At the outset of the war the Kings of England ruled almost all of France, but by the end of it in 1453 only the Pale of Calais remained to them.[2] Calais was eventually lost to the French in 1558. The Channel Islands, as the remnants of the Duchy of Normandy, retain their link to the Crown to the present day. The first English overseas expansion occurred as early as 1169, when the Norman invasion of Ireland began to establish English possessions in Ireland, with thousands of English and Welsh settlers arriving in Ireland.[3] As a result of this the Lordship of Ireland was claimed for centuries by the English monarch; however, English control mostly was resigned to an area of Ireland known as The Pale, most of Ireland, large swaths of Munster, Ulster and Connaught remained free of English rule until the Tudor and Stuart period. It was not until the 16th century that the English began to colonize Ireland with protestant English settlers with the plantations of Ireland[4][5][6][7] One such overseas colony was the colony of King's County, now Offaly, and Queen's County, now Laois, in 1556.[8] A joint stock colony was planted in the late 1560s, at Kerrycurrihy near Cork city, on land leased from the Earl of Desmond.[9] Grenville also seized lands for colonization at Tracton, to the west of Cork harbour in 1569. In the early 17th century the Plantation of Ulster began.[10][page needed] English control of Ireland fluctuated for centuries until Ireland was incorporated into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. The voyages of Christopher Columbus began in 1492, and he sighted land in the West Indies on 12 October that year. In 1496, excited by the successes in overseas exploration of the Portuguese and the Spanish, King Henry VII of England commissioned John Cabot to lead a voyage to find a route from the Atlantic to the Spice Islands of Asia, subsequently known as the search for the North West Passage. Cabot sailed in 1497, successfully making landfall on the coast of Newfoundland. There, he believed he had reached Asia and made no attempt to found a permanent colony.[11] He led another voyage to the Americas the following year, but nothing was heard of him or his ships again.[12] The Reformation had made enemies of England and Spain, and in 1562 Elizabeth sanctioned the privateers Hawkins and Drake to attack Spanish ships off the coast of West Africa.[13] Later, as the Anglo-Spanish Wars intensified, Elizabeth approved further raids against Spanish ports in the Americas and against shipping returning to Europe with treasure from the New World.[14] Meanwhile, the influential writers Richard Hakluyt and John Dee were beginning to press for the establishment of England's own overseas empire. Spain was well established in the Americas, while Portugal had built up a network of trading posts and fortresses on the coasts of Africa, Brazil, and China, and the French had already begun to settle the Saint Lawrence River, which later became New France.[15] The first English overseas colonies The first English overseas colonies started in 1556 with the plantations of Ireland after the Tudor conquest of Ireland. One such overseas joint stock colony was established in the late 1560s, at Kerrycurrihy near Cork city[16] Several people who helped establish colonies in Ireland also later played a part in the early colonisation of North America, particularly a group known as the West Country men.[17] The first English colonies overseas in America was made in the last quarter of the 16th century, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.[18] The 1580s saw the first attempt at permanent English settlements in North America, a generation before the Plantation of Ulster and occurring a little bit after the plantation of Munster. Soon there was an explosion of English colonial activity, driven by men seeking new land, by the pursuit of trade, and by the search for religious freedom. In the 17th century, the destination of most English people making a new life overseas was in the West Indies rather than in North America. Queen Elizabeth Early claims Financed by the Muscovy Company, Martin Frobisher set sail on 7 June 1576, from Blackwall, London, seeking the North West Passage. In August 1576, he landed at Frobisher Bay on Baffin Island and this was marked by the first Church of England service recorded on North American soil. Frobisher returned to Frobisher Bay in 1577, taking possession of the south side of it in Queen Elizabeth's name. In a third voyage, in 1578, he reached the shores of Greenland and also made an unsuccessful attempt at founding a settlement in Frobisher Bay.[19][20] While on the coast of Greenland, he also claimed that for England.[21] At the same time, between 1577 and 1580, Sir Francis Drake was circumnavigating the globe. He claimed Elizabeth Island off Cape Horn for his queen, and on 24 August 1578 claimed another Elizabeth Island, in the Straits of Magellan.[22] In 1579, he landed on the north coast of California, claiming the area for Elizabeth as "New Albion".[23] However, these claims were not followed up by settlements.[24] In 1578, while Drake was away on his circumnavigation, Queen Elizabeth granted a patent for overseas exploration to his half-brother Humphrey Gilbert, and that year Gilbert sailed for the West Indies to engage in piracy and to establish a colony in North America. However, the expedition was abandoned before the Atlantic had been crossed. In 1583, Gilbert sailed to Newfoundland, where in a formal ceremony he took possession of the harbour of St John's together with all land within two hundred leagues to the north and south of it, although he left no settlers behind him. He did not survive the return journey to England.