The Memory Hole

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 革命不是請客吃飯，不是做文章，不是繪畫繡花，不能那樣雅緻，那樣從容不迫，文質彬彬，那樣溫良恭讓。革命是暴動，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， 敵駐我騷， 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" (中国人民从此站起来了).[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. Лященко А. (July 29, 2003). ""Буря на Карибах"". Krasnai︠a︡ Zvezda : T︠s︡entralýĭ Organ Revoli︠u︡t︠s︡ionnogo Voennogo Soveta SSSR (Центральный печатный орган Министерства обороны Российской Федерации) (Красная звезда ed.). М.: Редакционно-издательский 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 «АРС». 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). Нгуен Куинь Хыонг. (2009). "Открытие Мемориала в Камрани" (Иллюстрированный журнал. Печатный орган Министерства культуры СРВ и вьетнамского комитета по культурным связям с зарубежными странами) (Вьетнам ed.). Ханой: Вьетнамское информационное агентство. 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 Korčula 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 (Наш советский новояз. Маленькая энциклопедия реального социализма). 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 Inejirō 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 Dubček 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 Đilasism Rankovićism Dubčekism 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 Sanzō 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

More CIA stories from John Stockwell: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ The video recorded in July 1986 delves into the controversial involvement of the United States in Nicaragua's affairs during that time. Featuring an interview with former CIA official John Stockwell, it exposes startling revelations about the extent of American support for the Contras in Nicaragua. While Congress approved $100 million in military aid, Stockwell claims nearly $1 billion is being secretly diverted from various sources to fund the Contras, implicating President Reagan in diverting substantial funds for this cause. Stockwell's insights paint a troubling future, as he predicts the likelihood of Reagan eventually deploying American troops. He assesses Nicaragua's capability to withstand assaults from both the Contras and a potential full-scale American invasion. The interview sheds light on the pervasive misinformation and deceit propagated by Reagan and the American establishment press, highlighting their alignment with the Contras' agenda. The video presents a comprehensive view of the covert maneuvers, financial backing, and potential escalations orchestrated by the U.S. government in the Nicaraguan conflict, offering a critical perspective on the political climate and its implications for the region. The Contras (from Spanish: la contrarrevolución, lit. 'the counter-revolution') were the various U.S.-backed and funded right-wing rebel groups that were active from 1979 to 1990 in opposition to the Marxist Sandinista Junta of National Reconstruction Government in Nicaragua, which had come to power in 1979 following the Nicaraguan Revolution.[2][3] Among the separate contra groups, the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN) emerged as the largest by far. In 1987, virtually all Contra organizations were united, at least nominally, into the Nicaraguan Resistance. During their war against the Nicaraguan government, there were numerous examples of Contras committing human rights violations and using terrorist tactics.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Many of these actions were reported to be carried out systematically as a part of the strategy of the Contras.[citation needed][discuss] Supporters of the Contras tried to downplay these violations, particularly the Reagan administration in the U.S., which engaged in a campaign of white propaganda to alter public opinion in favor of the Contras,[11]. The Global Terrorism Database reports that Contras carried out more than 1,300 terrorist attacks.[12] From an early stage, the rebels received financial and military support from the United States government, and their military significance decisively depended on it. After U.S. support was banned by Congress, the Reagan administration covertly continued it. These illegal activities culminated in the Iran–Contra affair. History Origins The Contras were not a monolithic group, but a combination of three distinct elements of Nicaraguan society:[13] Ex-guardsmen of the Nicaraguan National Guard and other right-wing figures who had fought for Nicaragua's ex-dictator Somoza[13]—these later were especially found in the military wing of the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN).[14] Remnants of the Guard later formed groups such as the Fifteenth of September Legion, the Anti-Sandinista Guerrilla Special Forces, and the National Army of Liberation.[citation needed] Initially however, these groups were small and conducted little active raiding into Nicaragua.[15] Anti-Somozistas who had supported the revolution but felt betrayed by the Sandinista government[13] – e.g. Edgar Chamorro, prominent member of the political directorate of the FDN,[16] or Jose Francisco Cardenal, who had briefly served in the Council of State before leaving Nicaragua out of disagreement with the Sandinista government's policies and founding the Nicaraguan Democratic Union (UDN), an opposition group of Nicaraguan exiles in Miami.[17] Another example are the MILPAS (Milicias Populares Anti-Sandinistas), peasant militias led by disillusioned Sandinista veterans from the northern mountains. Founded by Pedro Joaquín González (known as "Dimas"), the Milpistas were also known as chilotes (green corn). Even after his death, other MILPAS bands sprouted during 1980–1981. The Milpistas were composed largely of campesino (peasant) highlanders and rural workers.[18][19][20][21] Nicaraguans who had avoided direct involvement in the revolution but opposed the Sandinistas.[13] Main groups Contra Commandos from FDN and ARDE Frente Sur, Nueva Guinea area in 1987 Members of ARDE Frente Sur The CIA and Argentine intelligence, seeking to unify the anti-Sandinista cause before initiating large-scale aid, persuaded 15 September Legion, the UDN and several former smaller groups to merge in September 1981 as the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (Fuerza Democrática Nicaragüense, FDN).[22] Although the FDN had its roots in two groups made up of former National Guardsmen (of the Somoza regime), its joint political directorate was led by businessman and former anti-Somoza activist Adolfo Calero Portocarrero.[23] Edgar Chamorro later stated that there was strong opposition within the UDN against working with the Guardsmen and that the merging only took place because of insistence by the CIA.[24] Based in Honduras, Nicaragua's northern neighbor, under the command of former National Guard Colonel Enrique Bermúdez, the new FDN commenced to draw in other smaller insurgent forces in the north.[citation needed] Largely financed, trained, equipped, armed and organized by the U.S.,[25] it emerged as the largest and most active contra group.[26] In April 1982, Edén Pastora (Comandante Cero), one of the heroes in the fight against Somoza, organized the Sandinista Revolutionary Front (FRS) – embedded in the Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE)[27] – and declared war on the Sandinista government.[28] Himself a former Sandinista who had held several high posts in the government, he had resigned abruptly in 1981 and defected,[28] believing that the newly found power had corrupted the Sandinista's original ideas.[27] A popular and charismatic leader, Pastora initially saw his group develop quickly.[28] He confined himself to operate in the southern part of Nicaragua;[29] after a press conference he was holding on 30 May 1984 was bombed, he "voluntarily withdrew" from the contra struggle.[27] A third force, Misurasata, appeared among the Miskito, Sumo and Rama Amerindian peoples of Nicaragua's Atlantic coast, who in December 1981 found themselves in conflict with the authorities following the government's efforts to nationalize Indian land. In the course of this conflict, forced removal of at least 10,000 Indians to relocation centers in the interior of the country and subsequent burning of some villages took place.[30] The Misurasata movement split in 1983, with the breakaway Misura group of Stedman Fagoth Muller allying itself more closely with the FDN, and the rest accommodating themselves with the Sandinistas: On 8 December 1984 a ceasefire agreement known as the Bogota Accord was signed by Misurasata and the Nicaraguan government.[31] A subsequent autonomy statute in September 1987 largely defused Miskito resistance.[32] Unity efforts U.S. officials were active in attempting to unite the Contra groups. In June 1985 most of the groups reorganized as the United Nicaraguan Opposition (UNO), under the leadership of Adolfo Calero, Arturo Cruz and Alfonso Robelo, all originally supporters of the anti-Somoza revolution. After UNO's dissolution early in 1987, the Nicaraguan Resistance (RN) was organized along similar lines in May. U.S. military and financial assistance See also: CIA activities in Nicaragua In front of the International Court of Justice, Nicaragua claimed that the contras were altogether a creation of the U.S.[33] This claim was rejected.[33] However, the evidence of a very close relationship between the contras and the United States was considered overwhelming and incontrovertible.[34] The U.S. played a very large role in financing, training, arming, and advising the contras over a long period, and it is unlikely that the contras would have been capable of carrying out significant military operations without this support, given the large amount of training and weapons shipments that the Sandinistas had received from Havana and Moscow.[35] Political background See also: Reagan Doctrine and History of Nicaragua (1979–90) The US government viewed the leftist Sandinistas as a threat to economic interests of American corporations in Nicaragua and to national security. US President Ronald Reagan stated in 1983 that "The defense of [the USA's] southern frontier" was at stake.[36] "In spite of the Sandinista victory being declared fair, the United States continued to oppose the left-wing Nicaraguan government."[37][38] and opposed its ties to Cuba and the Soviet Union.[39][40] Ronald Reagan, who had assumed the American presidency in January 1981, accused the Sandinistas of importing Cuban-style socialism and aiding leftist guerrillas in El Salvador.[41] The Reagan administration continued to view the Sandinistas as undemocratic despite the 1984 Nicaraguan elections being generally declared fair by foreign observers.[42][43][44] Throughout the 1980s the Sandinista government was regarded as "Partly Free" by Freedom House, an organization financed by the U.S. government.[45] President Ronald Reagan and Vice President George Bush in 1984 On 4 January 1982, Reagan signed the top secret National Security Decision Directive 17 (NSDD-17),[41] giving the CIA the authority to recruit and support the contras with $19 million in military aid. The effort to support the contras was one component of the Reagan Doctrine, which called for providing military support to movements opposing Soviet-supported, communist governments. By December 1981, however, the United States had already begun to support armed opponents of the Sandinista government. From the beginning, the CIA was in charge.[46] The arming, clothing, feeding and supervision of the contras[47] became the most ambitious paramilitary and political action operation mounted by the agency in nearly a decade.[48] In the fiscal year 1984, the U.S. Congress approved $24 million in contra aid.[47] However, since the contras failed to win widespread popular support or military victories within Nicaragua,[47] opinion polls indicated that a majority of the U.S. public was not supportive of the contras,[49] the Reagan administration lost much of its support regarding its contra policy within Congress after disclosure of CIA mining of Nicaraguan ports,[50] and a report of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research commissioned by the State Department found Reagan's allegations about Soviet influence in Nicaragua "exaggerated",[51] Congress cut off all funds for the contras in 1985 by the third Boland Amendment.[47] The Boland Amendment had first been passed by Congress in December 1982. At this time, it only outlawed U.S. assistance to the contras "for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government", while allowing assistance for other purposes.[52] In October 1984, it was amended to forbid action by not only the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency but all U.S. government agencies. Nevertheless, the case for support of the contras continued to be made in Washington, D.C., by both the Reagan administration and the Heritage Foundation, which argued that support for the contras would counter Soviet influence in Nicaragua.[53][54] On 1 May 1985 President Reagan announced that his administration perceived Nicaragua to be "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States", and declared a "national emergency" and a trade embargo against Nicaragua to "deal with that threat".[55] It "is now a given; it is true", the Washington Post declared in 1986, "the Sandinistas are communists of the Cuban or Soviet school"; that "The Reagan administration is right to take Nicaragua as a serious menace—to civil peace and democracy in Nicaragua and to the stability and security of the region"; that we must "fit Nicaragua back into a Central American mode" and "turn Nicaragua back toward democracy", and with the "Latin American democracies" "demand reasonable conduct by regional standard."[56] Soon after the embargo was established, Managua re-declared "a policy of nonalignment" and sought the aid of Western Europe, who were opposed to U.S. policy, to escape dependency on the Soviet Union.[57] Since 1981 U.S. pressures had curtailed Western credit to and trade with Nicaragua, forcing the government to rely almost totally on the Eastern bloc for credit, other aid, and trade by 1985.[58] In his 1997 study on U.S. low intensity warfare, Kermit D. Johnson, a former Chief of the U.S. Army Chaplains, contends that U.S. hostility toward the revolutionary government was motivated not by any concern for "national security", but rather by what the world relief organization Oxfam termed "the threat of a good example": It was alarming that in just a few months after the Sandinista revolution, Nicaragua received international acclaim for its rapid progress in the fields of literacy and health. It was alarming that a socialist-mixed-economy state could do in a few short months what the Somoza dynasty, a U.S. client state, could not do in 45 years! It was truly alarming that the Sandinistas were intent on providing the very services that establish a government's political and moral legitimacy.[59] The government's program included increased wages, subsidized food prices, and expanded health, welfare, and education services. And though it nationalized Somoza's former properties, it preserved a private sector that accounted for between 50 and 60 percent of GDP.[60] Atrocities The United States began to support Contra activities against the Sandinista government by December 1981, with the CIA at the forefront of operations. The CIA supplied the funds and the equipment, coordinated training programs, and provided intelligence and target lists. While the Contras had little military successes, they did prove adept at carrying out CIA guerrilla warfare strategies from training manuals which advised them to incite mob violence, "neutralize" civilian leaders and government officials and attack "soft targets" — including schools, health clinics and cooperatives. The agency added to the Contras' sabotage efforts by blowing up refineries and pipelines, and mining ports.[60][61][62] Finally, according to former Contra leader Edgar Chamorro, CIA trainers also gave Contra soldiers large knives. "A commando knife [was given], and our people, everybody wanted to have a knife like that, to kill people, to cut their throats".[63][64] In 1985 Newsweek published a series of photos taken by Frank Wohl, a conservative student admirer traveling with the Contras, entitled "Execution in the Jungle": The victim dug his own grave, scooping the dirt out with his hands ... He crossed himself. Then a contra executioner knelt and rammed a k-bar knife into his throat. A second enforcer stabbed at his jugular, then his abdomen. When the corpse was finally still, the contras threw dirt over the shallow grave — and walked away.[65][66] The CIA officer in charge of the covert war, Duane "Dewey" Clarridge, admitted to the House Intelligence Committee staff in a secret briefing in 1984 that the Contras were routinely murdering "civilians and Sandinista officials in the provinces, as well as heads of cooperatives, nurses, doctors and judges". But he claimed that this did not violate President Reagan's executive order prohibiting assassinations because the agency defined it as just 'killing'. "After all, this is war—a paramilitary operation", Clarridge said in conclusion.[67] Edgar Chamorro explained the rationale behind this to a U.S. reporter. "Sometimes terror is very productive. This is the policy, to keep putting pressure until the people cry 'uncle'".[68][69] The CIA manual for the Contras, Tayacan, states that the Contras should gather the local population for a public tribunal to "shame, ridicule and humiliate" Sandinista officials to "reduce their influence". It also recommends gathering the local population to witness and take part in public executions.[70] These types of activities continued throughout the war. After the signing of the Central American Peace Accord in August 1987, the year war related deaths and economic destruction reached its peak, the Contras eventually entered negotiations with the Sandinista government (1988), and the war began to deescalate.[60] By 1989 the US backed Contra war and economic isolation had inflicted severe economic suffering on Nicaraguans. The US government knew that the Nicaraguans had been exhausted from the war, which had cost 30,865 lives, and that voters usually vote the incumbents out during economic decline. By the late 1980s Nicaragua's internal conditions had changed so radically that the US approach to the 1990 elections differed greatly from 1984. A united opposition of fourteen political parties organized into the National Opposition Union (Unión Nacional Oppositora, UNO) with the support of the United States National Endowment for Democracy. UNO presidential nominee Violeta Chamorro was received by President Bush at the White House. The Contra war escalated over the year before the election. The US promised to end the economic embargo should Chamorro win.[71] The UNO scored a decisive victory on 25 February 1990. Chamorro won with 55 percent of the presidential vote as compared to Ortega's 41 percent. Of 92 seats in the National Assembly, UNO gained 51, and the FSLN won 39. On 25 April 1990, Chamorro assumed presidency from Daniel Ortega.[71] Illegal covert operations See also: Iran–Contra affair With Congress blocking further aid to the Contras, the Reagan administration sought to arrange funding and military supplies by means of third countries and private sources.[72] Between 1984 and 1986, $34 million from third countries and $2.7 million from private sources were raised this way.[72] The secret contra assistance was run by the National Security Council, with officer Lt. Col. Oliver North in charge.[72] With the third-party funds, North created an organization called The Enterprise, which served as the secret arm of the NSC staff and had its own airplanes, pilots, airfield, ship, operatives, and secret Swiss bank accounts.[72] It also received assistance from personnel from other government agencies, especially from CIA personnel in Central America.[72] This operation functioned, however, without any of the accountability required of U.S. government activities.[72] The Enterprise's efforts culminated in the Iran–Contra Affair of 1986–1987, which facilitated contra funding through the proceeds of arms sales to Iran. According to the London Spectator, U.S. journalists in Central America had long known that the CIA was flying in supplies to the Contras inside Nicaragua before the scandal broke. No journalist paid it any attention until the alleged CIA supply man, Eugene Hasenfus, was shot down and captured by the Nicaraguan army. Similarly, reporters neglected to investigate many leads indicating that Oliver North was running the Contra operation from his office in the National Security Council.[73] According to the National Security Archive, Oliver North had been in contact with Manuel Noriega, the military leader of Panama later convicted on drug charges, whom he personally met. The issue of drug money and its importance in funding the Nicaraguan conflict was the subject of various reports and publications. The contras were funded by drug trafficking, of which the United States was aware.[74] Senator John Kerry's 1988 Committee on Foreign Relations report on Contra drug links concluded that "senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the Contras' funding problems".