[25][26] The first overseas settlements Re-enactment of English settlers arriving in Virginia, 1607 On 25 March 1584, Queen Elizabeth I granted Sir Walter Raleigh a charter for the colonization of an area of North America which was to be called, in her honour, Virginia. This charter specified that Raleigh had seven years in which to establish a settlement, or else lose his right to do so. Raleigh and Elizabeth intended that the venture should provide riches from the New World and a base from which to send privateers on raids against the treasure fleets of Spain. Raleigh himself never visited North America, although he led expeditions in 1595 and 1617 to the Orinoco River basin in South America in search of the golden city of El Dorado. Instead, he sent others to found the Roanoke Colony, later known as the "Lost Colony".[27] On 31 December 1600, Elizabeth gave a charter to the East India Company, under the name "The Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies".[28] The Company soon established its first trading post in the East Indies, at Bantam on the island of Java, and others, beginning with Surat, on the coasts of what are now India and Bangladesh. Most of the new English colonies established in North America and the West Indies, whether successfully or otherwise, were proprietary colonies with Proprietors, appointed to found and govern settlements under Royal charters granted to individuals or to joint stock companies. Early examples of these are the Virginia Company, which created the first successful English overseas settlements at Jamestown in 1607 and Bermuda, unofficially in 1609 and officially in 1612, its spin-off, the Somers Isles Company, to which Bermuda (also known as the Somers Isles) was transferred in 1615, and the Newfoundland Company which settled Cuper's Cove near St John's, Newfoundland in 1610. Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts Bay, each incorporated during the early 1600s, were charter colonies, as was Virginia for a time. They were established through land patents issued by the Crown for specified tracts of land. In a few instances the charter specified that the colony's territory extended westward to the Pacific Ocean. The charter of Connecticut, Massachusetts Bay and Virginia each contained this "sea to sea" provision. Bermuda, today the oldest-remaining British Overseas Territory, was settled and claimed by England as a result of the shipwreck there in 1609 of the Virginia Company's flagship Sea Venture. The town of St George's, founded in Bermuda in 1612, remains the oldest continuously-inhabited English settlement in the New World. Some historians state that with its formation predating the conversion of "James Fort" into "Jamestown" in 1619, St George's was actually the first successful town the English established in the New World. Bermuda and Bermudians have played important, sometimes pivotal, roles in the shaping of the English and British trans-Atlantic empires. These include roles in maritime commerce, settlement of the continent and of the West Indies, and the projection of naval power via the colony's privateers, among others.[29][30] Between 1640 and 1660, the West Indies were the destination of more than two-thirds of English emigrants to the New World. By 1650, there were 44,000 English people in the Caribbean, compared to 12,000 on the Chesapeake and 23,000 in New England.[31] The most substantial English settlement in that period was at Barbados. In 1660, King Charles II established the Royal African Company, essentially a trading company dealing in slaves, led by his brother James, Duke of York. In 1661, Charles's marriage to the Portuguese princess Catherine of Braganza brought him the ports of Tangier in Africa and Bombay in India as part of her dowry. Tangier proved very expensive to hold and was abandoned in 1684.[32] After the Dutch surrender of Fort Amsterdam to English control in 1664, England took over the Dutch colony of New Netherland, including New Amsterdam. Formalized in 1667, this contributed to the Second Anglo–Dutch War. In 1664, New Netherland was renamed the Province of New York. At the same time, the English also came to control the former New Sweden, in the present-day U.S. state of Delaware, which had also been a Dutch possession and later became part of Pennsylvania. In 1673, the Dutch regained New Netherland, but they gave it up again under the Treaty of Westminster of 1674. Council of Trade and Foreign Plantations In 1621, following a downturn in overseas trade which had created financial problems for the Exchequer, King James instructed his Privy Council to establish an ad hoc committee of inquiry to look into the causes of the decline. This was called The Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council appointed for the consideration of all matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations. Intended to be a temporary creation, the committee, later called a 'Council', became the origin of the Board of Trade which has had an almost continuous existence since 1621. The Committee quickly took a hand in promoting the more profitable enterprises of the English possessions, and in particular the production of tobacco and sugar.[33] The Americas List of English possessions in North America Captain John Smith, "Admiral of New England" St John's, Newfoundland, chartered in 1583 by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, was seasonally settled ca. 1520[34] and had settlers who remained all year round by 1620.