[75] The Reagan administration's support for the Contras continued to stir controversy well into the 1990s. In August 1996, San Jose Mercury News reporter Gary Webb published a series titled Dark Alliance, alleging that the contras contributed to the rise of crack cocaine in California.[76] Gary Webb's career as a journalist was subsequently discredited by the leading U.S. papers, The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. An internal CIA report, entitled, "Managing a Nightmare", shows the agency used "a ground base of already productive relations with journalists" to help counter what it called "a genuine public relations crisis."[77] In the 1980s, Douglas Farah worked as a journalist, covering the civil wars in Central America for the Washington Post. According to Farah, while it was common knowledge that the Contras were involved in cocaine trafficking, the editors of the Washington Post refused to take it seriously: If you're talking about our intelligence community tolerating — if not promoting — drugs to pay for black ops, it's rather an uncomfortable thing to do when you're an establishment paper like the Post. If you were going to be directly rubbing up against the government, they wanted it more solid than it could probably ever be done.[78] An investigation by the United States Department of Justice also stated that their "review did not substantiate the main allegations stated and implied in the Mercury News articles." Regarding the specific charges towards the CIA, the DOJ wrote "the implication that the drug trafficking by the individuals discussed in the Mercury News articles was connected to the CIA was also not supported by the facts."[79] The CIA also investigated and rejected the allegations.[80] Propaganda During the time the US Congress blocked funding for the contras, the Reagan government engaged in a campaign to alter public opinion and change the vote in Congress on contra aid.[81] For this purpose, the NSC established an interagency working group, which in turn coordinated the Office of Public Diplomacy for Latin America and the Caribbean (managed by Otto Reich), which conducted the campaign.[81] The S/LPD produced and widely disseminated a variety of pro-contra publications, arranged speeches and press conferences.[81] It also disseminated "white propaganda"—pro-contra newspaper articles by paid consultants who did not disclose their connection to the Reagan administration.[82] On top of that, Oliver North helped Carl Channell's tax-exempt organization, the National Endowment for the Preservation of Liberty, to raise $10 million, by arranging numerous briefings for groups of potential contributors at the premises of the White House and by facilitating private visits and photo sessions with President Reagan for major contributors.[83] Channell in turn, used part of that money to run a series of television advertisements directed at home districts of Congressmen considered swing votes on contra aid.[83] Out of the $10 million raised, more than $1 million was spent on pro-contra publicity.[83] International Court of Justice ruling Main article: Nicaragua v. United States In 1984 the Sandinista government filed a suit in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the United States (Nicaragua v. United States), which resulted in a 1986 judgment against the United States. The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. Regarding the alleged human rights violations by the contras, however, the ICJ took the view that the United States could be held accountable for them only if it would have been proven that the U.S. had effective control of the contra operations resulting in these alleged violations.[84] Nevertheless, the ICJ found that the U.S. encouraged acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law by producing the manual Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas) and disseminating it to the contras.[85] The manual, amongst other things, advised on how to rationalize killings of civilians[86] and recommended to hire professional killers for specific selective tasks.[87] The United States, which did not participate in the merits phase of the proceedings, maintained that the ICJ's power did not supersede the Constitution of the United States and argued that the court did not seriously consider the Nicaraguan role in El Salvador, while it accused Nicaragua of actively supporting armed groups there, specifically in the form of supply of arms.[88] The ICJ had found that evidence of a responsibility of the Nicaraguan government in this matter was insufficient.[89] The U.S. argument was affirmed, however, by the dissenting opinion of ICJ member U.S. Judge Schwebel,[90] who concluded that in supporting the contras, the United States acted lawfully in collective self-defence in El Salvador's support.[91] The U.S. blocked enforcement of the ICJ judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation.[92] The Nicaraguan government finally withdrew the complaint from the court in September 1992 (under the later, post-FSLN, government of Violeta Chamorro), following a repeal of the law requiring the country to seek compensation.[93] Human rights violations Americas Watch, which subsequently became part of Human Rights Watch, accused the Contras of:[94] targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination[95] kidnapping civilians[96] torturing civilians[97] executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat[98] raping women[95] indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian houses[96] seizing civilian property[95] burning civilian houses in captured towns.[95] Human Rights Watch released a report on the situation in 1989, which stated: "[The] contras were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners."[99] In his affidavit to the World Court, former contra Edgar Chamorro testified that "The CIA did not discourage such tactics. To the contrary, the Agency severely criticized me when I admitted to the press that the FDN had regularly kidnapped and executed agrarian reform workers and civilians. We were told that the only way to defeat the Sandinistas was to ...kill, kidnap, rob and torture".[100] Contra leader Adolfo Calero denied that his forces deliberately targeted civilians: "What they call a cooperative is also a troop concentration full of armed people. We are not killing civilians. We are fighting armed people and returning fire when fire is directed at us."[101] Controversy Several articles were published by U.S. press, including by The Wall Street Journal and The New Republic, accusing Americas Watch and other bodies of ideological bias and unreliable reporting. The articles alleged that Americas Watch gave too much credence to alleged Contra abuses and systematically tried to discredit Nicaraguan human rights groups such as the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, which blamed the most human rights abuses on the Sandinistas.[102] In 1985, The Wall Street Journal reported: Three weeks ago, Americas Watch issued a report on human rights abuses in Nicaragua. One member of the Permanent Commission for Human Rights commented on the Americas Watch report and its chief investigator Juan Mendez: "The Sandinistas are laying the groundwork for a totalitarian society here and yet all Mendez wanted to hear about were abuses by the contras. How can we get people in the U.S. to see what's happening here when so many of the groups who come down are pro-Sandinista?"[103] Human Rights Watch, the umbrella organization of Americas Watch, replied to these allegations: "Almost invariably, U.S. pronouncements on human rights exaggerated and distorted the real human rights violations of the Sandinista regime, and exculpated those of the U.S.-supported insurgents, known as the contras ... The Bush administration is responsible for these abuses, not only because the contras are, for all practical purposes, a U.S. force, but also because the Bush administration has continued to minimize and deny these violations, and has refused to investigate them seriously."[99] Military successes and election of Violeta Chamorro By 1986 the contras were besieged by charges of corruption, human-rights abuses, and military ineptitude.[104] A much-vaunted early 1986 offensive never materialized, and Contra forces were largely reduced to isolated acts of terrorism.[6] In October 1987, however, the contras staged a successful attack in southern Nicaragua.[105] Then on 21 December 1987, the FDN launched attacks at Bonanza, Siuna, and Rosita in Zelaya province, resulting in heavy fighting.[106] ARDE Frente Sur attacked at El Almendro and along the Rama road.[106][107][108] These large-scale raids mainly became possible as the contras were able to use U.S.-provided Redeye missiles against Sandinista Mi-24 helicopter gunships, which had been supplied by the Soviets.[106][109] Nevertheless, the Contras remained tenuously encamped within Honduras and were not able to hold Nicaraguan territory.[110][111] There were isolated protests among the population against the draft implemented by the Sandinista government, which even resulted in full-blown street clashes in Masaya in 1988.[112] However, a June 1988 survey in Managua showed the Sandinista government still enjoyed strong support but that support had declined since 1984. Three times as many people identified with the Sandinistas (28%) than with all the opposition parties put together (9%); 59% did not identify with any political party. Of those polled, 85% opposed any further US aid to the Contras; 40% believed the Sandinista government to be democratic, while 48% believed it to be not democratic. People identified the war as the largest problem but were less likely to blame it for economic problems compared to a December 1986 poll; 19% blamed the war and US blockade as the main cause of economic problems while 10% blamed the government.[113] Political opposition groups were splintered and the Contras began to experience defections, although United States aid maintained them as a viable military force.[114][115] After a cutoff in U.S. military support, and with both sides facing international pressure to bring an end to the conflict, the contras agreed to negotiations with the FSLN. With the help of five Central American Presidents, including Ortega, the sides agreed that a voluntary demobilization of the contras should start in early December 1989. They chose this date to facilitate free and fair elections in Nicaragua in February 1990 (even though the Reagan administration had pushed for a delay of contra disbandment).[116] In the resulting February 1990 elections, Violeta Chamorro and her party the UNO won an upset victory of 55% to 41% over Daniel Ortega.[117] Opinion polls leading up to the elections divided along partisan lines, with 10 of 17 polls analyzed in a contemporary study predicting an UNO victory while seven predicted the Sandinistas would retain power.[118][119] Possible explanations include that the Nicaraguan people were disenchanted with the Ortega government as well as the fact that already in November 1989, the White House had announced that the economic embargo against Nicaragua would continue unless Violeta Chamorro won.[120] Also, there had been reports of intimidation from the side of the contras,[121] with a Canadian observer mission claiming that 42 people were killed by the contras in "election violence" in October 1989.[122] Sandinistas were also accused of intimidation and abuses during the election campaign. According to the Puebla Institute, by mid-December 1989, seven opposition leaders had been murdered, 12 had disappeared, 20 had been arrested, and 30 others assaulted. In late January 1990, the OAS observer team reported that “a convoy of troops attacked four truckloads of UNO sympathizers with bayonets and rifle butts, threatening to kill them."[123] This led many commentators to conclude that Nicaraguans voted against the Sandinistas out of fear of a continuation of the contra war and economic deprivation.[119] In popular culture This section may contain irrelevant references to popular culture. Please remove the content or add citations to reliable and independent sources. (June 2021) In The Last Thing He Wanted, a journalist for the fictitious Atlanta Post stops her coverage of the 1984 U.S. Presidential election to care for her dying father. In the process, she inherits his position as an arms dealer for Central America, and learns of the Iran–Contra affair. American Dad references the Contras in the episode "Stanny Slickers 2: The Legend of Ollie's Gold" The Americans, the TV series features an episode on KGB agents infiltrating a Contra camp. American Made, a film loosely based on Barry Seal's life. In the Amazon Prime TV series The Boys the American superhero team Payback is clandestinely deployed to Nicaragua in 1984 to assist Contra units supported by the CIA. Carla's Song, a fictional film by Ken Loach set in part against the backdrop of the conflict in Nicaragua. Contra – While it is unclear whether the game was deliberately named after the Nicaraguan Contra rebels, the ending theme of the original game was titled "Sandinista" (サンディニスタ), after the adversaries of the real-life Contras.[124] Contra, the second studio album by the American indie rock band Vampire Weekend, released in January 2010 on XL Recordings. It debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200. The album title is intended as a thematic allegory and a complex reference to the Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries. The song "I Think Ur a Contra" is from this album. Sandinista!, an album by The Clash, features songs about The Contras in Nicaragua. It was released in 1980. The song "Washington Bullets" is from this album. City Hunter, a manga, the main protagonist, Ryo Saeba, was raised as a contra guerilla fighter in Central America. Student Visas, a song by Corb Lund from the album "Horse Soldier! Horse Soldier!", is about US Clandestine soldiers (such as SFOD-D and CIA Paramilitary) interacting with Contras in El Salvador and Nicaragua. Fragile The song is a tribute to Ben Linder, an American civil engineer who was killed by the Contras in 1987 while working on a hydroelectric project in Nicaragua. Narcos: Mexico features an episode where Felix has to deliver guns to Nicaragua with Amado and a CIA operative for Salvador Nava and Mexico's Minister of Defense The Mighty Quinn involves a CIA operative and a Latino right-wing assassin trying to recover large sums of untraceable US dollars which were to fund anti-communist counter-revolution on the mainland (Nicaragua is not mentioned). Snowfall a TV series following several characters, including an undercover CIA officer facilitating cocaine smuggling into the US on the behalf of the Nicaraguan Contras and his connection to a 20-year-old drug dealer in Los Angeles in the mid-1980s, the early days of the crack cocaine epidemic. The Last Narc, a 2020 documentary about the kidnapping and murder of DEA agent Kiki Camarena by Mexican drug cartels, ends up covering parts of the Iran-Contra scandal. See also Anti-communism CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US Operation Charly Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare Reagan Doctrine Role of women in Nicaraguan Revolution United States involvement in regime change in Latin America Latin America–United States relations Foreign interventions by the United States Cold War Notes Baron, James. "The Cold War History Behind Nicaragua's Break With Taiwan". thediplomat.com. The Diplomat. Retrieved 24 April 2022. "The Contras Murdering Their Own: A Grisly Retribution | Alicia Patterson Foundation". aliciapatterson.org. Retrieved 28 May 2022. "The American That Reagan Killed". jacobinmag.com. Retrieved 28 May 2022. Feldmann, Andreas E.; Maiju Perälä (July 2004). "Reassessing the Causes of Nongovernmental Terrorism in Latin America". Latin American Politics and Society. 46 (2): 101–132. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2004.tb00277.x. S2CID 221247620. Greg Grandin; Gilbert M. Joseph (2010). A Century of Revolution. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. p. 89. ISBN 978-0822392859. Todd, Dave (26 February 1986). "Offensive by Nicaraguan "Freedom Fighters" May be Doomed as Arms, Aid Dry Up". Ottawa Citizen. Albert J. Jongman; Alex P. Schmid (1988). Political Terrorism: A New Guide To Actors, Authors, Concepts, Data Bases, Theories, And Literature. Transaction Publishers. pp. 17–18. ISBN 978-1-41280-469-1. Athan G. Theoharis; Richard H. Immerman (2006). The Central Intelligence Agency: Security Under Scrutiny. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 216. ISBN 978-0313332821. "Empire Politician - 1980s: U.S. Support for Contra Death Squads in Nicaragua". The Intercept. 27 April 2021. Retrieved 28 May 2022. Kinzer, Stephen; Times, Special To the New York (20 February 1986). "CONTRAS' ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS CITED". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 28 May 2022. Fried, Amy (1997). Muffled Echoes: Oliver North and the Politics of Public Opinion. Columbia University Press. pp. 65–68. ISBN 9780231108201. LaFree, Gary; Laura Dugan; Erin Miller (2015). Putting Terrorism in Context: Lessons from the global terrorism database (1 ed.). London and New York: Routledge. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-415-67142-2. "In Nicaragua, Contra groups including the Nicaraguan Democratic Force (FDN), the Democratic Revolutionary Alliance (ARDE), and ultimately the Nicaraguan Resistance umbrella group carried out more than 1,300 terrorist attacks, mostly in opposition to the Sandinista government." Lee et al. 1987, p. 29 "The contras are made up of a combination of: ex-National Guardsmen (especially the military wing of the FDN)" As seen at: Gill 1984, p. 204 Dickey, Christopher. With the Contras, A Reporter in the Wilds of Nicaragua. Simon & Schuster, 1985. "The contras are made up of a combination of: ... anti-Sandinista opponents of ex-dictator Somoza (some of the members of the FDN political directorate eg Messrs. Chamorro and Cruz)" As seen at: Gill 1984, p. 204 International Court of Justice (IV) (1986), p. 446 Dillon, Sam (1991). Comandos: The CIA and Nicaragua's Contra Rebels. New York: Henry Holt. pp. 49–56. ISBN 978-0-8050-1475-4. OCLC 23974023. Horton, Lynn (1998). Peasants in Arms: War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua, 1979–1994. Athens: Ohio University Center for International Studies. pp. 95–117. ISBN 978-0-89680-204-9. OCLC 39157572. Padro-Maurer, R. The Contras 1980–1989, a Special Kind of Politics. NY: Praeger Publishers, 1990. Brown, Timothy C. The Real Contra War, Highlander Peasant Resistance in Nicaragua. University of Oklahoma Press, 2001. "Contra Organizations: The Contra Story – Central Intelligence Agency". Cia.gov. Archived from the original on 13 June 2007. Retrieved 18 August 2014. "Although Calero had opposed Somoza, the FDN had its roots in two insurgent groups made up of former National Guardsmen" As seen at: Lee et al. 1987, p. 29 "The UDN, including Cardenal, initially opposed any linkage with the Guardsmen. The CIA, and high-ranking United States Government officials, insisted that we merge with the Guardsmen. Lt. General Vernon Walters, then a special assistant to the United States Secretary of State (and formerly Deputy Director of the CIA) met with Cardenal to encourage him to accept the CIA's proposal. We were well aware of the crimes the Guardsmen had committed against the Nicaraguan people while in the service of President Somoza and we wanted nothing to do with them. However, we recognized that without help from the United States Government we had no chance of removing the Sandinistas from power, so we eventually acceded to the CIA's, and General Walters', insistence that we join forces with the Guardsmen. Some UDN members resigned because they would not associate themselves with the National Guard under any circumstances, but Cardenal and I and others believed the CIA's assurances that we, the civilians, would control the Guardsmen in the new organization that was to be created." As seen at: International Court of Justice (IV) 1986, p. 446 "On the basis of the available information, the Court is not able to satisfy itself that the Respondent State 'created' the contra force in Nicaragua, but holds it established that it largely financed, trained, equipped, armed and organized the FDN, one element of the force." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, VII (4) "The largest and most active of these groups, which later came to be known as ... (FDN)". As seen at: Lee et al. 1987, p. 29 Williams, Adam (26 November 2010). "Edén Pastora: A wanted man". The Tico Times. Archived from the original on 15 December 2010. Lee et al. 1987, p. 32 "He insisted on operating in the southern part of Nicaragua." As seen at: Lee et al. 1987, p. 32 The Americas Watch Committee. "Human Rights in Nicaragua 1986" (print), Americas Watch, February 1987. "Bogota Accord" (PDF). Ulster University. Retrieved 5 December 2022. [1] Archived 16 September 2012 at the Wayback Machine Gill 1989, p. 328 Gill 1989, p. 329 "The United States has played a very large role in financing, training, arming, and advising the contras over a long period. The contras only became capable of carrying out significant (para)military operations as a result of this support." As seen at: Gill 1989, p. 329 John A., Thompson, "The Exaggeration of American Vulnerability: An Anatomy of Tradition", Diplomatic History, 16/1, (1992): p 23. "1984: Sandinistas claim election victory" BBC News, 5 November 1984 "President Reagan renewed his commitment to the Nicaraguan insurgents Sunday, though he appeared to shift the focus of his Administration's policy away from the military situation to the need to restore democracy to the Central American country". Cited in: "President Shifts Emphasis From Contra Warfare". Los Angeles Times, 4 May 1987 "The Foreign Connection". The Washington Post. 6 January 1987 Apple, R. W. Jr. (12 March 1986). "Mudslinging over Contras". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 September 2017. "NSDD – National Security Decision Directives – Reagan Administration". Fas.org. 30 May 2008. "Nicaragua". Lcweb2.loc.gov. Retrieved 18 August 2014. "BBC On This Day - 5 - 1984: Sandinistas claim election victory". bbc.co.uk. 5 November 1984. "Nicaraguan Vote: 'Free, Fair, Hotly Contested'" The New York Times, 16 November 1984 Freedom House (2012). "Country ratings and status, FIW 1973-2012" (XLS). Retrieved 22 August 2012. Lee et al. 1987, p.3 Lee et al. 1987, p. 3 "In December 1982, The New York Times reported intelligence officials as saying that Washington's 'covert activities have ... become the most ambitious paramilitary and political action operation mounted by the C.I.A. in nearly a decade ...'" As seen at: Lee et al. 1987, p. 33 "opinion polls indicated that a majority of the public was not supportive." As seen at: Lee et al. 1987, p. 3 "Following disclosure ... that the CIA had a role in connection with the mining of the Nicaraguan harbors ..., public criticism mounted and the administration's Contra policy lost much of its support within Congress". As seen at: Lee et al. 1987, p. 3 "U.S. Delayed Report On Soviets in Nicaragua" The Miami Herald, 18 September 1984 Riesenfeld, Stefan A. (January 1987). "The Powers of Congress and the President in International Relations: Revisited". California Law Review. 75 (1): 405–414. doi:10.2307/3480586. JSTOR 3480586. "The Boland Amendment was part of the Joint Resolution of December 21, 1982, providing further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 1983" Boyd, Gerald M.; Times, Special To the New York (19 February 1986). "REAGAN SAYS SUPPORT FOR THE CONTRAS MUST GO BEYOND 'BAND-AIDS'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 23 January 2023. "Conservative Think Tank Funneled Money to North Associates". AP NEWS. Retrieved 23 January 2023. "Executive Order 12513--Prohibiting trade and certain other transactions involving Nicaragua" National Archives "Is There a Chance in Nicaragua?" Washington Post, 14 March 1986 "Ortega collects warm words of support on European trip. Yet his visit is unlikely to drum up much concrete aid" Christian Science Monitor, 16 May 1985 John A. Booth; Christine J. Wade; Thomas W. Walker (2014). Understanding Central America: Global Forces, Rebellion, and Change. Avalon Publishing. p. 112. ISBN 9780813349589. Kermit D. Johnson (1997). Ethics and Counterrevolution: American Involvement in Internal Wars. University Press of Americas. p. 19. ISBN 9780761809067. John A. Booth; Christine J. Wade; Thomas W. Walker (2014). Understanding Central America: Global Forces, Rebellion, and Change. Avalon Publishing. p. 107. ISBN 9780813349589. "The Contras did prove adept at carrying out U.S. guerrilla warfare strategies, supplied in the CIA training manuals, which advised them to 'neutralize' civilian leaders, incite mob violence and attack 'soft' targets such as agricultural cooperatives." Thomas W. Walker (1991). Revolution and Counterrevolution in Nicaragua. Westview Press. p. 335. ISBN 9780813308623. The CIA manual, Tayacan, advises the paramilitaries "to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets, such as court judges etc." In the section entitled, "Implicit and Explicit Terror", the manual states that it is necessary to "kidnap all officials or agents of the Sandinista government" or "individuals in tune with the regime", who then should be removed from the town "without damaging them publicly". As noted in: Holly Sklar (1988). Washington's War on Nicaragua. South End Press. p. 179. ISBN 9780813308623. "War Against the Poor: Low-Intensity Conflict and Christian Faith" Archived 6 April 2017 at the Wayback Machine Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, 1989 "Nicaraguan Contra Atrocities" West 57th, 1987, Video: 11:34 Holly Sklar (1988). Washington's War on Nicaragua. South End Press. p. 268. ISBN 9780813308623. "Nicaraguan Contra Atrocities" West 57th, 1987, Video: 11:20 "CIA-assisted 'contras' murdered Sandinistas, official reportedly says" Knight-Ridder, 20 October 1984 Mary J. Ruwart (2003). Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression. SunStar Press. p. 309. ISBN 9780963233660. "Nicaraguan Contra Atrocities" West 57th, 1987, Video: 1:50 "Washington's War on Nicaragua" Holly Sklar, p. 179 John A. Booth; Christine J. Wade; Thomas W. Walker (2014). Understanding Central America: Global Forces, Rebellion, and Change. Avalon Publishing. p. 113. ISBN 9780813349589. Lee et al. 1987, p. 4 "Who Helped Oliver North?" The Spectator, 15 May 1987 "The Contras, cocaine, and covert operations: Documentation of official U.S. knowledge of drug trafficking and the Contras". The National Security Archive / George Washington University. c. 1990. "The Oliver North File". Gwu.edu. Retrieved 17 August 2011. "The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations". gwu.edu. Devereaux, Ryan (25 September 2014). "How the CIA Watched Over the Destruction of Gary Webb". The Intercept. "Kill The Messenger: How The Media Destroyed Gary Webb" Huffington Post, 10/10/2014 "CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy". oig.justice.gov. "Conclusions — Central Intelligence Agency". Archived from the original on 27 March 2010. Lee et al. 1987, p. 5 "It also disseminated what one official termed 'white propaganda': pro-Contra newspaper articles by paid consultants who did not disclose their connection to the Administration." As seen at: Lee et al. 1987, p. 5 Lee et al. 1987, p. 6 "Having reached the above conclusion, the Court takes the view that the contras remain responsible for their acts, in particular the alleged violations by them of humanitarian law. For the United States to be legally responsible, it would have to be proved that that State had effective control of the operations in the course of which the alleged violations were committed." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, VII (5) "Finds that the United States of America, by producing in 1983 a manual entitled 'Operaciones sicológicas en guerra de guerrillas', and disseminating it to contra forces, has encouraged the commission by them of acts contrary to general principles of humanitarian law." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, (9) In the case of shooting "a citizen who was trying to leave the town or city in which the guerrillas are carrying out armed propaganda or political proselytism", the manual suggests that the contras "explain that if that citizen had managed to escape, he would have alerted the enemy." As seen at: Sklar 1988, p. 179 Sklar 1988, p. 181 International Court of Justice 1986, VIII (1) "In any event the evidence is insufficient to satisfy the Court that the Government of Nicaragua was responsible for any flow of arms at either period." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, VIII (1) "But the Court, remarkably enough, while finding the United States responsible for intervention in Nicaragua, failed to recognize Nicaragua's prior and continuing intervention in El Salvador." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel "concluded that the United States essentially acted lawfully in exerting armed pressures against Nicaragua, both directly and through its support of the contras, because Nicaragua's prior and sustained support of armed insurgency in El Salvador was tantamount to an armed attack upon El Salvador against which the United States could react in collective self-defence in El Salvador's support." As seen at: International Court of Justice 1986, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel Morrison, Fred L. (January 1987). "Legal Issues in The Nicaragua Opinion". American Journal of International Law. 81 (1): 160–166. doi:10.2307/2202146. JSTOR 2202146. Archived from the original on 5 February 2012. "Appraisals of the ICJ's Decision. Nicaragua vs United States (Merits)" "Human Rights Watch World Report 1993 – Nicaragua". Archived from the original on 9 October 2012. Retrieved 18 September 2009. The Americas Watch Committee (February 1987). "Human Rights in Nicaragua 1986". Americas Watch. Human Rights in Nicaragua 1986, p. 21 Human Rights in Nicaragua 1986, p. 19 Human Rights in Nicaragua 1986, p. 19, 21 Human Rights in Nicaragua 1986, p. 24 "Nicaragua" Human Rights Watch, 1989 "Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua V. United States of America): Affidavit of Edgar Chamarro" International Court of Justice, 5 September 1985 The New York Times, 23 November 1984. The New Republic, 20 January 1986; The New Republic, 22 August 1988; The National Interest, Spring 1990. David Asman, "Despair and fear in Managua", The Wall Street Journal, 25 March 1985. Smolowe, Jill (22 December 1986). "Nicaragua Is It Curtains?". Time. Archived from the original on 11 November 2011. "The last major attack, in October along the Rama Road in southern Nicaragua, was considered a success for the guerrillas." As seen at: Lemoyne, James (22 December 1987). "Both Sides Report Heavy Fighting in Rebel Offensive in Nicaragua". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 April 2010. Lemoyne, James (22 December 1987). "Both Sides Report Heavy Fighting in Rebel Offensive in Nicaragua". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 April 2010. Lemoyne, James (2 February 1988). "Contras' Top Fighter Vows No Letup". The New York Times. Meara, William R. Contra Cross: Insurgency And Tyranny in Central America, 1979–1989. U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2006. Kinzer, Stephen (23 July 1987). "Sandinistas report capture of RedEye Missile". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 April 2010. Wicker, Tom (14 August 1989). "Enough Have Died for Nothing in Nicaragua". Wilmington Morning Star. Retrieved 27 June 2011. Ulig, Mark (14 August 1989). "New Regional Accord Leaves Contras in Honduras Fearful but Defiant". The New York Times. Retrieved 27 June 2011. "Sometimes they used force as they rounded up young men for military service, and there were occasional confrontations. But only in the town of Masaya, 19 miles southeast of the capital of Managua, did the conscription spark a full-blown street clash ... For several weeks before the latest outburst in Masaya, the opposition newspaper, La Prensa, had been reporting isolated protests against the draft." As seen at: Kinzer, Stephen (28 February 1988). "The World: Nicaragua; Pushed From Left or Right, Masaya Balks". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 April 2010. "Sandinistas Surviving in a Percentage Game". Envio. December 1988. "Nicaraguans Try Peace Moves While Waiting for U.S. Voters". Envio. November 1988. "Contra Insurgency in Nicaragua". OnWar.com. December 2000. Archived from the original on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 21 May 2011. "U.S. Endorses Contra Plan as Prod to Democracy in Nicaragua" The Washington Post, 9 August 1989 Uhlig, Mark A. (27 February 1990). "Turnover in Nicaragua; Nicaraguan Opposition Routs Sandinistas; U.S. Pledges Aid, Tied to Orderly Turnover". The New York Times. Retrieved 30 April 2010. Bischoping, Katherine; Schuman, Howard (May 1992). "Pens and Polls in Nicaragua: An Analysis of the 1990 Pre-election Surveys". American Journal of Political Science. 36 (2): 331–350. doi:10.2307/2111480. JSTOR 2111480. Retrieved 3 July 2020. "After the Poll Wars-Explaining the Upset". Envio. March 1990. "Bush Vows to End Embargo if Chamorro Wins", The Washington Post, 9 November 1989 "The policy of keeping the contras alive ... also has placed in jeopardy the holding of elections by encouraging contra attacks on the electoral process. Thus, while the Bush administration proclaims its support for human rights and free and fair elections in Nicaragua, it persists in sabotaging both." As seen at: "Nicaragua" Human Rights Watch, 1990 "U.S. trying to disrupt election in Nicaragua, Canadians report" Archived 6 February 2013 at the Wayback Machine The Toronto Star, 27 October 1989 "The Sandinistas Might Lose". The New York Times. 12 February 1990. Retrieved 27 September 2021. Ａ－ＪＡＸ～コナミ・ゲーム・ミュージック VOL.4 A-Jax: Konami Game Music Vol. 4 (booklet). G.M.O. Records / Alfa Records. 28XA-201. References Asleson, Vern. (2004) Nicaragua: Those Passed By. Galde Press ISBN 1-931942-16-1 Belli, Humberto. (1985). Breaking Faith: The Sandinista Revolution and Its Impact on Freedom and Christian Faith in Nicaragua. Crossway Books/The Puebla Institute. Bermudez, Enrique, "The Contras' Valley Forge: How I View the Nicaraguan Crisis", Policy Review, The Heritage Foundation, Summer 1988. Brody, Reed. (1985). Contra Terror in Nicaragua: Report of a Fact-Finding Mission: September 1984 – January 1985. Boston: South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-313-6. Brown, Timothy. (2001). The Real Contra War: Highlander Peasant Resistance in Nicaragua. University of Oklahoma Press. ISBN 0-8061-3252-3. Chamorro, Edgar. (1987). Packaging the Contras: A Case of CIA Disinformation. New York: Institute for Media Analysis. ISBN 0-941781-08-9; ISBN 0-941781-07-0. Christian, Shirley. (1986) Nicaragua, Revolution in the Family. New York: Vintage Books. Cox, Jack. (1987) Requiem in the Tropics: Inside Central America. UCA Books. Cruz S., Arturo J. (1989). Memoirs of a Counterrevolutionary. (1989). New York: Doubleday. Dickey, Christopher. (1985, 1987). With the Contras: A Reporter in the Wilds of Nicaragua. New York: Simon & Schuster. Garvin, Glenn. (1992). Everybody Had His Own Gringo: The CIA and the Contras. Washington: Brassey's. Gill, Terry D. (1989). Litigation strategy at the International Court: a case study of the Nicaragua v United States dispute. Dordrecht. ISBN 978-0-7923-0332-9. Gugliota, Guy. (1989). Kings of Cocaine Inside the Medellin Cartel. Simon and Schuster. Horton, Lynn. Peasants in Arms: War and Peace in the Mountains of Nicaragua, 1979–1994. (1998). Athens: Ohio University Center for International Studies. International Court of Justice (1986) "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States Of America) – Summary of the Judgment of 27 June 1986". International Court of Justice. Retrieved 20 May 2011. International Court of Justice (IV) (1986) "Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Vol. IV – pleadings, oral arguments, documents" (PDF). International Court of Justice. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 December 2011. Retrieved 2 June 2011. Hamilton, Lee H. et al. (1987) "Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran/Contra Affair" Johns, Michael "The Lessons of Afghanistan: Bipartisan Support for Freedom Fighters Pays Off", Policy Review, Spring 1987. Kirkpatrick, Jeane J. (1982) Dictatorships and Double Standards. Touchstone. ISBN 0-671-43836-0 Miranda, Roger, and William Ratliff. (1993, 1994) The Civil War in Nicaragua: Inside the Sandinistas. New Brunswick, NY: Transaction Publishers. Moore, John Norton (1987). The Secret War in Central America: Sandinista Assault on World Order. University Publications of America. Pardo-Maurer, Rogelio. (1990) The Contras, 1980–1989: A Special Kind of Politics. New York: Praeger. Sklar, H. (1988) "Washington's war on Nicaragua" South End Press. ISBN 0-89608-295-4

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ The Hollywood blacklist was an entertainment industry blacklist put in effect in the mid-20th century in the United States during the early years of the Cold War, in Hollywood and elsewhere. Actors, screenwriters, directors, musicians, and other American entertainment professionals were barred from work by the studios. Professionals were blacklisted based on their membership in, alleged membership in, or sympathy with the Communist Party USA, or on the basis of their refusal to assist Congressional investigations into the party's activities. Even during the period of its strictest enforcement, from the late 1940s through to the late 1950s, the blacklist was rarely made explicit or easily verifiable, as it was the result of numerous individual decisions by the studios and was not the result of official legal action. Nevertheless, the blacklist quickly and directly damaged or ended the careers and income of scores of individuals working in the film industry. Initial blacklist of the Hollywood Ten The first systematic Hollywood blacklist was instituted on November 25, 1947, the day after ten writers and directors were cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). These people were subpoenaed to appear before HUAC in October.[1] The contempt citation included a criminal charge, which led to a highly publicized trial and an eventual conviction with a maximum of one year in jail in addition to a $1,000 fine (equivalent to $13,645 in 2023).[2] The Congressional action prompted a group of studio executives, acting under the aegis of the Association of Motion Picture Producers, to fire the artists – the "Hollywood Ten" – and make what has become known as the Waldorf Statement. It was announced via a news release after the major producers met at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel and it included a condemnation of the personalities involved, effectively ostracizing those named from the industry.[3] These producers instituted compulsory oaths of loyalty from their employees with the threat of a blacklist.[2] Expanded blacklist On June 22, 1950, a pamphlet entitled Red Channels was published. Focused on the field of broadcasting, it identified 151 entertainment industry professionals in the context of "Red Fascists and their sympathizers". Soon, most of those named, along with a host of other artists, were barred from employment in most of the entertainment field.[citation needed] The blacklist lasted until 1960, when Dalton Trumbo, a Communist Party member from 1943 to 1948[4] and member of the Hollywood Ten, was credited as the screenwriter of the film Exodus (1960), and publicly acknowledged by actor Kirk Douglas for writing the screenplay for Spartacus (also 1960).[5] Many of those blacklisted, however, were still barred from work in their professions for years afterward. History Background The Hollywood blacklist was rooted in events of the 1930s and the early 1940s, encompassing the height of the Great Depression and World War II. Two major film industry strikes during the 1930s increased tensions between the Hollywood producers and the unions, particularly the Screen Writers Guild.[6] The Communist Party USA (CPUSA) lost substantial support after the Moscow show trials of 1936–1938 and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. The U.S. government began turning its attention to the possible links between Hollywood and the party during this period. Under then-chairman Martin Dies, Jr., the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) released a report in 1938 claiming that communism was pervasive in Hollywood. Two years later, Dies privately took testimony from a former Communist Party member, John L. Leech, who named forty-two movie industry professionals as Communists. After Leech repeated his charges in supposed confidence to a Los Angeles grand jury, many of the names were reported in the press, including those of stars Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, Katharine Hepburn, Melvyn Douglas and Fredric March, among other Hollywood figures. Dies said he would "clear" all those who co-operated by meeting with him in what he called "executive session". Within two weeks of the grand jury leak, all those on the list except for actress Jean Muir had met with the HUAC chairman. Dies "cleared" everyone except actor Lionel Stander, who was fired by the movie studio, Republic Pictures, where he was under contract.[7] In 1941, producer Walt Disney took out an ad in Variety, the industry trade magazine, declaring his conviction that "Communist agitation" was behind a cartoonists and animators' strike. According to historians Larry Ceplair and Steven Englund, "In actuality, the strike had resulted from Disney's overbearing paternalism, high-handedness, and insensitivity."[8] Inspired by Disney, California State Senator Jack Tenney, chairman of the state legislature's Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities, launched an investigation of "Reds in movies". The probe fell flat, and was mocked in several Variety headlines.[8] The subsequent wartime alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union brought the CPUSA newfound credibility. During the war, membership in the party reached a peak of 50,000.[9] As World War II drew to a close, perceptions changed again, with communism increasingly becoming a focus of American fears and hatred. In 1945, Gerald L. K. Smith, founder of the neofascist America First Party, began giving speeches in Los Angeles assailing the "alien minded Russian Jews in Hollywood".[10] Mississippi congressman John E. Rankin, a member of HUAC, held a press conference to declare that "one of the most dangerous plots ever instigated for the overthrow of this Government has its headquarters in Hollywood ... the greatest hotbed of subversive activities in the United States". Rankin promised, "We're on the trail of the tarantula now".