[35][36] Roanoke Colony, in present-day North Carolina, was first founded in 1585 but was abandoned the next year. In 1587 a second attempt was made at establishing a settlement, but the colonists disappeared, leading to the name 'Lost Colony.' One of those lost was Virginia Dare. At Cuttyhunk, one of the Elizabeth Islands (named after Queen Elizabeth I) of present-day Massachusetts, a small fort and trading post was established by Bartholomew Gosnold in 1602, but the island was abandoned after only one month. The Virginia Company was chartered in 1606, and in 1624 its concessions became the royal Colony of Virginia. Jamestown, Virginia, was founded by the Virginia Company of London in 1607. Bermuda, also known as the Somers Isles, lying in the North Atlantic, were accidentally settled by the Virginia Company of London in 1609, due to the wrecking of the company's flagship Sea Venture; the company's possession was made official in 1612, when St George's, the oldest continually-inhabited, and the first proper, English town in the New World was established; in 1615 its administration passed to the Somers Isles Company, which was formed by the same shareholders; House of Assembly of Bermuda established in 1620; Bermudians' complaints to the Crown led to the revocation of the company's Royal charter in 1684. Henricus, also called Henricopolis, Henrico Town, and Henrico, was founded by the London Virginia Company in 1611 as an alternative to the swampy Jamestown, but it was largely destroyed in the Indian massacre of 1622. Popham Colony: on 13 August 1607, the Virginia Company of Plymouth settled the Popham Colony along the Kennebec River in present-day Maine. The company had a licence to establish settlements between the 38th parallel (the upper reaches of the Chesapeake Bay) and the 45th parallel (near the current US border with Canada). However, Popham was abandoned after about a year, and the Company then became inactive. Plaque at St John's marking Humphrey Gilbert's landing there, 1583 The Society of Merchant Venturers of Bristol began to settle Newfoundland: Cuper's Cove, founded in 1610, was abandoned in the 1620s Bristol's Hope, founded in 1618, was abandoned in the 1630s London and Bristol Company (Newfoundland) Cambriol, founded in 1617. In 1616 Sir William Vaughan (1575–1641) bought from the Newfoundland Company all that land on the Avalon Peninsula located south of a line drawn from Caplin Bay (now Calvert) to Placentia Bay. The colony had been abandoned by 1637. Renews, founded in 1615, abandoned in 1619[37] Plymouth Council for New England Plymouth Colony, founded 1620, merged with Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1691 Ferryland, Newfoundland, granted to George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore in 1620, first settlers in August 1621[38] Province of Maine, granted 1622, sold to Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1677 South Falkland, Newfoundland, founded 1623 by Henry Cary, 1st Viscount Falkland Province of New Hampshire, later New Hampshire settled in 1623, see also New Hampshire Grants Cape Ann was an unsuccessful fishing colony settled in 1624 by the Dorchester Company. Salem Colony, settled in 1628, merged with the Massachusetts Bay Colony the next year Massachusetts Bay Colony, later part of Massachusetts, founded in 1629 New Scotland, in present Nova Scotia, 1629–1632 Connecticut Colony, later part of Connecticut, founded in 1633 Province of Maryland, later Maryland, founded in 1634 Province of New Albion, chartered in 1634, but had failed by 1649–1650. Saybrook Colony, founded in 1635, merged with Connecticut in 1644 Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, first settled in 1636 New Haven Colony, founded 1638, merged with Connecticut in 1665 Gardiners Island, founded 1639, now part of East Hampton, New York The New England Confederation, formally the 'United Colonies of New England', was a short-lived military alliance of the English colonies of Massachusetts Bay, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, established in 1643, aiming to unite the Puritan colonies against the Native Americans. Its charter provided for the return of fugitive criminals and indentured servants.[39] Province of New York, captured from the Dutch in 1664 Province of New Jersey, also captured in 1664 Was divided into West Jersey and East Jersey after 1674, each held by its own company of Proprietors. Rupert's Land, named in honour of Prince Rupert of the Rhine, the cousin of King Charles II. In 1668, Rupert commissioned two ships, the Nonsuch and the Eaglet, to explore possible trade into Hudson Bay. Nonsuch founded Fort Rupert at the mouth of the Rupert River. Prince Rupert became the first governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, which was established in 1670. Province of Pennsylvania, later Pennsylvania, founded in 1681 as an English colony, although first settled by the Dutch and the Swedes Delaware Colony, later Delaware, separated from Pennsylvania in 1704 Province of Carolina, settled 1653 at the Albemarle Settlements, chartered 1663 as a single territory but soon functioning in practice as two separate colonies: Province of North Carolina, later North Carolina; first settled at Roanoke in 1586, permanently settled 1653, became a separate British colony in 1710. Province of South Carolina, later South Carolina; first permanently settled in 1670, became a separate British colony in 1710. One possession established after 1707 as a British colony rather than English: Province of Georgia, later Georgia; first settled in 1732. List of English possessions in the West Indies Barbados, first visited by an English ship, the Olive Blossom, in 1605,[40] was not settled by England until 1625,[41] soon becoming the third major English settlement in the Americas after Jamestown, Virginia, and the Plymouth Colony. Saint Kitts was settled by the English in 1623, followed by the French in 1625. The English and French united to massacre the local Kalinago, pre-empting a Kalinago plan to massacre the Europeans, and then partitioned the island, with the English in the middle and the French at either end. In 1629 a Spanish force seized St Kitts, but the English settlement was rebuilt following the peace between