[11] Reports of Soviet repression in Eastern and Central Europe in the war's aftermath added more fuel to what became known as the "Second Red Scare". The growth of conservative political influence and the Republican triumph in the 1946 Congressional elections, which saw the party take control of both the House and Senate, led to a major revival of institutional anticommunist activity, publicly spearheaded by HUAC. The following year, the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals (MPA), a political action group cofounded by Walt Disney, issued a pamphlet advising producers on the avoidance of "subtle communistic touches" in their films. Its counsel revolved around a list of ideological prohibitions, such as "Don't smear the free-enterprise system ... Don't smear industrialists ... Don't smear wealth ... Don't smear the profit motive ... Don't deify the 'common man' ... Don't glorify the collective".[12] Beginning (1946–1947) On July 29, 1946, William R. Wilkerson, publisher and founder of The Hollywood Reporter, published a "TradeView" column entitled "A Vote For Joe Stalin". It named as Communist sympathizers Dalton Trumbo, Maurice Rapf, Lester Cole, Howard Koch, Harold Buchman, John Wexley, Ring Lardner Jr., Harold Salemson, Henry Meyers, Theodore Strauss, and John Howard Lawson. In August and September 1946, Wilkerson published other columns containing names of numerous purported Communists and sympathizers. They became known as "Billy's List" and "Billy's Blacklist".[13][14] In 1962, when Wilkerson died, his THR obituary stated he had "named names, pseudonyms and card numbers and was widely credited with being chiefly responsible for preventing communists from becoming entrenched in Hollywood production – something that foreign film unions have been unable to do."[15] In a 65th-anniversary article in 2012, Wilkerson's son apologized for the paper's role in the blacklist, stating that his father was motivated by revenge for his own thwarted ambition to own a studio.[16] In October 1947, drawing upon the list named in The Hollywood Reporter, the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed a number of persons working in the Hollywood film industry to testify at hearings. The committee had declared its intention to investigate whether Communist agents and sympathizers had been planting propaganda in American films.[14][17] The hearings began with appearances by Walt Disney and Ronald Reagan, then president of the Screen Actors Guild. Disney testified that the threat of Communists in the film industry was a serious one, and named specific people who had worked for him as probable Communists.[18] Reagan testified that a small clique within his union was using "communist-like tactics" in attempting to steer union policy, but that he did not know if those (unnamed) members were communists or not, and that in any case he thought the union had them under control.[19] (Later his first wife, actress Jane Wyman, stated in her biography written with Joe Morella [1985] that Reagan's allegations against friends and colleagues led to tension in their marriage, eventually resulting in their divorce.) Actor Adolphe Menjou declared: "I am a witch hunter if the witches are Communists. I am a Red-baiter. I would like to see them all back in Russia."[20] In contrast, other leading Hollywood figures, including director John Huston and actors Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Judy Garland and Danny Kaye, organized the Committee for the First Amendment to protest the government's targeting of the film industry.[21] Members of the committee, such as Sterling Hayden, assured Bogart that they were not Communists. During the hearings, a local Washington paper reported that Hayden was a Communist. After returning to Hollywood, Bogart shouted at Danny Kaye, "You fuckers sold me out."[22] The group came under attack as being naive or foolish. Under pressure from his studio, Warner Bros., to distance himself from the Hollywood Ten, Bogart negotiated a statement that did not denounce the committee, but said that his trip was "ill-advised, even foolish".[23] Billy Wilder told the group that "we oughta fold".[24] Many of the film industry professionals in whom HUAC had expressed interest were alleged to have been members of the Communist Party USA. Of the 43 people put on the witness list, 19 declared that they would not give evidence. Eleven of these 19 were called before the committee. Members of the Committee for the First Amendment flew to Washington ahead of this climactic phase of the hearing, which commenced on Monday, October 27.[25] Of the eleven "unfriendly witnesses", one, émigré playwright Bertolt Brecht, ultimately chose to answer the committee's questions (following which he left the country).[26][27] The other ten refused, citing their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. Included among the questions they refused to answer was one now generally rendered as "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?".[28][29] The HUAC formally accused these ten of contempt of Congress, and began criminal proceedings against them in the full House of Representatives.[30] In light of the "Hollywood Ten"'s defiance of HUAC – in addition to refusing to testify, many had tried to read statements decrying the committee's investigation as unconstitutional – political pressure mounted on the film industry to demonstrate its "anti-subversive" bona fides. Late in the hearings, Eric Johnston, president of the Association of Motion Picture Producers (AMPP) (and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)), declared to the committee that he would never "employ any proven or admitted Communist because they are just a disruptive force, and I don't want them around".[26] On November 17, the Screen Actors Guild voted to make its officers swear a pledge asserting each was not a Communist. The following week, on November 24, the House of Representatives voted 346 to 17 to approve citations against the Hollywood Ten for contempt of Congress. The next day, following a meeting of film industry executives at New York's Waldorf-Astoria hotel, AMPP President Johnston issued a press release that is today referred to as the Waldorf Statement.[b] Their statement said that the ten would be fired or suspended without pay and not re-employed until they were cleared of contempt charges and had sworn that they were not Communists. The first Hollywood blacklist was in effect. Growth (1948–1950) The HUAC hearings failed to turn up any evidence that Hollywood was secretly disseminating Communist propaganda, but the industry was nonetheless transformed. The fallout from the inquiry was a factor in the decision by Floyd Odlum, the primary owner of RKO Pictures, to leave the industry.[31] As a result, the studio passed into the hands of Howard Hughes. Within weeks of taking over in May 1948, Hughes fired most of RKO's employees and virtually shut the studio down for six months as he had the political sympathies of the rest investigated. Then, just as RKO swung back into production, Hughes made the decision to settle a long-standing federal antitrust suit against the industry's Big Five studios. This was one of the crucial steps in the collapse of the studio system that had governed Hollywood for a quarter-century. In early 1948, all of the Hollywood Ten were convicted of contempt. Following a series of unsuccessful appeals, the cases arrived before the Supreme Court; among the submissions filed in defense of the ten was an amicus curiae brief signed by 204 Hollywood professionals. After the court denied review, the Hollywood Ten began serving one-year prison sentences in 1950. One of the Ten, screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, stated in the documentary film Hollywood On Trial (1976): As far as I was concerned, it was a completely just verdict. I had contempt for that Congress and have had contempt for several since. And on the basis of guilt or innocence, I could never really complain very much. That this was a crime or misdemeanor was the complaint, my complaint.[32] In September 1950, one of the Ten, director Edward Dmytryk, publicly announced that he had once been a Communist and was prepared to give evidence against others who had been as well. He was released early from jail; following his 1951 HUAC appearance, in which he described his brief membership in the party and named names, his career recovered.[33] The others remained silent and most were unable to obtain work in the American film and television industry for many years. Adrian Scott, who had produced four of Dmytryk's films – Murder, My Sweet; Cornered; So Well Remembered; and Crossfire – was one of those named by his former friend. Scott's next screen credit did not come until 1972 and he never produced another feature film. Some of those blacklisted continued to write for Hollywood or the broadcasting industry surreptitiously, using pseudonyms or the names of friends who posed as the actual writers (those who allowed their names to be used in this fashion were called "fronts"). Of the 204 who signed the amicus brief, 84 were themselves blacklisted.[34] There was a more general chilling effect: Humphrey Bogart, who had been one of the most prominent members of the Committee for the First Amendment, felt compelled to write an article for Photoplay magazine denying he was a Communist sympathizer.[35] The Tenney Committee, which had continued its state-level investigations, summoned songwriter Ira Gershwin to testify about his participation in the committee.[36] The May 7, 1948, issue of the Counterattack newsletter warned readers about a radio talk show that had recently expanded its audience by moving from the Mutual network to ABC: "Communist Party members and fellow-travelers have often been guests on [Arthur] Gaeth's program." A number of non-governmental organizations participated in enforcing and expanding the blacklist; in particular, the American Legion, the conservative war veterans' group, was instrumental in pressuring the entertainment industry to exclude communists and their sympathizers. In 1949, the Americanism Division of the Legion issued its own blacklist – a roster of 128 people whom it claimed were participants in the "Communist Conspiracy". Among the names on the Legion's list was that of the playwright Lillian Hellman.[37] Hellman had written or contributed to the screenplays of approximately ten motion pictures up to that point; she was not employed again by a Hollywood studio until 1966. Another influential group was American Business Consultants Inc., founded in 1947. In the subscription information for its weekly publication Counterattack, "The Newsletter of Facts to Combat Communism", it declared that it was run by "a group of former FBI men. It has no affiliation whatsoever with any government agency." Notwithstanding that claim, it seems the editors of Counterattack had direct access to the files of both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and HUAC; the results of that access became widely apparent with the June 1950 publication of Red Channels. This Counterattack spinoff listed 151 people in entertainment and broadcast journalism, along with records of their involvement in what the pamphlet meant to be taken as Communist or pro-Communist activities.[38] A few of those named, such as Hellman, were already being denied employment in the motion picture, TV, and radio fields; the publication of Red Channels meant that scores more were placed on the blacklist. That year, CBS instituted a loyalty oath which it required of all its employees.[39] Jean Muir was the first performer to lose employment because of a listing in Red Channels. In 1950, Muir was named as a Communist sympathizer in the pamphlet, and was immediately removed from the cast of the television sitcom The Aldrich Family, in which she had been cast as Mrs. Aldrich. NBC had received between 20 and 30 phone calls protesting her being in the show. General Foods, the sponsor, said that it would not sponsor programs in which "controversial persons" were featured. Though the company later received thousands of calls protesting the decision, it was not reversed.[40] HUAC return (1951–1952) In 1951, with the U.S. Congress now under Democratic control, HUAC launched a second investigation of Hollywood and Communism. As actor Larry Parks said when called before the panel, Don't present me with the choice of either being in contempt of this committee and going to jail or forcing me to really crawl through the mud to be an informer. For what purpose? I don't think it is a choice at all. I don't think this is really sportsmanlike. I don't think this is American. I don't think this is American justice.[41] Parks ultimately testified, becoming, however reluctantly, a "friendly witness", and found himself blacklisted, nonetheless. In fact, the legal tactics of those refusing to testify had changed by this time; instead of relying on the First Amendment, they invoked the Fifth Amendment's shield against self-incrimination (although, as before, Communist Party membership was not illegal). While this usually allowed a witness to avoid "naming names" without being indicted for contempt of Congress, "taking the Fifth" before HUAC guaranteed one's membership on the industry blacklist.[42] Historians at times distinguish between the relatively official blacklist – the names of those who (a) were called by HUAC and, in whatever manner, refused to co-operate and/or (b) were identified as Communists in the hearings – and the graylist – those others who were denied work because of their political or personal affiliations, real or imagined; the consequences, however, were largely the same. The graylist also refers more specifically to those who were denied work by the major studios, but could still find jobs on Poverty Row: Composer Elmer Bernstein, for instance, was called by HUAC when it was discovered that he had written some music reviews for a Communist newspaper. After he refused to name names, pointing out that he had never attended a Communist Party meeting, he found himself composing music for movies such as Cat Women of the Moon.[43] Anticommunist tract from the 1950s, decrying the "REDS of Hollywood and Broadway" Like Parks and Dmytryk, others also co-operated with the committee. Some friendly witnesses gave broadly damaging testimony with less apparent reluctance, most prominently director Elia Kazan and screenwriter Budd Schulberg. Their co-operation in describing the political leanings of their friends and professional associates effectively brought a halt to dozens of careers and compelled a number of artists to depart for Mexico or Europe. Others were also forced abroad in order to work. Director Jules Dassin was among the best known of these. Briefly a Communist, Dassin had left the party in 1939. He was immediately blacklisted after Edward Dmytryk and fellow filmmaker Frank Tuttle named him to HUAC in 1952. Dassin left for France, and spent much of his remaining career in Greece.[44] Scholar Thomas Doherty describes how the HUAC hearings swept onto the blacklist those who had never even been particularly active politically, let alone suspected of being Communists: [O]n March 21, 1951, the name of the actor Lionel Stander was uttered by the actor Larry Parks during testimony before HUAC. "Do you know Lionel Stander?" committee counsel Frank S. Tavenner inquired. Parks replied he knew the man, but had no knowledge of his political affiliations. No more was said about Stander either by Parks or the committee – no accusation, no insinuation. Yet Stander's phone stopped ringing. Prior to Parks's testimony, Stander had worked on ten television shows in the previous 100 days. Afterwards, nothing.[45] When Stander was himself called before HUAC, he began by pledging his full support in the fight against "subversive" activities: I know of a group of fanatics who are desperately trying to undermine the Constitution of the United States by depriving artists and others of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness without due process of law ... I can tell names and cite instances and I am one of the first victims of it ... [This is] a group of ex-Fascists and America-Firsters and anti-Semites, people who hate everybody, including Negroes, minority groups, and most likely themselves ... [T]hese people are engaged in a conspiracy outside all the legal processes to undermine the very fundamental American concepts upon which our entire system of democracy exists.[46] Stander was clearly speaking of the committee itself.[47] The hunt for subversives extended into every branch of the entertainment industry. In the field of animation, two studios in particular were affected: United Productions of America (UPA) was purged of a large portion of its staff, while New York-based Tempo was entirely crushed.[48] HUAC investigations effectively destroyed families. Screenwriter Richard Collins, after a brief period on the blacklist, became a friendly witness and dumped his wife, actress Dorothy Comingore, who refused to name names. Divorcing Comingore, Collins took the couple's young son, as well. The family's story was later dramatized in the film Guilty by Suspicion (1991), in which the character based on Comingore "commits suicide rather than endure a long mental collapse".[49] In real life, Comingore succumbed to alcoholism and died of a pulmonary disease at the age of fifty-eight. In the description of historians Paul Buhle and David Wagner, "premature strokes and heart attacks were fairly common [among blacklistees], along with heavy drinking as a form of suicide on the installment plan".[50] For all that, evidence that Communists were actually using Hollywood films as vehicles for subversion remained hard to come by. Schulberg reported that the manuscript of his novel What Makes Sammy Run? (later a screenplay, as well) had been subject to an ideological critique by Hollywood Ten writer John Howard Lawson, whose comments he had solicited. The significance of such interactions was questionable. As historian Gerald Horne describes, many Hollywood screenwriters had joined or associated with the local Communist Party chapter because it "offered a collective to a profession that was enmeshed in tremendous isolation at the typewriter. Their 'Writers' Clinic' had 'an informal "board" of respected screenwriters' – including Lawson and Ring Lardner Jr. – 'who read and commented upon any screenplay submitted to them. Although their criticism could be plentiful, stinging, and (sometimes) politically dogmatic, the author was entirely free to accept it or reject it as he or she pleased without incurring the slightest "consequence" or sanction.'"[51] Much of the onscreen evidence of Communist influence uncovered by HUAC was feeble at best. One witness remembered Stander, while performing in a film, whistling the left-wing "Internationale" as his character waited for an elevator. "Another noted that screenwriter Lester Cole had inserted lines from a famous pro-Loyalist speech by La Pasionaria about it being 'better to die on your feet than to live on your knees' into a pep talk delivered by a football coach."[47] Others disagree about how Communists affected the film industry. The author Kenneth Billingsley, writing in Reason magazine, said that Trumbo wrote in The Daily Worker about films which he said communist influence in Hollywood had prevented from being made: among them were proposed adaptations of Arthur Koestler's anti-totalitarian works Darkness at Noon and The Yogi and the Commissar, which described the rise of communism in Russia.[52] Authors Ronald and Allis Radosh, writing in Red Star over Hollywood: The Film Colony's Long Romance with the Left, said that Trumbo bragged about how he and other party members stopped anti-communist films from being produced.[53] Height (1952–1956) In 1952, the Screen Writers Guild – which had been founded two decades before by three future members of the Hollywood Ten – authorized the movie studios to "omit from the screen" the names of any individuals who had failed to clear themselves before Congress. Writer Dalton Trumbo, for instance, one of the Hollywood Ten and still on the blacklist, had received screen credit in 1950 for writing, years earlier, the story on which the screenplay of Columbia Pictures' Emergency Wedding was based. There was no more of that until the 1960s. The name of Albert Maltz, who had written the original screenplay for The Robe in the mid-1940s, was nowhere to be seen when the movie was released in 1953.[54] As William O'Neill describes, pressure was maintained even on those who had ostensibly "cleared" themselves: On December 27, 1952, the American Legion announced that it disapproved of a new film, Moulin Rouge, starring José Ferrer, who used to be no more progressive than hundreds of other actors and had already been grilled by HUAC. The picture itself was based on the life of Toulouse-Lautrec and was totally apolitical. Nine members of the Legion had picketed it anyway, giving rise to the controversy. By this time, people were not taking any chances. Ferrer immediately wired the Legion's national commander that he would be glad to join the veterans in their "fight against communism".[55] The group's efforts dragged many others onto the blacklist: In 1954, "[s]creenwriter Louis Pollock, a man without any known political views or associations, suddenly had his career yanked out from under him because the American Legion confused him with Louis Pollack, a California clothier, who had refused to co-operate with HUAC."[56] Orson Bean recalled that he had briefly been placed on the blacklist after dating a member of the party, despite his own politics being conservative.[57] During this same period, a number of influential newspaper columnists covering the entertainment industry, including Walter Winchell, Hedda Hopper, Victor Riesel, Jack O'Brian, and George Sokolsky, regularly offered up names with the suggestion that they should be added to the blacklist.[58] Actor John Ireland received an out-of-court settlement to end a 1954 lawsuit against the Young & Rubicam advertising agency, which had ordered him dropped from the lead role in a television series it sponsored. Variety described it as "the first industry admission of what has for some time been an open secret – that the threat of being labeled a political non-conformist, or worse, has been used against show business personalities, and that a screening system is at work determining these [actors'] availabilities for roles".[59] The first Hollywood movie to overtly take on McCarthyism, Storm Center was released in 1956. Bette Davis "plays a small-town librarian who refuses, on principle, to remove a book called The Communist Dream from the shelves when the local council deems it subversive".[60] The Hollywood blacklist had long gone hand in hand with the Red-baiting activities of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Adversaries of HUAC such as lawyer Bartley Crum, who defended some of the Hollywood Ten in front of the committee in 1947, were labeled as Communist sympathizers or subversives and targeted for investigation themselves. Throughout the 1950s, the FBI tapped Crum's phones, opened his mail, and placed him under continuous surveillance. As a result, he lost most of his clients and, unable to cope with the stress of ceaseless harassment, committed suicide in 1959.[61] Intimidating and dividing the left is now seen as a central purpose of the HUAC hearings. Fund-raising for once-popular humanitarian efforts became difficult, and despite the sympathies of many in the industry there was little open support in Hollywood for causes such as the Civil Rights Movement and opposition to nuclear weapons testing.[62] The struggles attending the blacklist were played out metaphorically on the big screen in various ways. As described by film historian James Chapman, "Carl Foreman, who had refused to testify before the committee, wrote the western High Noon (1952), in which a town marshal (played, ironically, by friendly witness Gary Cooper) finds himself deserted by the good citizens of Hadleyville (read: Hollywood) when a gang of outlaws who had terrorized the town several years earlier (read: HUAC) returns."[63] Cooper's lawman cleaned up Hadleyville, but Foreman was forced to leave for Europe to find work. Meanwhile, Kazan and Schulberg collaborated on a movie widely seen as justifying their decision to name names. On the Waterfront (1954) became one of the most honored films in Hollywood history, winning eight Academy Awards, including Oscars for Best Film, Kazan's direction, and Schulberg's screenplay. The film featured Lee J. Cobb, one of the best known actors to name names. Time Out Film Guide argues that the film is "undermined" by its "embarrassing special pleading on behalf of informers".[64] After his release from prison, Herbert Biberman of the Hollywood Ten directed Salt of the Earth (also 1954), working independently in New Mexico with fellow blacklisted Hollywood professionals – producer Paul Jarrico, writer Michael Wilson, and actors Rosaura Revueltas and Will Geer. The film, concerning a strike by Mexican-American mine workers, was denounced as Communist propaganda when it was completed in 1953. Distributors boycotted it, newspapers and radio stations rejected advertisements for it, and the projectionists' union refused to run it. Nationwide in 1954, only around a dozen theaters exhibited it.[65] Break (1957–present) Jules Dassin was one of the first to break the blacklist. Although he was named by Edward Dmytryk and Frank Tuttle in spring 1951,[66] he directed in December 1952 the Broadway Play Two's Company with Bette Davis. In June 1956, his French film production Rififi opened at the Fine Arts Theater[67] and stayed for 20 weeks. A key figure in bringing an end to blacklisting was John Henry Faulk. Host of an afternoon comedy radio show, Faulk was a leftist active in his union, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. He was scrutinized by AWARE, Inc., one of the private firms that examined individuals for signs of Communist sympathies and "disloyalty". Marked by the group as unfit, he was fired by CBS Radio. Almost alone among the many victims of blacklisting, Faulk decided to sue AWARE in 1957.[68] Though the case dragged through the courts for years, the suit itself was an important symbol of the building resistance to the blacklist.[citation needed] The initial cracks in the entertainment industry blacklist were evident on television, specifically at CBS. In 1957, blacklisted actor Norman Lloyd was hired by Alfred Hitchcock as an associate producer for his anthology series Alfred Hitchcock Presents, then entering its third season on the network.[69] On November 30, 1958, a live CBS production of Wonderful Town, based on short stories written by then-Communist Ruth McKenney, appeared with the proper writing credit of blacklisted Edward Chodorov, along with his literary partner, Joseph Fields.[70] The following year, actress Betty Hutton insisted that blacklisted composer Jerry Fielding be hired as musical director for her new series, also on CBS.[71] The first main break in the Hollywood blacklist followed soon after. On January 20, 1960, director Otto Preminger publicly announced that Dalton Trumbo, one of the best known members of the Hollywood Ten, was the screenwriter of his forthcoming film Exodus. Six and a half months later, with Exodus still to debut, The New York Times announced that Universal Pictures would give Trumbo screen credit for his role as writer on Spartacus, a decision now recognized as being largely made by star/producer Kirk Douglas.[72] On October 6, Spartacus premiered – the first movie to bear Trumbo's name since he had received story credit on Emergency Wedding in 1950. Since 1947, he had written or co-written approximately seventeen motion pictures without credit. Exodus followed in December, also bearing Trumbo's name. The blacklist was now clearly coming to an end, but its effects continue to reverberate even until the present.[73] John Henry Faulk won his lawsuit in 1962. With this court decision, the private blacklisters and those who used them were put on notice that they were legally liable for the professional and financial damage they caused. This helped to bring an end to publications such as Counterattack.[74] Like Adrian Scott and Lillian Hellman, however, a number of those on the blacklist remained there for an extended period – Lionel Stander, for instance, could not find work in Hollywood until 1965.[75] Some of those who named names, like Kazan and Schulberg, argued for years after that they had made an ethically proper decision. Others, like actor Lee J. Cobb and director Michael Gordon, who gave friendly testimony to HUAC after suffering on the blacklist for a time, "concede[d] with remorse that their plan was to name their way back to work".[76] Others were haunted by the choice they had made. In 1963, actor Sterling Hayden declared, I was a rat, a stoolie, and the names I named of those close friends were blacklisted and deprived of their livelihood.[77] Scholars Paul Buhle and Dave Wagner state that Hayden "was widely believed to have drunk himself into a near-suicidal depression decades before his 1986 death".[77] Into the 21st century, the Writers Guild pursued the correction of screen credits from movies of the 1950s and early 1960s to properly reflect the work of blacklisted writers such as Carl Foreman and Hugo Butler.[78] On December 19, 2011, the guild, acting on a request for an investigation made by his dying son Christopher Trumbo, announced that Dalton Trumbo would get full credit for his work on the screenplay for the romantic comedy Roman Holiday (1953), almost sixty years after the fact.[79] Blacklisted individuals Hollywood Ten The following ten individuals were cited for contempt of Congress and blacklisted after refusing to answer questions about their alleged involvement with the Communist Party:[80] Alvah Bessie, screenwriter Herbert Biberman, screenwriter and director Lester Cole, screenwriter Edward Dmytryk, director Ring Lardner Jr., screenwriter John Howard Lawson, screenwriter Albert Maltz, screenwriter Samuel Ornitz, screenwriter Adrian Scott, producer and screenwriter Dalton Trumbo, screenwriter In late September 1947, HUAC subpoenaed 79 individuals on a claim that they were subversive and the supposition that they injected Communist propaganda into their films. Although never substantiating this claim, the investigators charged them with contempt of Congress when they refused to answer the questions about their membership in the Screen Writers Guild and Communist Party. The Committee demanded they admit their political beliefs and name names of other Communists. Nineteen of those refused to co-operate, and due to illnesses, scheduling conflicts, and exhaustion from the chaotic hearings, only 10 appeared before the Committee. These men became known as the Hollywood Ten.[81] Belonging to the Communist Party did not constitute a crime, and the Committee's right to investigate these men was questionable in the first place. These men relied on the First Amendment's right to privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought, but the Committee charged them with contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions. Later defendants – except Pete Seeger – tried different strategies.[82] Acknowledging the potential for punishment, the Ten resisted the authority of HUAC. They yelled at the Chairman and treated the Committee with open indignation, emanating negativity and discouraging outside public favor and help. Upon receiving their contempt citations, they believed the Supreme Court would overturn the rulings, which did not turn out to be the case, and as a result, they were convicted of contempt and fined $1,000 each (or, over $10,700 USD in 2016 dollars, when adjusted for inflation), and sentenced to six-months to one-year prison terms. Martin Redish suggests that, at this time, the First Amendment's right of free expression in these cases was used to protect the powers of the government accusers instead of the rights of the citizen-victims.[83] After witnessing the well-publicized ineffectiveness of the Ten's defense strategy, later defendants chose to plead the Fifth Amendment (against self-incrimination), instead. Public support for the Hollywood Ten wavered, as everyday citizen-observers were never really sure what to make of them. Some of these men later wrote about their experiences as part of the Ten. John Howard Lawson, the Ten's unofficial leader, wrote a book attacking Hollywood for appeasing HUAC. While mostly criticizing the studios for their weakness, Lawson also defends himself/the Ten and criticizes Edward Dmytryk for being the only one to recant and eventually co-operate with HUAC.[84] In his 1981 autobiography, Hollywood Red, screenwriter Lester Cole stated that all of the Hollywood Ten had been Communist Party USA members at some point.[85] Other members of the Hollywood Ten, such as Dalton Trumbo[86] and Edward Dmytryk,[87] publicly admitted to being Communists while testifying before the Committee. When Dmytryk wrote his memoir about this period, he denounced the Ten, and defended his decision to work with HUAC. He claimed to have left the Communist Party before having been subpoenaed, defining himself as the "odd man out". He condemned the Ten's legal tactic of defiance, and regretted staying with the group for as long as he did.[88] Others in 1947 Hanns Eisler, composer[89] Bernard Gordon, screenwriter[90] Joan LaCour Scott, screenwriter[91] Irving Lerner, editor and director[92] Between January 1948 and June 1950 (an asterisk after the entry indicates the person was also listed in Red Channels) Ben Barzman, screenwriter[93] Paul Draper, actor and dancer*[94] Sheridan Gibney, screenwriter[95] Paul Green, playwright and screenwriter[96] Lillian Hellman, playwright and screenwriter*[97] Canada Lee, actor[98] Paul Robeson, actor and singer[99] Edwin Rolfe, screenwriter and poet[100] William Sweets, radio personality*[101] Richard Wright, writer[96] Red Channels list (see, e. g., Schrecker [2002], p. 244; Barnouw [1990], pp. 122–124) Larry Adler, actor and musician Luther Adler, actor and director Stella Adler, actress and teacher Edith Atwater, actress Howard Bay, scenic designer Ralph Bell, actor Leonard Bernstein, composer and conductor Walter Bernstein, screenwriter, mentioned in Venona intercepts of Soviet Agents Marc Blitzstein, composer Millen Brand, writer Oscar Brand, folk singer Joseph Edward Bromberg, actor Himan Brown, producer and director John Brown, actor Abe Burrows, playwright and lyricist Morris Carnovsky, actor Cliff Carpenter, actor Vera Caspary, writer Edward Chodorov, screenwriter and producer Jerome Chodorov, writer Mady Christians, actress Lee J. Cobb, actor Marc Connelly, playwright Aaron Copland, composer Norman Corwin, writer Howard Da Silva, actor Roger De Koven, actor Dean Dixon, conductor Olin Downes, music critic Alfred Drake, actor and singer Paul Draper, actor and dancer Howard Duff, actor Clifford J. Durr, attorney Richard Dyer-Bennet, folk singer José Ferrer, actor Louise Fitch (Lewis), actress Martin Gabel, actor Arthur Gaeth, radio commentator William S. Gailmor, journalist and radio commentator John Garfield, actor Will Geer, actor Jack Gilford, actor and comedian Tom Glazer, folk singer Ruth Gordon, actress and screenwriter Lloyd Gough, actor Morton Gould, pianist and composer Shirley Graham, writer Ben Grauer, radio and TV personality Mitchell Grayson, radio producer and director Horace Grenell, conductor and music producer Uta Hagen, actress and teacher Dashiell Hammett, writer E. Y. "Yip" Harburg, lyricist Robert P. Heller, television journalist Lillian Hellman, playwright and screenwriter Jon Hering, intern Nat Hiken, writer and producer Rose Hobart, actress Judy Holliday, actress and comedian Roderick B. Holmgren, journalist Lena Horne, singer and actress Langston Hughes, writer Marsha Hunt, actress Leo Hurwitz, director Charles Irving, actor Burl Ives, folk singer and actor Sam Jaffe, actor Leon Janney, actor Joe Julian, actor Garson Kanin, writer and director George Keane, actor Donna Keath, radio actress Pert Kelton, actress Alexander Kendrick, journalist and author Adelaide Klein, actress Felix Knight, singer and actor Howard Koch, screenwriter Tony Kraber, actor Millard Lampell, screenwriter John La Touche, lyricist Arthur Laurents, writer Gypsy Rose Lee, actress and ecdysiast Madeline Lee, actress[d] Ray Lev, classical pianist Philip Loeb, actor Ella Logan, actress and singer Alan Lomax, folklorist and musicologist Avon Long, actor and singer Joseph Losey, director Peter Lyon, television writer Aline MacMahon, actress Paul Mann, director and teacher Margo, actress and dancer Myron McCormick, actor Paul McGrath, radio actor Burgess Meredith, actor Arthur Miller, playwright Henry Morgan, actor Zero Mostel, actor and comedian Jean Muir, actress Meg Mundy, actress Lyn Murray, composer and choral director Ben Myers, attorney Dorothy Parker, screenwriter Arnold Perl, producer and writer Minerva Pious, actress Samson Raphaelson, screenwriter and playwright Bernard Reis, accountant Anne Revere, actress Kenneth Roberts, writer Earl Robinson, composer and lyricist Edward G. Robinson, actor William N. Robson, radio and TV writer Harold Rome, composer and lyricist Norman Rosten, writer Selena Royle, actress Coby Ruskin, TV director Robert William St. John, journalist, broadcaster Hazel Scott, jazz and classical musician Pete Seeger, folk singer Lisa Sergio, radio personality Artie Shaw, jazz musician Irwin Shaw, writer, playwright Robert Lewis Shayon, former president of radio and TV directors' guild Ann Shepherd, actress William L. Shirer, journalist, broadcaster Allan Sloane, radio and TV writer Howard K. Smith, journalist, broadcaster Gale Sondergaard, actress Hester Sondergaard, actress Lionel Stander, actor Johannes Steele, journalist, radio commentator Paul Stewart, actor Elliott Sullivan, actor William Sweets, radio personality Helen Tamiris, choreographer Betty Todd, director Louis Untermeyer, poet Hilda Vaughn, actress J. Raymond Walsh, radio commentator Sam Wanamaker, actor Theodore Ward, playwright Fredi Washington, actor Margaret Webster, actress, director and producer Orson Welles, actor, writer and director Josh White, blues musician Irene Wicker, singer and actress Betty Winkler (Keane), actress Martin Wolfson, actor Lesley Woods, actor Richard Yaffe, journalist, broadcaster After June 1950 Eddie Albert, actor[102] Lew Amster, screenwriter[103] Richard Attenborough, actor, director and producer[104] Norma Barzman, screenwriter[105] Sol Barzman, screenwriter[106] Orson Bean, actor[107] Albert Bein, screenwriter[103] Harry Belafonte, actor and singer[108] Barbara Bel Geddes, actress[109] Ben Bengal, screenwriter[110] Seymour Bennett, screenwriter[111] Leonardo Bercovici, screenwriter[49] Herschel Bernardi, actor[112] John Berry, actor, screenwriter and director[113] Henry Blankfort, screenwriter[114] Laurie Blankfort, artist[114] Roman Bohnen, actor[115] Allen Boretz, screenwriter and songwriter[116] Phoebe Brand, actress[117] John Bright, screenwriter[118] Phil Brown, actor[119] Harold Buchman, screenwriter[120] Sidney Buchman, screenwriter[121] Luis Buñuel, director[122] Val Burton, screenwriter[123] Hugo Butler, screenwriter[124] Alan Campbell, screenwriter[125] Charlie Chaplin, actor, director and producer[126] Maurice Clark, screenwriter[127] Richard Collins, screenwriter[128] Charles Collingwood, radio commentator[129] Dorothy Comingore, actress[130] Jeff Corey, actor[131] George Corey, screenwriter[132] Irwin Corey, actor and comedian[133] Oliver Crawford, screenwriter[134] John Cromwell, director[citation needed] Charles Dagget, animator[135][e] Danny Dare, choreographer[136][f] Jules Dassin, director[137] Ossie Davis, actor[138] Ruby Dee, actress[139] Dolores del Río, actress[140] Karen DeWolf, screenwriter[141] Howard Dimsdale, writer[50] Ludwig Donath, actor[115] Arnaud d'Usseau, screenwriter[142] Phil Eastman, cartoon writer[143] Leslie Edgley, screenwriter[144] Edward Eliscu, screenwriter[145] Faith Elliott, animator[146] Cy Endfield, screenwriter and director[147] Guy Endore, screenwriter[142] Francis Edward Faragoh, screenwriter[148] Frances Farmer, actress[149] Howard Fast, writer[150] John Henry Faulk, radio personality[151] Jerry Fielding, composer[71] Carl Foreman, producer and screenwriter[152] Anne Froelick, screenwriter[50] Lester Fuller, director[153] Bert Gilden, screenwriter[154] Lee Gold, screenwriter[155] Harold Goldman, screenwriter[156] Michael Gordon, director[157] Jay Gorney, screenwriter[158] Lee Grant, actress[159] Morton Grant, screenwriter[160] Anne Green, screenwriter[161] Jack T. Gross, producer[162] Margaret Gruen, screenwriter[163] David Hilberman, animator[164] Tamara Hovey, screenwriter[165] John Hubley, animator[166] Edward Huebsch, screenwriter[167] Ian McLellan Hunter, screenwriter[168] Kim Hunter, actress[169] John Ireland, actor[59] Daniel James, screenwriter[170] Paul Jarrico, producer and screenwriter[171] Gordon Kahn, screenwriter[50] Victor Kilian, actor[172] Sidney Kingsley, playwright[173] Alexander Knox, actor[174] Mickey Knox, actor[175] Lester Koenig, film/record producer[176] Charles Korvin, actor[177] Hy Kraft, screenwriter[178] Constance Lee, screenwriter[179] Will Lee, actor and comic Robert Lees, screenwriter[168] Carl Lerner, editor and director[180] Irving Lerner, director[181] Sam Levene, actor[182] Lewis Leverett, actor[183] Alfred Lewis Levitt, screenwriter[184] Helen Slote Levitt, screenwriter[184] Mitch Lindemann, screenwriter[162] Norman Lloyd, actor[185] Ben Maddow, screenwriter[186] Arnold Manoff, screenwriter[187] William Marshall, actor[188] John McGrew, animator[189] Ruth McKenney, writer[190] Bill Melendez, animator[191] John "Skins" Miller, actor[192] Paula Miller (actress), actress[183] Josef Mischel, screenwriter[193] Karen Morley, actress[194] Henry Myers, screenwriter[195] Mortimer Offner, screenwriter[145] Alfred Palca, writer and producer[196] Larry Parks, actor[197] Leo Penn, actor[198] George Pepper (film producer)[199] Jeanette Pepper, economist [200] Irving Pichel, director[201] Louis Pollock, screenwriter[56] Abraham Polonsky, screenwriter and director[160] William Pomerance, animation executive[164] Vladimir Pozner, screenwriter[202] Stanley Prager, director[165] John Randolph, actor[203] Maurice Rapf, screenwriter[204] Rosaura Revueltas, actress[205] Robert L. Richards, screenwriter[170] Frederic I. Rinaldo, screenwriter[206] Martin Ritt, actor and director[207] W. L. River, screenwriter[141] Marguerite Roberts, screenwriter[208] David Robison, screenwriter[209] Naomi Robison, actress[209] Louise Rousseau, screenwriter[122] Jean Rouverol (Butler), actress and writer[210] Shimen Ruskin, actor[144] Madeleine Ruthven, screenwriter[211] Waldo Salt, screenwriter[212] John Sanford, screenwriter[213] Bill Scott, voice actor and producer[135] Martha Scott, actress[56] Robert Shayne, actor Joshua Shelley, actor[198] Madeleine Sherwood, actress[214] Reuben Ship, screenwriter[215] Viola Brothers Shore, screenwriter[202] Hilda Simms, actress George Sklar, playwright[122] Art Smith, actor[183] Louis Solomon, screenwriter and producer[216] Ray Spencer, screenwriter[162] Janet Stevenson, writer[115] Philip Stevenson, writer[115] Donald Ogden Stewart, screenwriter[217] Arthur Strawn, screenwriter[218] Bess Taffel, screenwriter[165] Julius Tannenbaum, producer[120] Frank Tarloff, screenwriter[219] Shepard Traube, director and screenwriter[123] Dorothy Tree, actress[220] Paul Trivers, screenwriter[221] George Tyne, actor[198] Michael Uris, writer[222] Peter Viertel, screenwriter[223] Bernard Vorhaus, director[224] John Weber, producer[225] Richard Weil, screenwriter[167] Hannah Weinstein, producer[226] John Wexley, screenwriter[227] Michael Wilson, screenwriter[228] Nedrick Young, actor and screenwriter[229] Julian Zimet, screenwriter[142] See also Joseph McCarthy References Informational notes ^ The following transcript of an excerpt from the interrogation of screenwriter John Howard Lawson by HUAC chairman J. Parnell Thomas gives an example of the tenor of some of the exchanges: Thomas: Are you a member of the Communist Party or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Lawson: It's unfortunate and tragic that I have to teach this committee the basic principles of Americanism. Thomas: That's not the question. That's not the question. The question is – have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Lawson: I am framing my answer in the only way in which any American citizen can frame his answer to ... Thomas: Then you deny it? Lawson: ... a question that invades his ... absolutely invades his privacy. Thomas: Then you deny ... You refuse to answer that question, is that correct? Lawson: I have told you that I will offer my beliefs, my affiliations and everything else to the American public and they will know where I stand as they do from what I have written. Thomas: Stand away from the stand ... Lawson: I have written for Americanism for many years ... Thomas: Stand away from the stand ... Lawson: And I shall continue to fight for the Bill of Rights, which you are trying to destroy. Thomas: Officer, take this man away from the stand.