England and Spain in 1630. The island then alternated between English and French control during the 17th and 18th centuries until it became permanently associated with Britain since 1783. Nevis, settled 1628 Providence Island colony, settled by the Providence Island Company in 1629 and captured by Spain in 1641. Montserrat, settled 1632 Antigua, settled in 1632 by a group of English colonists from Saint Kitts The Bahamas were mostly deserted from 1513 to 1648, when the Eleutheran Adventurers left Bermuda to settle on the island of Eleuthera. Anguilla, first colonized by English settlers from St Kitts in 1650; the French gained the island in 1666, but under the Treaty of Breda of 1667 it was returned to England Jamaica, formerly a Spanish possession known as Santiago, it was conquered by the English in 1655. Barbuda, first settled by the Spanish and French, was colonized by the English in 1666. The Cayman Islands were visited by Sir Francis Drake in 1586, who named them. They were largely uninhabited until the 17th century, when they were informally settled by pirates, refugees from the Spanish Inquisition, shipwrecked sailors, and deserters from Oliver Cromwell's army in Jamaica. England gained control of the islands, together with Jamaica, under the Treaty of Madrid of 1670. List of English possessions in Central and South America Elizabeth Island off Cape Horn, and another Elizabeth Island in the Straits of Magellan, were claimed for England by Sir Francis Drake in August 1578.[22] However, no settlements were made and it is no longer possible to identify the islands with certainty. Guiana: an attempt in 1604 to establish a colony failed in its main objective to find gold and lasted only two years.[42] Mosquito Coast: the Providence Island Company occupied a small part of this area in the 17th century. Falkland Islands: Claimed for England by mariner John Strong in 1690, who made the first recorded landing on the islands. English possessions in India and the East Indies Fort St George, Madras, the first English fortress in India Bantam: The English started to sail to the East Indies about the year 1600, which was the date of the foundation in the City of London of the East India Company ("the Governour and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies") and in 1602 a permanent "factory" was established at Bantam on the island of Java.[43] At first, the factory was headed by a Chief Factor, from 1617 by a President, from 1630 by Agents, and from 1634 to 1652 by Presidents again. The factory then declined. Surat: The East India Company's traders settled at Surat in 1608, followed by the Dutch in 1617. Surat was the first headquarters town of the East India Company, but in 1687 it transferred its command centre to Bombay. Machilipatnam: a trading factory was established here on the Coromandel Coast of India in 1611, at first reporting to Bantam.[44] Run, a spice island in the East Indies. On 25 December 1616, Nathaniel Courthope landed on Run to defend it against the claims of the Dutch East India Company and the inhabitants accepted James I as sovereign of the island. After four years of siege by the Dutch and the death of Courthope in 1620, the English left. According to the Treaty of Westminster of 1654, Run should have been returned to England, but was not. After the Second Anglo-Dutch War, England and the United Provinces agreed to the status quo, under which the English kept Manhattan, which the Duke of York had occupied in 1664, while in return Run was formally abandoned to the Dutch. In 1665 the English traders were expelled. Fort St George, at Madras (Chennai), was the first English fortress in India, founded in 1639. George Town was the accompanying civilian settlement. Bombay: On 11 May 1661, the marriage treaty of King Charles II and Catherine of Braganza, daughter of King John IV of Portugal, transferred Bombay into the possession of England, as part of Catherine's dowry.[45] However, the Portuguese kept several neighbouring islands. Between 1665 and 1666, the English acquired Mahim, Sion, Dharavi, and Wadala.[46] These islands were leased to the East India Company in 1668. The population quickly rose from 10,000 in 1661, to 60,000 in 1675.[47] In 1687, the East India Company transferred its headquarters from Surat to Bombay, and the city eventually became the headquarters of the Bombay Presidency.[48] Bencoolen was an East India Company pepper-trading centre with a garrison on the coast of the island of Sumatra, established in 1685. Calcutta on the Hooghly River in Bengal was settled by the East India Company in 1690. English possessions in Africa English Tangier, 1670 James Island and Fort Gambia The Gambia River: in 1588, António, Prior of Crato, claimant to the Portuguese throne, sold exclusive trade rights on the Gambia River to English merchants, and Queen Elizabeth I confirmed his grant by letters patent. In 1618, King James I granted a charter to an English company for trade with the Gambia and the Gold Coast. The English captured Fort Gambia from the Dutch in 1661, who ceded it in 1664. The island on which the Fort stood was renamed James Island, and the fort Fort James, after James, Duke of York, later King James II. At first the chartered Company of Royal Adventurers in Africa administered the territory, which traded in gold, ivory, and slaves. In 1684, the Royal African Company took over the administration. English Tangier: this was another English possession gained by King Charles II in 1661 as part of the dowry of Catherine of Braganza. While it was strategically important, Tangier proved very expensive to garrison and defend and was abandoned in 1684.