[230] ^ At least a couple of recent histories incorrectly give December 3 as the date of the Waldorf Statement: Ross (2002), p. 217; Stone (2004), p. 365. Among the many 1947 sources that establish the correct date, there is the New York Times article "Movies to Oust Ten Cited For Contempt of Congress; Major Companies Also Vote to Refuse Jobs to Communists – 'Hysteria, Surrender of Freedom' Charged by Defense Counsel; Movies Will Oust Ten Men Cited for Contempt of Congress After Voting to Refuse Employment to Communists", which appeared on the front page of the newspaper November 26. ^ Blankfort gave co-operative, if uninformative, testimony to HUAC and was not blacklisted.[231] ^ Madeline Lee – who was married to actor Jack Gilford, also listed by Red Channels – was frequently confused with another actress of the era named Madaline Lee.[232] ^ Four months after refusing to co-operate with HUAC, Dagget appeared again before the committee and named names.[233] ^ In 1951, Dare appeared before HUAC, lied about having never been a Communist, and continued to work in the entertainment industry. He was blacklisted two years later for his involvement in Meet the People, a 1939 theatrical production. Soon afterward, he recanted his earlier testimony and named names.[234] Citations Gordon, Bernard (1999). Hollywood Exile, or How I Learned to Love the Blacklist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. pp. ix. ISBN 0292728271. Pollard, Tom (2015). Sex and Violence: The Hollywood Censorship Wars. Oxon: Routledge. p. 95. ISBN 9781594516351. Chapman, Roger (2010). Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. pp. 258. ISBN 9780765622501. Victor Navasky, Naming Names, New York: Viking, 2003 Kirk Douglas, "My Spartacus Broke All the Rules" Archived 2015-11-10 at the Wayback Machine, The Daily Telegraph Murphy (2003), p. 16. Ceplair and Englund (2003), pp. 156–157. Ceplair and Englund (2003), pp. 157–158. Johnpoll (1994), p. xv. Horne (2006), p. 174. Murphy (2003), p. 17. Cohen (2004), pp. 169–170. Wilkerson, William (1946-07-29). "A Vote For Joe Stalin". The Hollywood Reporter. p. 1. Baum, Gary; Miller, Daniel (November 19, 2012). "Blacklist: THR Addresses Role After 65 Years". Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 6 August 2015. Retrieved 20 November 2012. Baum, Gary; Miller, Daniel (November 19, 2012). "The Hollywood Reporter, After 65 Years, Addresses Role in Blacklist". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on August 6, 2015. Retrieved December 5, 2018. Wilerson III, W. R. (November 19, 2012). "Blacklist: Billy Wilkerson's Son Apologizes for Publication's Dark Past". Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on December 14, 2017. Retrieved November 20, 2012. See, e. g., Schwartz, Richard A. (1999). "How the Film and Television Blacklists Worked". Florida International University. Archived from the original on 2011-07-19. Retrieved 2010-03-03. Cohen (2004), p. 167. "testimony of Ronald Reagan and Walt Disney" http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6458/ Archived 2015-06-30 at the Wayback Machine Scott and Rutkoff (1999), p. 338. Ceplair and Englund (2003), pp. 275–279. Kenneth Billingsley, Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry in the 1930s and 1940s (Roseville, CA, 2000. ISBN 0-7615-1376-0, pp. 191–195. Sean Griffin (ed). What Dreams Were Made Of: Movie Stars of the 1940s. Rutgers University Press, 2011, p. 92. Ronald and Allis Radosh. Red Star over Hollywood: The Film Colony's Long Romance with the Left. San Francisco: Encounter Books, pp. 161–162. Ceplair and Englund (2003), pp. 281–282. Dick (1989), p. 7. Schuetze-Coburn, Marje (February 1998). "Bertolt Brecht's Appearance Before the HUAC". USC-Feuchtwanger Memorial Library. Archived from the original on 2009-07-19. Retrieved 2010-03-03. Case, Sue-Ellen; Reinelt, Janelle G., eds. (1991). The Performance of Power: Theatrical Discourse and Politics. University of Iowa Press. p. 153. ISBN 9781587290343. Archived from the original on 2024-02-02. Retrieved 2020-10-18. Dmytryk, Edward (1996). Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten. Southern Illinois University Press. p. 59. ISBN 9780809319992. "In the early days of the Martin Dies Committee ... the question had simply been, Are you a member of the Communist Party of the United States? As a countermeasure, the Party adopted a rule that automatically cancelled a Communist's membership the moment the question was asked. He could then answer 'No' without perjuring himself. The final wording ... was adopted to circumvent the Party's tactic." 1947 Congressional Record, Vol. 93, Page H10818 (October 27, 1947) Lasky (1989), p. 204. Ceplair, Larry (2015). Dalton Trumbo, Blacklisted Hollywood Radical. University Press of Kentucky. p. 228. ISBN 9780813146829. Archived from the original on February 2, 2024. Retrieved December 15, 2015. Gevinson (1997), p. 234. Stone (2004), p. 365. Bogart (1948). Jablonski (1998), p. 350. Newman (1989), 140. Red Channels (1950), pp. 6, 214. Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 7. Brown, pp. 89–90 Parish (2004), p. 92. Ceplair and Englund (2003), p. 387. Susman, Gary (August 19, 2004). "Goodbye". EntertainmentWeekly.com. Archived from the original on 2011-09-22. Retrieved 2009-02-27. "Composer Elmer Bernstein Dead at 82". Today.com (Associated Press). August 19, 2004. Archived from the original on 2017-04-20. Retrieved 2009-02-27. Wakeman (1987), pp. 190, 192. Doherty (2003), p. 31. Quoted in Belton (1994), pp. 202–203. Belton (1994), p. 203. Cohen (2004), pp. 173–179. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 21. Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 250. Horne (2006), p. 134. Kenneth Billingsley, "Hollywood's Missing Movies: Why American films have ignored life under communism" Archived 2008-03-12 at the Wayback Machine, Reason Magazine, June 2000 Ronald and Allis Radosh, Red Star over Hollywood: The Film Colony's Long Romance with the Left. San Francisco: Encounter Books (2005). ISBN 978-1893554962. Dick (1989), p. 94. O'Neill (1990), p. 239. Ceplair and Englund (2003), p. 388. "Beloved actor-comedian Orson Bean, 91, hit and killed by car on Venice Blvd". Santa Monica Daily Press. Associated Press. 2020-02-08. Archived from the original on 2020-02-10. Retrieved 2020-02-10. Cohen (2004), p. 176. Doherty (2003), p. 236. Charity (2005), p. 1266. Bosworth (1997), passim. Cohen (2004), pp. 187–188; Ceplair and Englund (2003), p. 345. Chapman (2003), p. 124. Andrew (2005), p. 981. Christensen and Haas (2005), pp. 116–117 ("screened in only eleven theaters"); Weigand (2002), p. 133 ("arranged showings of the film in only fourteen theaters"). Film Maker rues 10 years as a red, By C.P.Trussell, NY Times, 25.5.1951 Bosley Crowther, Hot Stuff, NY Times 10.6.1956 Faulk (1963), passim. Anderson (2007). Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 30. Burlingame (2000), p. 74. Smith (1999), p. 206. "... the anti-communist frenzy of the 1950s ... crippled artistic and intellectual life in the US for decades. The film industry still suffers from the purge of left-wing and critical spirits." wsws.org Archived 2012-09-30 at the Wayback Machine Fried (1997), p. 197. Belton (1994), p. 202. Navasky (1980), p. 280. Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 251. Weinraub (2000); "Corrected Blacklist Credits". Writers Guild of America, West. July 17, 2000. Archived from the original on January 2, 2008. Retrieved 2010-03-03. Verrier (2011); Devall, Cheryl & Osburn, Paige (December 19, 2011). "Blacklisted Writer Gets credit Restored after 60 years for Oscar-Winning Film". 89.3 KPCC. Archived from the original on 2012-01-12. Retrieved 2011-12-20. "Hollywood Ten". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 30 December 2012. Retrieved 9 December 2012. Ceplair, Larry (2011). Anti-Communism in Twentieth Century America: A Critical History. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. p. 77. Kahn, Gordon (1948). Hollywood on Trial: The Story of the 10 Who Were Indicted. New York: Boni & Gaer. pp. 69–71. Redish, Martin (2005). The Logic of Persecution: Free Expression and the McCarthy Era. Stanford: Stanford University Press. p. 132. Lawson, John Howard (1953). Film in the Battle of Ideas. New York: Masses & Mainstream. p. 12. Cole, Lester (1981). Hollywood Red: The Autobiography of Lester Cole. Palo Alto, CA: Ramparts Press. ISBN 978-0878670857. "Hollywood Still Loves Very Red Dalton Trumbo – Human Events". 31 July 2008. Archived from the original on 25 November 2020. Retrieved 9 July 2014. "Hollywood Ten – American history". Archived from the original on 2015-04-30. Retrieved 2022-06-23. Dmytryk, Edward (1953). Odd Man Out: A Memoir of the Hollywood Ten. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. pp. 19–21. Herman (1997), p. 356; Dick (1989), p. 7. Gordon (1999), p. 16. Ceplair and Englund (2003), p. 403; Goldstein (1999). Westphal, Kyle (March 25, 2013) "Irving Lerner: A Career in Context" Archived 2019-02-21 at the Wayback Machine Chicago Film Society Ceplair and Englund (2003), p. 401. Everitt (2007), p. 53. Navasky (1980), p. 88. Ward and Butler (2008), pp. 178–179. Newman (1989), p. 140. Horne (2006), pp. 204–205, 224; Goudsouzian (2004), p. 88. Gill (2000), pp. 50–52. Nelson and Hendricks (1990), p. 53. Cogley (1956), pp. 25–28. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 188. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 28. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 253. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 159. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 146. Faulk (1963), p. 7. McGill (2005), pp. 249–250; Ward (1998), p. 323; Cogley (1956), pp. 8–9. Katz (1994), p. 106. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 50. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 123. Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 42. Denning (1998), p. 374; Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 108. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 31. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 49. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 83. Schwartz, J. (1999); Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 50. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 2. Barzman (2004), p. 449. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 22. Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 128. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 6. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 17. Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 22. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 129. Katz (1994), p. 241. Navasky (1980), p. 283. Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 73. Faulk (1963), pp. 7–8. Denning (1998), p. 374; Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 20. Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 77. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 151. Sullivan (2010), p. 64. Times (2008). Cohen (2004), p. 178. Boyer (1996); Cogley (1956), p. 124. Buhle and Wagner (2003a), p. 105. "Honoring the Life and Accomplishments of the Late Ossie Davis | Capitol Words". Archived from the original on 2013-04-14. Retrieved 2013-02-15. "Extravagant Crowd – Ruby Dee". brbl-archive.library.yale.edu. Archived from the original on 2013-05-18. Retrieved 2013-02-15. Ramón (1997), p. 44. Buhle and Wagner (2003b), p. 5. Buhle and Wag

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ Joe Richard Feagin (born May 6, 1938) is an American sociologist and social theorist who has conducted extensive research on racial and gender issues in the United States. He is currently the Ella C. McFadden Distinguished Professor at Texas A&M University. History Feagin has previously taught at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, University of California, Riverside, University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Florida. He focused most of his research work on race and ethnic relations, and served as the scholar in residence at the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He has written over 60 books. He is the 2006 recipient of a Harvard Alumni Association achievement award and was the 1999–2000 president of the American Sociological Association. Early life Feagin was born in San Angelo, Texas, in May 1938. He spent most of his childhood and adolescence in Houston, in the area now known as West University Place. He attended Mirabeau B. Lamar High School. Education He completed his undergraduate education at Baylor University in 1960 and moved to Boston, where he earned a Ph.D. in sociology (social relations) from Harvard University in 1966. He was scholar-in-residence at the US Civil Rights Commission (1974–1975). He is the Ella C. McFadden and Distinguished Professor of Liberal Arts at Texas A&M University.[2] His research and teaching interests concern mainly the development and structure of racial and gender prejudice and discrimination, especially institutional and systemic discrimination and racism. Works Feagin has published books which have won national and professional association awards. Ghetto Revolts (Macmillan 1973)[3] was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. He is the 2006 recipient of a Harvard Alumni (HDS) Association lifetime achievement award and was the 1999–2000 president of the American Sociological Association[4] Research (books) He is author of over 200 research articles and 70 plus books on racial, gender, and urban issues. Amongst his books are: Asian American Women with S. Chang (in preparation) A Systemic Racism Critique of Racial Theories with S. Elias (Boulder: Paradigm Publishers, in preparation) Microaggressions and the Language of Racial Analysis with E. Chun (New York: Routledge, in preparation) Rethinking Diversity Issues in Higher Education with E. Chun (New York: Routledge, in press 2019) Latino Peoples in the New America: Racialization and Resistance with J. Cobas, D. Delgado, and M. Chávez (New York: Routledge-Paradigm, 2019) The Global Color Line: Racial and Ethnic Inequality and Struggle from a Global Perspective 2nd ed. edited with P. Batur-Vanderlippe (Greenwich, CN: JAI Press, 2019) Racist America 4th ed. with K. Ducey (New York: Routledge, 2018) Elite White Men Ruling: Who, What, Where, and How with K. Ducey (New York: Routledge, 2017) Systemic Racism: Making Liberty, Justice, and Democracy Real edited by R. Thompson-Miller and K. Ducey; contributors present research on systemic racism in honor of mentor and friend, Dr. Joe Feagin (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) How Blacks Built America (New York: Routledge, 2016) Racial Theories in Social Science with S. Elias (New York: Routledge, 2016) How Blacks Built America (New York: Routledge, 2015) Jim Crow’s Legacy: The Lasting Impact of Segregation with R. Thompson-Miller and L. H. Picca (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015)[5] "Pulling Back the ‘Post-Racial’ Curtain: Critical Pedagogical Lessons from Both Sides of the Desk," in K. Haltinner, ed., Teaching Race and Anti-Racism in Contemporary America: Adding Context to Colorblindness (New York: Springer, 2014). (with J. C. Mueller). "Systemic Racism Theory: Critically Examining College Sport Leadership," in L. L. Martin (Ed.), Out of Bounds: Racism and the Black Athlete (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2014). (with M. R. Regan and A. R. Carter-Francique). Liberation Sociology with Hernan Vera and K. Ducey (3rd ed., Paradigm Books, 2014)[6] Latinos Facing Racism: Discrimination, Resistance, and Endurance with José A. Cobas (Paradigm Publishers, 2014)[7] Racist America (3rd ed., Routledge, 2014)[8] The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Racial Framing and Counter-Framing (2nd ed., Routledge, 2013)[9] Yes We Can: White Racial Framing and the Obama Presidency with A. Harvey-Wingfield (2nd ed., Routledge, 2013)[10] White Party, White Government: Race, Class, and U.S. Politics (Routledge, 2012)[11] Racial and Ethnic Relations with Clairece Booher Feagin (9th ed.; Prentice-Hall, 2011)[12] How the United States Racializes Latinos: White Hegemony and its Consequences edited, with José A. Cobas and Jorge Duany (Paradigm Books, 2009) Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression (Routledge, 2006)[13] Social Problems: A Power-Conflict Perspective (6th ed., Prentice-Hall, 2005)[14] Black in Blue: African-American Police Officers and Racism Kenneth Bolton with Joe R. Feagin (Routledge, 2004)[15] White Men on Race with Eileen O'Brien (Beacon, 2003)[16] The Many Costs of Racism with Karyn McKinney (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003)[17] The First R: How Children Learn Race and Racism with Debra Van Ausdale (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001)[18] White Racism: The Basics with Hernan Vera and Pinar Batur (2nd ed., Routledge, 2001)[19] Other notable books: In 2014 he published a book about Asian Americans with Rosalind S. Chou titled Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism (2nd ed., Paradigm Publishers, 2014). The second edition added new research on how racial stereotyping is gendered and sexualized. New interviews showed that Asian American men felt emasculated in America’s male hierarchy. Women recounted their experiences of being treated as sexual objects. The new data reveal how race, gender, and sexuality intersected in the lives of Asian Americans. The text offered the first in-depth exploration of how Asian Americans experiencedand coped with everyday racism. The book depicted the “double consciousness” of many Asian Americans, who experienced racism but felt pressure to conform to images of their group as America’s highly achieving “model minority.” [20] In 2007, Feagin published Two-Faced Racism: Whites in the Backstage and Frontstage, written with Leslie Houts Picca (Routledge, 2007). Two-Faced Racism examines and explains racial attitudes and behaviours exhibited by whites in private settings. The core of the book drew upon journals of racial events kept by white college students at twenty-eight colleges in the United States. The book tried to understand how whites thought in racial terms.[21] In 1996, Feagin published The Agony of Education: Black Students at a White University with Hernan Vera and Nikitah Imani (Routledge, 1996). The Agony of Education is about the life experience of African American students attending a historically white university, based on interviews conducted with black students and parents concerning their experiences with one state university, and studies of the black experience at state universities.