[32] Saint Helena, an island in the South Atlantic, was settled by the English East India Company in 1659 under a charter of Oliver Cromwell granted in 1657. (The associated islands of Ascension and Tristan da Cunha were not settled until the 19th century.) English possessions in Europe See also: Angevin Empire Duchy of Normandy: Normandy became associated with the English crown in 1066 when the Duke of Normandy William the Conqueror became King of England. The mainland duchy was conquered by Philip II of France in 1204 and English claims finally relinquished in the Treaty of Paris in 1259. The Channel Islands remained English. County of Anjou and County of Maine: Anjou and Maine merged with the English crown when the Count of Anjou became Henry II of England in 1154. They were lost to the French in 1204. Duchy of Aquitaine: Aquitaine, a fief of the Kingdom of France, passed to the English through the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine to the future Henry II of England in 1152. The duchy was declared forfeit by Philip VI of France in 1337, beginning the Hundred Years' War, but Edward III of England was recognised as sovereign Lord of Aquitaine by the Treaty of Brétigny in 1360. The French reconquest of Aquitaine began in 1451 and was complete with the Battle of Castillon in 1453. Kingdom of France: Edward III of England first claimed the French throne in 1340 but abandoned it under the Treaty of Brétigny in 1360. He resumed his claim in 1369 and Henry V of England was recognised as heir to the French throne by the Treaty of Troyes in 1420; his son Henry VI of England succeeded as de facto King of France in 1422. Between 1429 and 1453 the French drove the English out of France, and the Hundred Years' War was finally ended by the Treaty of Picquigny in 1475, when Edward IV of England agreed not to pursue his claim further. English and later British monarchs continued to use the title of King or Queen of France until 1801. Pale of Calais: Calais had been captured by Edward III in 1347 and English possession was confirmed by the Treaty of Brétigny. It was the only remaining English possession on the Continent after the effective end of the Hundred Years' War in 1453. Calais was recaptured by the French in 1558 and French occupation recognised by the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis in 1559. English claims were finally abandoned by the Treaty of Troyes in 1564. Tournai: Tournai was occupied by Henry VIII of England following the Battle of the Spurs in 1513. It was returned to France in 1519 under the terms of the Treaty of London. Le Havre: English troops occupied Le Havre under the Treaty of Hampton Court in 1562. The town was reconquered by the French the following year. Cautionary Towns: English possession of Flushing and Brill was confirmed by the Treaty of Nonsuch in 1585. The towns were sold to the Dutch Republic in 1616. Dunkirk: French and English forces captured Dunkirk from the Spanish in 1658, and the town was granted to England by the Treaty of the Pyrenees the next year. Dunkirk was sold back to France in 1662. Gibraltar: In 1704, Gibraltar was captured for England by an Anglo-Dutch fleet, becoming the country's first European overseas possession since the sale of Dunkirk to France in 1662. The Naval operation was commanded by George Rooke. Gibraltar later became a strategic naval base for the Royal Navy and was officially ceded to Great Britain in 1713. It remains a British possession. Transformation into British Empire The Treaty of Union of 1706, which with effect from 1707 combined England and Scotland into a new sovereign state called Great Britain, provided for the subjects of the new state to "have full freedom and intercourse of trade and navigation to and from any port or place within the said united kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging". While the Treaty of Union also provided for the winding up of the Scottish African and Indian Company, it made no such provision for the English companies or colonies. In effect, with the Union they became British colonies.[49] List of English possessions which are still British Overseas Territories Anguilla Bermuda Gibraltar Cayman Islands Montserrat Saint Helena, as part of Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Turks and Caicos Timeline 1607 Jamestown, Virginia 1609 Bermuda 1612 Surat, India 1620 East coast of Newfoundland (island) and Plymouth, Massachusetts 1625 Barbados and Saint Kitts, Caribbean 1628 Nevis 1630 Boston, North America and Mosquito Coast, Central America 1632 Antigua and Montserrat, Caribbean 1638 Belize (British Honduras) 1639 Chennai (Madras), India 1648 The Bahamas 1650 Anguilla 1660 Jamaica and Cayman Islands, Caribbean 1661 Mumbai, India and Dog Island, Gambia 1663 Saint Lucia 1664 New Netherland, North America 1666 Barbuda 1670 Turks and Caicos Islands and Rupert's Land 1672 British Virgin Islands 1673 Fort James, Ghana 1682 Philadelphia 1690 Kolkata (Calcutta), India 1704 Gibraltar See also Angevin Empire Concessions and leases in international relations First wave of European colonization Historiography of the British Empire North Sea Empire Plantations of Ireland Scottish colonization of the Americas Thirteen Colonies References Keynes, Simon. "Edward, King of the Anglo-Saxons" in N. J. Higham & D. H. Hill, Edward the Elder 899-924 (London: Routledge, 2001), p. 61. Griffiths, Ralph A. King and Country: England and Wales in the Fifteenth Century (2003, ISBN 1-8528-5018-3), p. 53 Bartlett, Thomas. Ireland: A History (2010, ISBN 0-5211-9720-1) p. 40. Falkiner, Caesar Litton (1904). Illustrations of Irish history and topography, mainly of the 17th century. London: Longmans, Green, & Co. p. 117. ISBN 1-144-76601-X. Moody, T. W.; Martin, F. X., eds. (1967). The Course of Irish History. Cork: Mercier Press. p. 370. Ranelagh, John (1994). A Short History of Ireland. Cambridge University Press. p. 36. Edwards, Ruth Dudley; Hourican, Bridget (2005). An Atlas of Irish History. Psychology Press. pp. 33–34. 3 & 4 Phil & Mar, c.2 (1556). The Act was repealed in 1962 Archived 11 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Lennon, Colm. Sixteenth Century Ireland, the Incomplete Conquest, pp. 211–213 Hill, George. The Fall of Irish Chiefs and Clans and the Plantation of Ulster (2004, ISBN 0-9401-3442-X) Andrews, Kenneth. Trade, Plunder and Settlement: Maritime Enterprise and the Genesis of the British Empire, 1480–1630 (Cambridge University Press, 1984, ISBN 0-5212-7698-5) p. 45. Ferguson, Niall. Colossus: The Price of America's Empire (Penguin, 2004, p. 4) Thomas, Hugh. The Slave Trade: the History of the Atlantic Slave Trade (Picador, 1997), pp. 155–158. Ferguson (2004), p. 7. Lloyd, Trevor Owen. The British Empire 1558–1995 (Oxford University Press, 1996, ISBN 0-1987-3134-5), pp. 4–8. Lennon, pp. 211–213 Taylor, Alan (2001). American Colonies, The Settling of North America. Penguin. pp. 119, 123. ISBN 0-1420-0210-0. Canny, Nicholas. The Origins of Empire, The Oxford History of the British Empire, vol. I (Oxford University Press, 1998, ISBN 0-1992-4676-9), p. 35 The Nunavut Voyages of Martin Frobisher at web site of the Canadian Museum of Civilization, accessed 5 August 2011 Cooke, Alan (1979) [1966]. "Frobisher, Sir Martin". In Brown, George Williams (ed.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Vol. I (1000–1700) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press. McDermott, James. Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan privateer (Yale University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-3000-8380-7.) p. 190 Fletcher, Francis. The World encompassed by Sir Francis Drake (1854 edition) by the Hakluyt Society, p. 75. Dell'Osso, John (October 12, 2016). "Drakes Bay National Historic Landmark Dedication". NPS.gov. National Park Service. Retrieved January 23, 2019. Sugden, John. Sir Francis Drake (Barrie & Jenkins, 1990, ISBN 0-7126-2038-9), p. 118. Andrews (1984), pp. 188-189 Quinn, David B. (1979) [1966]. "Gilbert, Sir Humphrey". In Brown, George Williams (ed.). Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Vol. I (1000–1700) (online ed.). University of Toronto Press. Quinn, David B. Set fair for Roanoke: voyages and colonies, 1584–1606 (1985) The register of letters, &c: of the governour and company of merchants of London trading into the East Indies, 1600–1619 (B. Quaritch, 1893), p. 3. Delgado, Sally J. (2015). "Reviewed Work: In the Eye of All Trade by Michael J. Jarvis". Caribbean Studies. 43 (2): 296–299. doi:10.1353/crb.2015.0030. ISBN 978-0-8078-3321-6. S2CID 152211704. Retrieved 2020-06-13. Shorto, Lt. Col. Gavin. The Bermudian: Bermuda in the Privateering Business Archived 2011-07-16 at the Wayback Machine Taylor, Alan. Colonial America: A Very Short Introduction (2012), p. 78 Wreglesworth, John. Tangier: England's Forgotten Colony (1661-1684), p. 6 Encyclopædia Britannica: a new survey of universal knowledge (Volume 10, 1963), p. 583 Canny, Nicholas. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume I, 2001, ISBN 0-1992-4676-9. "Early Settlement Schemes". Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Web Site Project. Memorial University of Newfoundland. 1998. Retrieved 2010-01-09. O'Neill, Paul. The Oldest City: The Story of St. John's, Newfoundland, 2003, ISBN 0-9730-2712-6. "William Vaughan and New Cambriol". Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage Web Site Project. Memorial University of Newfoundland. Retrieved 2010-01-09. Permanent Settlement at Avalon, Colony of Avalon Foundation, Revised March 2002, accessed 6 August 2011 Doyle, John Andrew. English Colonies in America: The Puritan colonies (1889) chapter 8, p. 220 Schomburg, Sir Robert. History of Barbados (2012 edition), p. 258 Thwaites, Reuben Gold. The Colonies, 1492-1750 (1927), p. 245 Canny, p. 71 East India Company, The Register of Letters &c. of the Governour and Company of Merchants of London Trading Into the East Indies, 1600-1619 (B. Quaritch, 1893), pp. lxxiv, 33 Ramaswami, N. S. Fort St. George, Madras (Madras, 1980; Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology, No. 49) "Catherine of Bragança (1638–1705)". BBC. Retrieved 5 November 2008. The Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island (1978) p. 54 David, M. D. History of Bombay, 1661–1708 (1973) p. 410 Carsten, F. L. The New Cambridge Modern History V (The ascendancy of France 1648–88) (Cambridge University Press, 1961, ISBN 978-0-5210-4544-5), p. 427 Treaty of Union of the Two Kingdoms of Scotland and England at scotshistoryonline.co.uk, accessed 2 August 2011 Further reading Adams, James Truslow, The Founding of New England (1921), to 1690 Andrews, Charles M., The Colonial Period of American History (1934–1938), the standard political overview to 1700 Andrews, Charles M., Colonial Self-Government, 1652–1689 (1904) full text online Bayly, C. A., ed., Atlas of the British Empire (1989), survey by scholars, heavily illustrated Black, Jeremy, The British Seaborne Empire (2004) Coelho, Philip R. P., "The Profitability of Imperialism: The British Experience in the West Indies 1768–1772", Explorations in Economic History, July 1973, Vol. 10 Issue 3, pp. 253–280. Crouch, Nathaniel. The English Empire in America: or a Prospect of His Majesties Dominions in the West-Indies (London, 1685). Dalziel, Nigel, The Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire (2006), 144 pp Doyle, John Andrew, English Colonies in America: Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas (1882) online edition Doyle, John Andrew, English Colonies in America: The Puritan colonies (1889) online edition Doyle, John Andrew, The English in America: The colonies under the House of Hanover (1907) online edition Ferguson, Niall, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (2002) Fishkin, Rebecca Love, English Colonies in America (2008) Foley, Arthur, The Early English Colonies (Sadler Phillips, 2010) Gipson, Lawrence. The British Empire Before the American Revolution (1936–1970), comprehensive scholarly overview Morris, Richard B., "The Spacious Empire of Lawrence Henry Gipson", William and Mary Quarterly Vol. 24, No. 2 (Apr., 1967), pp. 169–189 JSTOR 1920835 Green, William A., "Caribbean Historiography, 1600–1900: The Recent Tide", Journal of Interdisciplinary History Vol. 7, No. 3 (Winter, 1977), pp. 509–530. JSTOR 202579 Greene, Jack P., Peripheries & Center: Constitutional Development in the Extended Polities of the British Empire & the United States, 1607–1788 (1986), 274 pages. James, Lawrence, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (1997) Jernegan, Marcus Wilson, The American Colonies, 1492–1750 (1959) Koot, Christian J., Empire at the Periphery: British Colonists, Anglo-Dutch Trade, and the Development of the British Atlantic, 1621–1713 (2011) Knorr, Klaus E., British Colonial Theories 1570–1850 (1944) Louis, William, Roger (general editor), The Oxford History of the British Empire, (1998–1999), vol. 1 "The Origins of Empire" ed. Nicholas Canny (1998) McDermott, James, Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan privateer (Yale University Press, 2001). Marshall, P. J., ed., The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire (1996) O'Shaughnessy, Andrew Jackson, Empire Divided: The American Revolution & the British Caribbean (2000) 357pp Parker, Lewis K., English Colonies in the Americas (2003) Payne, Edward John, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen to America (vol. 1, 1893; vol. 2, 1900) Payne, Edward John, History of the New World called America (vol. 1, 1892; vol. 2, 1899) Quinn, David B., Set Fair for Roanoke: voyages and colonies, 1584–1606 (1985) Rose, J. Holland, A. P. Newton and E. A. Benians, gen. eds., The Cambridge History of the British Empire, (1929–1961); vol 1: "The Old Empire from the Beginnings to 1783" Sheridan, Richard B., "The Plantation Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, 1625–1775", Caribbean Studies Vol. 9, No. 3 (Oct., 1969), pp. 5–25. JSTOR 25612146 Sitwell, Sidney Mary, Growth of the English Colonies (new ed. 2010) Thomas, Robert Paul, "The Sugar Colonies of the Old Empire: Profit or Loss for Great Britain" in Economic History Review April 1968, Vol. 21 Issue 1, pp. 30–45. vte Kingdom of England History Timeline Anglo-Saxon England Heptarchy Kingdom of England Norman Conquest Anglo-Normans The Anarchy Angevin Empire England in the late Middle Ages Economy in the Middle Ages Wars of the Roses Tudor period English Reformation Elizabethan era English Renaissance Stuart period Union of the Crowns Gunpowder Plot Jacobean era Civil War Interregnum Commonwealth of England The Protectorate The Restoration Popish Plot Exclusion Crisis Glorious Revolution Union with Scotland Overseas possessions Crown Proprietary Protectorate Maritime history Royal Houses Wessex Knýtlinga Normandy Angevin Plantagenet Lancaster York Tudor Stuart Orange-Nassau PoliticsLaw Witan Curia regis Magnum Concilium Parliament House of Lords House of Commons King's Secretary Monarchy Council of State Lord Protector Peerage Privy Council Ministries Secretary of State Governance Anglo-Saxon Medieval Elizabethan Star Chamber Whigs Tories Acts of Parliament: 1225–1267 1275–1307 1308–1325 Temp. incert. 1327–1411 1413–1460 1461 1463 1464 1467 1468 1472 1474 1477 1482 1483 1485–1503 1509–1535 1536 1539–1540 1541 1542 1543 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1551 1553 1554 1555 1557 1558–1575 1580 1584 1586 1588 1592 1597 1601 1603 1605 1606 1609 1620 1623 1625 1627 1640 1642–1660 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1670 1672 1675 1677 1678 1679 1680 1685 1688 1689 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1696 1697 1698 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1705 1706 Military Anglo-Saxon military Warfare English Army New Model Army Royal Navy Ships History Geography Counties Islands Places Towns Castles Palaces Demographics English language English people list Culture Religion Church of England Cuisine Folklore Morris dance Country dance Architecture Anglo-Saxon English Gothic Tudor Elizabethan Jacobean Queen Anne Georgian Symbols National flag (list) Heraldry Coat of arms College of Arms Royal badges Royal supporters Royal standards Crown Jewels Tudor rose Oak tree St George St George's Day vte Empires Ancient (Colonies) Akkadian Neo-Sumerian Assyrian Middle Assyrian Neo-Assyrian Babylonian Old Babylonian Kassite Neo-Babylonian Chinese Qin Han Jin D'mt Egyptian Old Kingdom Middle Kingdom New Kingdom Goguryeo Harsha Hellenistic Macedonian Seleucid Ptolemaic Bactrian Indo-Greek Hittite Hunnic White Xiongnu Iranian Median Achaemenid Parthian Sasanian Kush Kushan Magadha Haryanka Shaishunaga Nanda Maurya Shunga Gupta Phoenician Carthaginian Roman Western Eastern Satavahana Xianbei Nirun Post-classical Aragonese Angevin Ayyubid Aztec Benin Bornu Bruneian Bulgarian First Second Burmese First Calakmul Caliphate Rashidun Umayyad Abbasid Fatimid Chalukya Western Eastern Chinese Sui Tang Liao Song Jīn Yuan Chola Ethiopian Aksum Zagwe Solomonic Genoese Georgian Huetar Inca Kannauj Pala Gurjara-Pratihara Rashtrakuta Iranian Tahirid Saffarid Samanid Buyid Japanese Yamato Kamakura Muromachi Edo Kanem Khmer Latin Majapahit Mali Mongol Yuan Golden Horde Chagatai Khanate Ilkhanate Moroccan Idrisid Almoravid Almohad North Sea Oyo Hellenic Roman Byzantine Nicaea Thessalonica Trebizond Epirus Morea Romano-Germanic Carolingian Holy Roman Serbian Singhasari Songhai Srivijaya Tibetan Tikal Tiwanaku Toltec Turco-Persian Ghaznavid Great Seljuk Khwarezmian Timurid Turkic First Western Eastern Second Venetian Vietnamese Dinh Early Le Ly Tran Ho Later Tran Later Le Vijayanagara Wagadou Wari Modern Afghan