[22] Research (peer-reviewed articles) He is author of over 200 research articles on racial, gender, and urban issues. Amongst his articles are: "#BlackLivesMatter: Innovative Black Resistance," Sociological Forum forthcoming 2019 (with J. Nummi and C. Jennings) "Free Space is Valuable Space: Lessons from Chocolate Cities," Ethnic and Racial Studies 42 (2019): 431–438. (with C. Jennings) "Systemic Racism and 'Race' Categorization in U.S. Medical Research and Practice," American Journal of Bioethics 17 (2017):54–56. "The Persistence of White Nationalism in America," Contexts (2017) online journal pages "The Costs of Policing Violence: Foregrounding Cognitive and Emotional Labor," Critical Sociology 41 (2015):887–895. (with L. Evans) "Systemic Racism and U.S. Health Care," Social Science & Medicine 103 (2014):7–14. (with Z. Bennefield). "Rethinking Racial Formation Theory: A Systemic Racism Critique," Ethnic and Racial Studies 36 (2012):1–30. (with S. Elias). "The Racial Dialectic: President Barack Obama and the White Racial Frame," Qualitative Sociology 31 (2012) (with A.H. Wingfield) "Language Oppression and Resistance: Latinos in the United States," Ethnic and Racial Studies 31 (2008): 390–410 (with J. Cobas) "Latinos/as and the White Racial Frame," Sociological Inquiry 78 (2008): 39–53 (with J. Cobas) "Continuing Injuries of Racism: Counseling in a Racist Context," The Counseling Psychologist 35 (2007): 106–115 (with R. Thompson-Miller) "Success and Failure: How Systemic Racism Trumped the Brown v. Board of Education Decision," University of Illinois Law Review (2004): 1099–1130 (with B.M. Barnett) "Heeding Black Voices: The Court, Brown, and Challenges in Building a Multiracial Democracy," University of Pittsburgh Law Review 66 (2004): 57–81 "Documenting The Costs of Slavery, Segregation, and Contemporary Discrimination: Are Reparations in Order for African Americans?" Harvard Black Letter Law Journal 20 (2004): 49–80 "White Supremacy and Mexican Americans: Rethinking the Black-White Paradigm", Rutgers Law Review 54 (2002): 959–987. "The Continuing Significance of Racism: U.S. Colleges and Universities", American Council on Education, Occasional Papers 1 (2002): 1–54. "The Many Costs of Discrimination: The Case of Middle-Class African Americans," Indiana Law Review 34 (2001): 1313–1360 (with K. Early and k.D. McKinney) "Social Justice and Sociology: Agendas for the Twenty-First Century," American Sociological Review 66 (February 2001):1–20. "Doing Antiracism and Making a Nonracist Society," Contemporary Sociology, 29 (2000): 95–110 (with J. Johnson and S. Rush) "Excluding Blacks and Others from Housing: The Foundation of White Racism," Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research 4 (1999): 79–91 "The Family Costs of White Racism: The Case of African American Families," Journal of Comparative Family Studies 29 (1998) (with Y. St. Jean) "Using Racial and Ethnic Concepts: The Critical Case of Very Young Children," American Sociological Review 61 (October 1996):779–793. (with D. Van Ausdale). "Violent Police-Citizen Encounters: An Analysis of Major Newspaper Accounts," Critical Sociology 22 (1996): 29–49 (with K. Lersch) "Racism in the Post-Colonial World," International Policy Review 6 (1996): 30–40 (with P. Batur) "White Racism: Bibliographic Essay," Choice 33 (1996): 903–914 (with A. Porter) "Affirmative Action and African Americans: Rhetoric and Practice," Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 21 (1995): 81–104 (with A. Porter) "Superior Intellect?: Sincere Fictions of the White Self," Journal of Negro Education 64 (1995): 296–306 (with H. Vera and A. Gordon) "Rethinking White-Black Relations in the United States: Toward a Theory of Racism as Sacrificial Waste," Journal of Contemporary Sociology 31 (1994): 162–182 (with H. Vera) "Reparations for Catastrophic Waste," Poverty and Race 3 (1994): 4 (with H. Vera) "The Continuing Significance of Race: Antiblack Discrimination in Public Places," American Sociological Review 56 (February 1991):101–116. Recent public contributions In 2007, Feagin along with Jessie Daniels at Hunter College in NYC [23] launched Racism Review[23] a website designed to provide a credible and reliable source of information for journalists, students and members of the general public who are seeking solid evidence-based research and analysis of “race,” racism, ethnicity, and immigration issues, especially as they undergird and shape U.S. society within a global setting. Professional experience This section contains content that is written like an advertisement. Please help improve it by removing promotional content and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic content written from a neutral point of view. (May 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) Previous positions Graduate research professor, University of Florida, 1990–2004 Professor of sociology, University of Texas (Austin), 1975–1990 Scholar-in-residence, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1974–1975 Associate professor of sociology, University of Texas (Austin), 1970–1974 Assistant professor, University of California (Riverside), 1966–1970 Affiliations American Sociological Association Sociologists for Women in Society Association of Black Sociologists Sociologists without Borders Awards and honors Nomination for Pulitzer Prize (Ghetto Revolts) Scholar-in-Residence, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1974–1975. Sociological Research Association, 1986–present. Phi Beta Kappa Alumni Scholar (Baylor University) Gustavus Myers Center Outstanding Human Rights Book Award, 1995 (Living with Racism) Gustavus Myers Center Outstanding Human Rights Book Award, 1996 (White Racism: The Basics) American Sociological Association, Oliver C. Cox Book Award, 1996 (White Racism: The Basics) University of Florida Research Foundation Professor, 1997–1999 Honorary Life Member, Phi Kappa Phi honor society, 1999 Robert and Helen Lynd Award for Lifetime Contribution to Community and Urban Sociology, 2000 Special Award, Section on Racial and Ethnic Minorities, for Racist America and lifetime of work in racial and ethnic relations, 2002 Choice award for Liberation Sociology as one of the best books of 2002 ASA Section’s Distinguished Undergraduate Student Paper Award named for Joe Feagin (2003) University of Illinois Center on Democracy in a Multiracial Society, Symposium on the Research and Contributions of Joe Feagin (April 2004). Choice award for White Men on Race as one of the best books of 2003. Sociologists without Borders (SSF) Distinguished Professor (2005) Harvard Alumni Association (HDS) Rabbi Martin Katzenstein Award (2006) Sociologists without Borders (SSF), the Richard Wright Award (2006) Center for Healing of Racism Ally Award (2006) Fellow, Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality, Stanford University, 2006- Butler A. Jones lecture, Cleveland State University (2007) Soka Gakkai International-USA Social Justice Award (2012) Arthur Fletcher Lifetime Achievement Award, American Association for Affirmative Action (2013) ASA Section on Racial & Ethnic Minorities' Founder's Award for Scholarship & Service (2013) “Top Professor” (Lifetime Achievement) Award, Affordable-Colleges-Online.Org (2013) W.E.B. Du Bois Career of Distinguished Scholarship Award, American Sociological Association (2013) Distinguished professor, Texas A&M University (Spring 2014) Texas NAACP Civil Rights Hero Award 16th Charles R. Lawrence II Lecturer, Brooklyn College, CUNY (New York), September 2016 Festchrift in my honor: Ruth Thompson-Miller and Kimberley Ducey, eds., Systemic Racism: Making Liberty, Justice, and Democracy Real. (London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) Cox-Johnson-Frazier Scholarship Award (American Sociological Association 2018) Excellence in Research Award for Elite White Men Ruling (University of Winnipeg 2018) Public Understanding of Sociology Award (American Sociological Association 2019) Texas A&M University College of Education Legacy of Excellence and Equity Research Award (2019) Administrative and editorial positions Vice-President, Society for Study of Social Problems, 1986–87 Chair, ASA Section on Racial and Ethnic Minorities, 1994–1995 Member of Council, American Sociological Association, 1995–2000 Editorial Board, Comparative Urban and Community Research Editorial Board, Sage Racial and Ethnic Relations Series Editorial Board, Race and Society Governing Board, Southern Regional Council, 1997–1998 President, American Sociological Association, 1999–2000 Editor, Perspectives on a Multiracial America, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003–present Editor, New Critical Viewpoints Series, Paradigm Books, 2010–Present References Peacock, Scot (2002-04-01). Contemporary Authors. Gale / Cengage Learning. pp. 187. ISBN 978-0-7876-4614-1. "Joe Feagin - Sociology". Archived from the original on 2014-03-17. Retrieved 2014-03-15. Feagin, Joe R.; Hahn, Harlan (1973). Ghetto Revolts: Politics of Violence in American Cities: Joe R. Feagin, Harlan Hahn: 9780023365607: Amazon.com: Books. Macmillan. ISBN 0023365609. "Joe R. Feagin | American Sociological Association". Asanet.org. Retrieved 2016-09-11. Sociology (2015). Jim Crow's Legacy: The Lasting Impact of Segregation (Perspectives on a Multiracial America): Ruth Thompson-Miller, Joe R. Feagin Texas A&M University, Leslie H. Picca: 9781442241633: Amazon.com: Books. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1442241633. Feagin, Joe R.; Vera, Hernan; Ducey, Kimberley (2014). Liberation Sociology: Joe R. Feagin, Hernan Vera, Kimberly Ducey: 9781612057248: Amazon.com: Books. Paradigm Publishers. ISBN 978-1612057248. Feagin, Joe R.; Cobas, José A. (2014). Latinos Facing Racism: Discrimination, Resistance, and Endurance (New Critical Viewpoints on Society): Joe R. Feagin, Jose A. Cobas: 9781612055541: Amazon.com: Books. Paradigm Publishers. ISBN 978-1612055541. Feagin, Joe R. (2014). Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations: Joe R. Feagin: 9780415704014: Amazon.com: Books. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415704014. Feagin, Joe R. (2013). The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Racial Framing and Counter-Framing: Joe R. Feagin: 9780415635226: Amazon.com: Books. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415635226. Wingfield, Adia Harvey; Feagin, Joe R. (2013). Yes We Can?: White Racial Framing and the Obama Presidency: Adia Harvey-Wingfield, Joe Feagin: 9780415645386: Amazon.com: Books. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415645386. Government Social Policy (2012). White Party, White Government: Race, Class, and U.S. Politics: Joe R. Feagin: 9780415889834: Amazon.com: Books. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415889834. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help) Feagin, Joe R.; Feagin, Clairece Booher (2012). Racial and Ethnic Relations, Census Update (9th Edition): Joe R. Feagin, Clairece Booher R Feagin: 9780205024995: Amazon.com: Books. Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0205024995. Feagin, Joe R. (2006). Systemic Racism: A Theory of Oppression: Joe R. Feagin: 9780415952781: Amazon.com: Books. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0415952786. Feagin, Joe R.; Feagin, Clairece Booher; Baker, David V. (2006). Social Problems: A Critical Power-Conflict Perspective (6th Edition): Joe R. Feagin, David V. Baker, Clairece Booher R Feagin: 9780130999276: Amazon.com: Books. ISBN 013099927X. Bolton, Kenneth; Kenneth Bolton, Jr; Feagin, Joe R. (2004). Black in Blue: African-American Police Officers and Racism: Kenneth Bolton, Joe Feagin: 9780415945189: Amazon.com: Books. Routledge. ISBN 0415945186. Feagin, Joe R.; O'Brien, Eileen (15 July 2004). White Men on Race: Power, Privilege, and the Shaping of Cultural Consciousness: Joe R. Feagin, Eileen O'Brien: 9780807009833: Amazon.com: Books. Beacon Press. ISBN 0807009830. Feagin, Joe R.; McKinney, Karyn D. (2005). The Many Costs of Racism: Joe R. Feagin, Karyn D. McKinney: 9780742511187: Amazon.com: Books. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742511189. Ausdale, Debra Van; Feagin, Joe R. (2001). The First R: How Children Learn Race and Racism: Debra Van Ausdale, Joe R. Feagin Texas A&M University: 9780847688623: Amazon.com: Books. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0847688623. Feagin, Joe R.; Vera, Hernan; Batur, Pinar (2001). White Racism: The Basics: Joe R. Feagin, Hernán Vera, Pinar Batur: 9780415924610: Amazon.com: Books. Psychology Press. ISBN 0415924618. Civil Rights (2015). Myth of the Model Minority: Asian Americans Facing Racism, Second Edition: Rosalind S. Chou, Joe R. Feagin: 9781612054780: Amazon.com: Books. Paradigm Publishers. ISBN 978-1612054780. Picca, Leslie Houts; Feagin, Joe R. (2007). Two-Faced Racism: Whites in the Backstage and Frontstage: Leslie Picca, Joe Feagin: 9780415954761: Amazon.com: Books. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415954761. Feagin, Joe R.; Vera, Hernan; Imani, Nikitah (1996). The Agony of Education: Black Students at a White University: Joe R. Feagin, Hernan Vera, Nikitah Imani: 9780415915120: Amazon.com: Books. Psychology Press. ISBN 0415915120. "About Us". Racismreview.com. 2014-08-18. Retrieved 2016-09-11. vte Presidents of the American Sociological Association 1906–1925 Lester Frank Ward (1906–1907) William Graham Sumner (1908–1909) Franklin Henry Giddings (1910–1911) Albion Woodbury Small (1912–1913) Edward Alsworth Ross (1914–1915) George Edgar Vincent (1916) George Elliott Howard (1917) Charles Cooley (1918) Frank W. Blackmar (1919) James Q. Dealey (1920) Edward C. Hayes (1921) James P. Lichtenberger (1922) Ulysses G. Weatherly (1923) Charles A. Ellwood (1924) Robert E. Park (1925) 1926–1950 John Lewis Gillin (1926) W. I. Thomas (1927) John M. Gillette (1928) William Fielding Ogburn (1929) Howard W. Odum (1930) Emory S. Bogardus (1931) Luther L. Bernard (1932) Edward B. Reuter (1933) Ernest Burgess (1934) F. Stuart Chapin (1935) Henry Pratt Fairchild (1936) Ellsworth Faris (1937) Frank H. Hankins (1938) Edwin Sutherland (1939) Robert Morrison MacIver (1940) Stuart A. Queen (1941) Dwight Sanderson (1942) George A. Lundberg (1943) Rupert B. Vance [de] (1944) Kimball Young (1945) Carl Cleveland Taylor [de] (1946) Louis Wirth (1947) E. Franklin Frazier (1948) Talcott Parsons (1949) Leonard S. Cottrell Jr. [de] (1950) 1951–1975 Robert C. Angell (1951) Dorothy Swaine Thomas (1952) Samuel A. Stouffer (1953) Florian Znaniecki (1954) Donald Young (1955) Herbert Blumer (1956) Robert K. Merton (1957) Robin M. Williams Jr. (1958) Kingsley Davis (1959) Howard P. Becker (1960) Robert E. L. Faris (1961) Paul Lazarsfeld (1962) Everett Hughes (1963) George C. Homans (1964) Pitirim Sorokin (1965) Wilbert E. Moore (1966) Charles P. Loomis (1967) Philip Hauser (1968) Arnold Marshall Rose (1969) Ralph H. Turner (1969) Reinhard Bendix (1970) William H. Sewell (1971) William J. Goode (1972) Mirra Komarovsky (1973) Peter Blau (1974) Lewis A. Coser (1975) 1976–2000 Alfred McClung Lee (1976) John Milton Yinger (1977) Amos Hawley (1978) Hubert M. Blalock Jr. (1979) Peter H. Rossi (1980) William Foote Whyte (1981) Erving Goffman (1982) Alice S. Rossi (1983) James F. Short Jr. (1984) Kai T. Erikson (1985) Matilda White Riley (1986) Melvin L. Kohn (1987) Herbert J. Gans (1988) Joan Huber (1989) William Julius Wilson (1990) Stanley Lieberson (1991) James Samuel Coleman (1992) Seymour Martin Lipset (1993) William A. Gamson (1994) Amitai Etzioni (1995) Maureen T. Hallinan (1996) Neil Smelser (1997) Jill Quadagno (1998) Alejandro Portes (1999) Joe Feagin (2000) 2001–present Douglas Massey (2001) Barbara Reskin (2002) William T. Bielby (2003) Michael Burawoy (2004) Troy Duster (2005) Cynthia Fuchs Epstein (2006) Frances Fox Piven (2007) Arne L. Kalleberg (2008) Patricia Hill Collins (2009) Evelyn Nakano Glenn (2010) Randall Collins (2011) Erik Olin Wright (2012) Cecilia L. Ridgeway (2013) Annette Lareau (2014) Paula England (2015) Ruth Milkman (2016) Michèle Lamont (2017) Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (2018) Mary Romero (2019) Christine Williams (2020) Aldon Morris (2021) Cecilia Menjívar (2022) Prudence Carter (2023) Authority control databases Edit this at Wikidata International ISNI VIAF National Norway France BnF data Catalonia Germany Israel Belgium United States Czech Republic Netherlands Other IdRef Categories: Texas A&M University facultyLiving peoplePeople from HoustonBaylor University alumniHarvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences alumniUniversity of Florida facultyAmerican sociologistsPresidents of the American Sociological AssociationPeople from San Angelo, Texas1938 births

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ The Watergate scandal was a major political scandal in the United States involving the administration of President Richard Nixon from 1972 to 1974 that led to Nixon's resignation. The scandal stemmed from the Nixon administration's attempts to cover up its involvement in the June 17, 1972, break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, D.C., at the Watergate Office Building. After the five perpetrators were arrested, the press and the Department of Justice connected the cash found on them at the time to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President.[1][2] Further investigations, along with revelations during subsequent trials of the burglars, led the House of Representatives to grant the U.S. House Judiciary Committee additional investigative authority—to probe into "certain matters within its jurisdiction",[3][4] and led the Senate to create the U.S. Senate Watergate Committee, which held hearings. Witnesses testified that Nixon had approved plans to cover up his administration's involvement in the burglary, and that there was a voice-activated taping system in the Oval Office.[5][6] Throughout the investigation, Nixon's administration resisted its probes, and this led to a constitutional crisis.[7] The Senate Watergate hearings were broadcast "gavel-to-gavel" nationwide by PBS and aroused public interest.[8] Several major revelations and egregious presidential actions obstructing the investigation later in 1973 prompted the House to commence an impeachment process against Nixon.[9] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon that Nixon had to turn over the Oval Office tapes to government investigators. The Nixon White House tapes revealed that he had conspired to cover up activities that took place after the burglary and had later tried to use federal officials to deflect attention from the investigation.[10][11] The House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon for obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. With his complicity in the cover-up made public upon release of the tapes, Nixon's political support completely eroded. With that, his impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate became a certainty,[a] and so he resigned from office under Section 1 of the 25th Amendment on August 9, 1974.[12][13] He is the only U.S. president to have resigned from office. On September 8, 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him. There were 69 people indicted and 48 people—many of them top Nixon administration officials—convicted.[14] The metonym Watergate came to encompass an array of clandestine and often illegal activities undertaken by members of the Nixon administration, including bugging the offices of political opponents and people of whom Nixon or his officials were suspicious; ordering investigations of activist groups and political figures; and using the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Internal Revenue Service as political weapons.[15] The use of the suffix -gate after an identifying term has since become synonymous with public scandal,[16][17][18] especially in politics.[19][20] Wiretapping of the Democratic Party's headquarters 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 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) During the break-in, E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy remained in contact with each other and with the burglars by radio. These Chapstick tubes outfitted with tiny microphones were later discovered in Hunt's White House office safe. Transistor radio used in the Watergate break-in Walkie-talkie used in Watergate break-in DNC filing cabinet from the Watergate office building, damaged by the burglars On January 27, 1972, G. Gordon Liddy, Finance Counsel for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP) and former aide to John Ehrlichman, presented a campaign intelligence plan to CRP's acting chairman Jeb Stuart Magruder, Attorney General John Mitchell, and Presidential Counsel John Dean that involved extensive illegal activities against the Democratic Party. According to Dean, this marked "the opening scene of the worst political scandal of the twentieth century and the beginning of the end of the Nixon presidency".[21]: p. xvii  Mitchell viewed the plan as unrealistic. Two months later, Mitchell approved a reduced version of the plan, including burglarizing the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate Complex in Washington, D.C. to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices in telephones. Liddy was nominally in charge of the operation,[citation needed] but has since insisted that he was duped by both Dean and at least two of his subordinates, which included former CIA officers E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, the latter of whom was serving as then-CRP Security Coordinator after John Mitchell had by then resigned as attorney general to become the CRP chairman.[22][23] In May, McCord assigned former FBI agent Alfred C. Baldwin III to carry out the wiretapping and monitor the telephone conversations afterward.