Ashanti Austrian Austro-Hungarian Brazilian Burmese Second Third Central African Chinese Ming Qing China Manchukuo Ethiopian Haitian First Second French First Second German German Empire Nazi Germany Indian Indo-Persian Mughal Sikh Iranian Safavid Afsharid Zand Qajar Pahlavi Japanese Korean Maratha Mexican First Second Mongol Oirat Khoshut Dzungar Kalmyk Bogd Moroccan Saadi 'Alawi Ottoman Russian Tsarist Imperial Sokoto Tongan Vietnamese Mac Revival Le Tay son Dainam Vietnam Colonial American Belgian British English Scottish Chinese Danish Dutch French German Italian Japanese Mongol Omani Polish–Lithuanian Couronian Portuguese Russian Spanish Swedish Lists Empires largest Ancient great powers Medieval great powers Modern great powers European colonialism African empires Miscellaneous "Empire" as a description of foreign policy American Empire Soviet empire vte British Empire Legend Current territory Former territory * Now a Commonwealth realm Now a member of the Commonwealth of Nations Culture:Anglosphere Europe vte Africa vte Asia vte North America vte Oceania South America Antarctica and the South Atlantic Historical flags of the British Empire Category Commons Portal vte Colonial conflicts involving the English/British Empire 17th century Ireland (1593–1603) Virginia (1609–46) Swally (1612) Ormuz (1622) Saint Kitts (1626) Quebec (1628) Pequot War (1634–38) Irish Rebellion (1641) Confederate War (1641–53) Cromwellian conquest of Ireland (1649–53) Acadia (1654–67) Anglo-Spanish War (1654–60) Jamaica (1655–1739) 1st Tangier (1662) 2nd Tangier (1664) King Philip's War (1675–78) Child's War (1686–90) Siam (1687) Williamite War (1688–91) King William's War (1688–97) Ghana (1694–1700) 18th century Queen Anne's War (1702–13) Tuscarora War (1711–15) Yamasee War (1715–17) Father Rale's War/Dummer's War (1722–25) War of Jenkins' Ear (1740–42) King George's War (1744–48) Carnatic Wars (1746–63) Nova Scotia (1749–55) French and Indian War (1754–63) Seven Years' War (1756–63) Bengal War (1756–65) Anglo-Cherokee War (1758–61) Jamaica (1762) Anglo-Spanish War (1762–63) Pontiac's War (1763–66) Regulator Movement in North Carolina (1765–71) First Carib War (1769–73) Rohilkhand (1773–74) Lord Dunmore's War (1774) American Revolutionary War (1775–83) First Anglo-Maratha War (1775–82) Second Anglo-Mysore War (1779–84) Gold Coast (1781–82) Assam (1786) Australian frontier wars (1788–1934) Nootka Sound (1789) Third Anglo-Mysore War (1789–92) Cotiote (Wayanad) War (1793–1806) Rohilkhand (1794) Cape Colony (1795) Jamaica (1795–96) Grenada (1795–96) Ceylon (1795) Kandyan Wars (1796–1818) Irish Rebellion (1798) Malta (1798–1800) Fourth Anglo-Mysore War (1798–99) Dwyer's guerrilla campaign (1799–1803) Polygar Wars (1799–1805) 19th century Newfoundland (1800) Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–05) Castle Hill convict rebellion (1804) Surinam (1804) Cape Colony (1806) Río de la Plata (1806–07) Egypt (1807) Froberg mutiny (1807) Santo Domingo (1808–09) Martinique (1809) Persian Gulf (1809) Guadeloupe (1810) Reunion (1810) Mauritius (1810) Seychelles (1810) Spice Islands (1810) Java (1810–11) Xhosa Wars (1811–79) USA (1812–15) Nepal (1814–16) Guadeloupe (1815) Cape Colony (1815) Algiers (1816) Third Anglo-Maratha War (1817–18) Persian Gulf (1819) Guiana (1823) Anglo-Ashanti wars (1824–1901) First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–26) Black War (Van Diemen's Land) (1828–32) Jamaica (1831–32) Malacca (1831–33) Lower Canada (1837–38) Upper Canada (1837–38) Aden Expedition (1839) Egyptian–Ottoman War (1839–41) First Anglo-Afghan War (1839–42) First Opium War (1839–42) New Zealand Wars (1845–72) First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–46) Río de la Plata (1845–50) Canton (1847) British Honduras (1847–1901) Ceylon (1848) Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848–49) Second Anglo-Burmese War (1852) Eureka Rebellion (1854) Åland War (1854–56) Anglo-Persian War (1856–57) Second Opium War (1856–60) Indian Rebellion (1857–59) Revolt of Rajab Ali (1857–58) Kagoshima (1863) Ambela campaign (1863–64) Shimonoseki (1864) Duar War (1864–65) Fenian Rebellion in Canada (1866–71) Abyssinia (1868) Manitoba (1870) Perak (1875–76) Anglo-Zulu War (1879) Second Anglo-Afghan War (1879–80) Basutoland (1880–81) First Boer War (1880–81) Mahdist War (1881–99) Anglo-Egyptian War (1882) Saskatchewan (1885) Third Anglo-Burmese War (1885) Central Africa (1886–89) Hazara (1888) Mashonaland (1890) Hunza–Nagar Campaign (1891) Anglo-Manipur War (1891) Pahang Uprising (1891–1895) Matabeleland (1893–94) North Borneo (1894–1905) Chitral Expedition (1895) Jameson Raid South Africa (1896) Anglo-Zanzibar War (1896) Matabeleland (1896–97) Benin Expedition (1897) Siege of Malakand (1897) First Mohmand campaign (1897–98) Tirah campaign (1897–98) Six-Day War (1899) Boxer Rebellion (1898–1901) Second Boer War (1899–1902) 20th century Somaliland (1900–20) West Africa (1901–02) Tibet expedition (1903–04) Bambatha Rebellion (1906) Maritz rebellion (1914–15) Tochi (1914–15) Nyasaland (1915) Nigeria (1915) Peshawar (1915) Mohmand (1916–17) Quebec (1917) Nigeria (1918) Third Anglo-Afghan War (1919) Waziristan campaign (1919–20) Iraqi Revolt (1920) Malabar rebellion (1921) Kurdistan (1922–24) Transjordan (1923) Pink's War (1925) Ikhwan revolt (1927–30) Tirah (1930–31) Barzani revolt (1931–32) Second Mohmand campaign (1935) Arab revolt in Palestine (1936–39) Waziristan campaign (1936–39) Ethiopia (1943) Jewish revolt in Palestine (1944–48) Indochina (1945–46) Indonesia (1945) Sarawak (1946–50) Malayan Emergency (1948–60) Mau Mau Uprising Kenya (1952–60) Oman (1954–59) Cyprus Emergency (1955–59) Suez Crisis (1956) Oman (1962–76) Brunei (1962) Sarawak (1962–90) Malaysia (1962–66) Aden (1963–67) Falklands (1982) Categories: Overseas empires History of English colonialism Colonial I