[24] McCord testified that he selected Baldwin's name from a registry published by the FBI's Society of Former Special Agents to work for the Committee to Re-elect President Nixon. Baldwin first served as bodyguard to Martha Mitchell—John Mitchell's wife, who was living in Washington. Baldwin accompanied Martha Mitchell to Chicago. Eventually the committee replaced Baldwin with another security man.[citation needed] On May 11, McCord arranged for Baldwin, whom investigative reporter Jim Hougan described as "somehow special and perhaps well known to McCord", to stay at the Howard Johnson's motel across the street from the Watergate complex.[25] Room 419 was booked in the name of McCord's company.[25] At the behest of Liddy and Hunt, McCord and his team of burglars prepared for their first Watergate break-in, which began on May 28.[26] Two phones inside the DNC headquarters' offices were said to have been wiretapped.[27] One was Robert Spencer Oliver's phone. At the time, Oliver was working as the executive director of the Association of State Democratic Chairmen. The other phone belonged to DNC chairman Larry O'Brien. The FBI found no evidence that O'Brien's phone was bugged;[28] however, it was determined that an effective listening device was installed in Oliver's phone. While successful with installing the listening devices, the committee agents soon determined that they needed repairs. They plotted a second "burglary" in order to take care of the situation.[27] Sometime after midnight on Saturday, June 17, 1972, Watergate Complex security guard Frank Wills noticed tape covering the latches on some of the complex's doors leading from the underground parking garage to several offices, which allowed the doors to close but stay unlocked. He removed the tape, believing it was nothing.[29] When he returned a short time later and discovered that someone had retaped the locks, he called the police.[29] Responding to the call was an unmarked police car with three plainclothes officers (Sgt. Paul W. Leeper, Officer John B. Barrett, and Officer Carl M. Shoffler) working the overnight "bum squad"—dressed as hippies and on the lookout for drug deals and other street crimes.[30] Alfred Baldwin, on "spotter" duty at the Howard Johnson's hotel across the street, was distracted watching the film Attack of the Puppet People on TV and did not observe the arrival of the police car in front of the Watergate building,[30] nor did he see the plainclothes officers investigating the DNC's sixth floor suite of 29 offices. By the time Baldwin finally noticed unusual activity on the sixth floor and radioed the burglars, it was already too late.[30] The police apprehended five men, later identified as Virgilio Gonzalez, Bernard Barker, James McCord, Eugenio Martínez, and Frank Sturgis.[22] They were charged with attempted burglary and attempted interception of telephone and other communications. The Washington Post reported the day after that "police found lock-picks and door jimmies, almost $2,300 in cash, most of it in $100 bills with the serial numbers in sequence ... a shortwave receiver that could pick up police calls, 40 rolls of unexposed film, two 35 millimeter cameras and three pen-sized tear gas guns".[31] The Post would later report that the actual amount of cash was $5,300.[32] The following morning, Sunday, June 18, G. Gordon Liddy called Jeb Magruder in Los Angeles and informed him that "the four men arrested with McCord were Cuban freedom fighters, whom Howard Hunt recruited". Initially, Nixon's organization and the White House quickly went to work to cover up the crime and any evidence that might have damaged the president and his reelection.[33] On September 15, 1972, a grand jury indicted the five office burglars, as well as Hunt and Liddy,[34] for conspiracy, burglary, and violation of federal wiretapping laws. The burglars were tried by a jury, with Judge John Sirica officiating, and pled guilty or were convicted on January 30, 1973.[35] Cover-up and its unraveling Initial cover-up Address book of Watergate burglar Bernard Barker, discovered in a room at the Watergate Hotel, June 18, 1972 Within hours of the burglars' arrests, the FBI discovered E. Howard Hunt's name in Barker and Martínez's address books. Nixon administration officials were concerned because Hunt and Liddy were also involved in a separate secret activity known as the "White House Plumbers", which was established to stop security "leaks" and investigate other sensitive security matters. Dean later testified that top Nixon aide John Ehrlichman ordered him to "deep six" the contents of Howard Hunt's White House safe. Ehrlichman subsequently denied this. In the end, Dean and L. Patrick Gray, the FBI's acting director, (in separate operations) destroyed the evidence from Hunt's safe. Nixon's own reaction to the break-in, at least initially, was one of skepticism. Watergate prosecutor James Neal was sure that Nixon had not known in advance of the break-in. As evidence, he cited a conversation taped on June 23 between the President and his chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, in which Nixon asked, "Who was the asshole that did that?"[36] However, Nixon subsequently ordered Haldeman to have the CIA block the FBI's investigation into the source of the funding for the burglary.[37] A few days later, Nixon's press secretary, Ron Ziegler, described the event as "a third-rate burglary attempt". On August 29, at a news conference, Nixon stated that Dean had conducted a thorough investigation of the incident, when Dean had actually not conducted any investigations at all. Nixon furthermore said, "I can say categorically that ... no one in the White House staff, no one in this Administration, presently employed, was involved in this very bizarre incident." On September 15, Nixon congratulated Dean, saying, "The way you've handled it, it seems to me, has been very skillful, because you—putting your fingers in the dikes every time that leaks have sprung here and sprung there."[22] Kidnapping of Martha Mitchell Main article: Martha Mitchell § June 1972 kidnapping, aftermath and vindication Martha Mitchell was the wife of Nixon's Attorney General, John N. Mitchell, who had recently resigned his role so that he could become campaign manager for Nixon's Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP). John Mitchell was aware that Martha knew McCord, one of the Watergate burglars who had been arrested, and that upon finding out, she was likely to speak to the media. In his opinion, her knowing McCord was likely to link the Watergate burglary to Nixon. John Mitchell instructed guards in her security detail not to let her contact the media.[38] In June 1972, during a phone call with United Press International reporter Helen Thomas, Martha Mitchell informed Thomas that she was leaving her husband until he resigned from the CRP.[39] The phone call ended abruptly. A few days later, Marcia Kramer, a veteran crime reporter of the New York Daily News, tracked Mitchell to the Westchester Country Club in Rye, New York, and described Mitchell as "a beaten woman" with visible bruises.[40] Mitchell reported that, during the week following the Watergate burglary, she had been held captive in a hotel in California, and that security guard Steve King ended her call to Thomas by pulling the phone cord from the wall.[40][39] Mitchell made several attempts to escape via the balcony, but was physically accosted, injured, and forcefully sedated by a psychiatrist.[41][42] Following conviction for his role in the Watergate burglary, in February 1975, McCord admitted that Mitchell had been "basically kidnapped", and corroborated her reports of the event.[43] Money trail 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 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) On June 19, 1972, the press reported that one of the Watergate burglars was a Republican Party security aide.[44] Former attorney general John Mitchell, who was then the head of the CRP, denied any involvement with the Watergate break-in. He also disavowed any knowledge whatsoever of the five burglars.[45][46] On August 1, a $25,000 (approximately $175,000 in 2022 dollars) cashier's check was found to have been deposited in the US and Mexican bank accounts of one of the Watergate burglars, Bernard Barker. Made out to the finance committee of the Committee to Reelect the President, the check was a 1972 campaign donation by Kenneth H. Dahlberg. This money (and several other checks which had been lawfully donated to the CRP) had been directly used to finance the burglary and wiretapping expenses, including hardware and supplies. Barker's multiple national and international businesses all had separate bank accounts, which he was found to have attempted to use to disguise the true origin of the money being paid to the burglars. The donor's checks demonstrated the burglars' direct link to the finance committee of the CRP. Donations totaling $86,000 ($602,000 today) were made by individuals who believed they were making private donations by certified and cashier's checks for the president's re-election. Investigators' examination of the bank records of a Miami company run by Watergate burglar Barker revealed an account controlled by him personally had deposited a check and then transferred it through the Federal Reserve Check Clearing System. The banks that had originated the checks were keen to ensure the depository institution used by Barker had acted properly in ensuring the checks had been received and endorsed by the check's payee, before its acceptance for deposit in Bernard Barker's account. Only in this way would the issuing banks not be held liable for the unauthorized and improper release of funds from their customers' accounts. The investigation by the FBI, which cleared Barker's bank of fiduciary malfeasance, led to the direct implication of members of the CRP, to whom the checks had been delivered. Those individuals were the committee bookkeeper and its treasurer, Hugh Sloan. As a private organization, the committee followed the normal business practice in allowing only duly authorized individuals to accept and endorse checks on behalf of the committee. No financial institution could accept or process a check on behalf of the committee unless a duly authorized individual endorsed it. The checks deposited into Barker's bank account were endorsed by Committee treasurer Hugh Sloan, who was authorized by the finance committee. However, once Sloan had endorsed a check made payable to the committee, he had a legal and fiduciary responsibility to see that the check was deposited only into the accounts named on the check. Sloan failed to do that. When confronted with the potential charge of federal bank fraud, he revealed that committee deputy director Jeb Magruder and finance director Maurice Stans had directed him to give the money to G. Gordon Liddy. Liddy, in turn, gave the money to Barker and attempted to hide its origin. Barker tried to disguise the funds by depositing them into accounts in banks outside of the United States. Unbeknownst to Barker, Liddy, and Sloan, the complete record of all such transactions was held for roughly six months. Barker's use of foreign banks in April and May 1972 to deposit checks and withdraw the funds via cashier's checks and money orders, resulted in the banks keeping the entire transaction records until October and November 1972. All five Watergate burglars were directly or indirectly tied to the 1972 CRP, thus causing Judge Sirica to suspect a conspiracy involving higher-echelon government officials.[47] On September 29, 1972, the press reported that John Mitchell, while serving as attorney general, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance intelligence-gathering against the Democrats. On October 10, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post reported that the FBI had determined that the Watergate break-in was part of a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage on behalf of the Nixon re-election committee. Despite these revelations, Nixon's campaign was never seriously jeopardized; on November 7, the President was re-elected in one of the biggest landslides in American political history. Role of the media The connection between the break-in and the re-election committee was highlighted by media coverage—in particular, investigative coverage by The Washington Post, Time, and The New York Times. The coverage dramatically increased publicity and consequent political and legal repercussions. Relying heavily upon anonymous sources, Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein uncovered information suggesting that knowledge of the break-in, and attempts to cover it up, led deeply into the upper reaches of the Justice Department, FBI, CIA, and the White House. Woodward and Bernstein interviewed Judy Hoback Miller, the bookkeeper for Nixon's re-election campaign, who revealed to them information about the mishandling of funds and records being destroyed.[48][1] Garage in Rosslyn where Woodward and Felt met. Also visible is the historical marker erected by the county to note its significance. Chief among the Post's anonymous sources was an individual whom Woodward and Bernstein had nicknamed Deep Throat; 33 years later, in 2005, the informant was identified as Mark Felt, deputy director of the FBI during that period of the 1970s, something Woodward later confirmed. Felt met secretly with Woodward several times, telling him of Howard Hunt's involvement with the Watergate break-in, and that the White House staff regarded the stakes in Watergate as extremely high. Felt warned Woodward that the FBI wanted to know where he and other reporters were getting their information, as they were uncovering a wider web of crimes than the FBI first disclosed. All the secret meetings between Woodward and Felt took place at an underground parking garage in Rosslyn over a period from June 1972 to January 1973. Prior to resigning from the FBI on June 22, 1973, Felt also anonymously planted leaks about Watergate with Time magazine, The Washington Daily News and other publications.[1][49] During this early period, most of the media failed to understand the full implications of the scandal, and concentrated reporting on other topics related to the 1972 presidential election.[50] Most outlets ignored or downplayed Woodward and Bernstein's scoops; the crosstown Washington Star-News and the Los Angeles Times even ran stories incorrectly discrediting the Post's articles. After the Post revealed that H.R. Haldeman had made payments from the secret fund, newspapers like the Chicago Tribune and The Philadelphia Inquirer failed to publish the information, but did publish the White House's denial of the story the following day.[51] The White House also sought to isolate the Post's coverage by tirelessly attacking that newspaper while declining to criticize other damaging stories about the scandal from the New York Times and Time magazine.[51][1] After it was learned that one of the convicted burglars had written to Judge Sirica alleging a high-level cover-up, the media shifted its focus. Time magazine described Nixon as undergoing "daily hell and very little trust". The distrust between the press and the Nixon administration was mutual and greater than usual due to lingering dissatisfaction with events from the Vietnam War. At the same time, public distrust of the media was polled at more than 40%.[50] Nixon and top administration officials discussed using government agencies to "get" (or retaliate against) those they perceived as hostile media organizations.[50] Such actions had been taken before. At the request of Nixon's White House in 1969, the FBI tapped the phones of five reporters. In 1971, the White House requested an audit of the tax return of the editor of Newsday, after he wrote a series of articles about the financial dealings of Charles "Bebe" Rebozo, a friend of Nixon.[52] The administration and its supporters accused the media of making "wild accusations", putting too much emphasis on the story and of having a liberal bias against the administration.[1][50] Nixon said in a May 1974 interview with supporter Baruch Korff that if he had followed the liberal policies that he thought the media preferred, "Watergate would have been a blip."[53] The media noted that most of the reporting turned out to be accurate; the competitive nature of the media guaranteed widespread coverage of the far-reaching political scandal.[50] Scandal escalates Rather than ending with the conviction and sentencing to prison of the five Watergate burglars on January 30, 1973, the investigation into the break-in and the Nixon Administration's involvement grew broader. "Nixon's conversations in late March and all of April 1973 revealed that not only did he know he needed to remove Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Dean to gain distance from them, but he had to do so in a way that was least likely to incriminate him and his presidency. Nixon created a new conspiracy—to effect a cover-up of the cover-up—which began in late March 1973 and became fully formed in May and June 1973, operating until his presidency ended on August 9, 1974."[21]: p. 344  On March 23, 1973, Judge Sirica read the court a letter from Watergate burglar James McCord, who alleged that perjury had been committed in the Watergate trial, and defendants had been pressured to remain silent. In an attempt to make them talk, Sirica gave Hunt and two burglars provisional sentences of up to 40 years. Urged by Nixon, on March 28, aide John Ehrlichman told Attorney General Richard Kleindienst that nobody in the White House had had prior knowledge of the burglary. On April 13, Magruder told U.S. attorneys that he had perjured himself during the burglars' trial, and implicated John Dean and John Mitchell.[22] John Dean believed that he, Mitchell, Ehrlichman, and Haldeman could go to the prosecutors, tell the truth, and save the presidency. Dean wanted to protect the president and have his four closest men take the fall for telling the truth. During the critical meeting between Dean and Nixon on April 15, 1973, Dean was totally unaware of the president's depth of knowledge and involvement in the Watergate cover-up. It was during this meeting that Dean felt that he was being recorded. He wondered if this was due to the way Nixon was speaking, as if he were trying to prod attendees' recollections of earlier conversations about fundraising. Dean mentioned this observation while testifying to the Senate Committee on Watergate, exposing the thread of what were taped conversations that would unravel the fabric of the conspiracy.[21]: pp. 415–416  Two days later, Dean told Nixon that he had been cooperating with the U.S. attorneys. On that same day, U.S. attorneys told Nixon that Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, and other White House officials were implicated in the cover-up.[22][54][55] On April 30, Nixon asked for the resignation of Haldeman and Ehrlichman, two of his most influential aides. They were both later indicted, convicted, and ultimately sentenced to prison. He asked for the resignation of Attorney General Kleindienst, to ensure no one could claim that his innocent friendship with Haldeman and Ehrlichman could be construed as a conflict. He fired White House Counsel John Dean, who went on to testify before the Senate Watergate Committee and said that he believed and suspected the conversations in the Oval Office were being taped. This information became the bombshell that helped force Richard Nixon to resign rather than be impeached.[21]: pp. 610–620  Writing from prison for New West and New York magazines in 1977, Ehrlichman claimed Nixon had offered him a large sum of money, which he declined.[56] The President announced the resignations in an address to the American people: Today, in one of the most difficult decisions of my Presidency, I accepted the resignations of two of my closest associates in the White House, Bob Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, two of the finest public servants it has been my privilege to know. [...] Because Attorney General Kleindienst, though a distinguished public servant, my personal friend for 20 years, with no personal involvement whatever in this matter has been a close personal and professional associate of some of those who are involved in this case, he and I both felt that it was also necessary to name a new Attorney General. The Counsel to the President, John Dean, has also resigned.[54][57] On the same day, April 30, Nixon appointed a new attorney general, Elliot Richardson, and gave him authority to designate a special counsel for the Watergate investigation who would be independent of the regular Justice Department hierarchy. In May 1973, Richardson named Archibald Cox to the position.[22] Senate Watergate hearings and revelation of the Watergate tapes Main article: Nixon White House tapes See also: United States Senate Watergate Committee and G. Bradford Cook Minority counsel Fred Thompson, ranking member Howard Baker, and chair Sam Ervin of the Senate Watergate Committee in 1973 On February 7, 1973, the United States Senate voted 77-to-0 to approve 93 S.Res. 60 and establish a select committee to investigate Watergate, with Sam Ervin named chairman the next day.[22] The hearings held by the Senate committee, in which Dean and other former administration officials testified, were broadcast from May 17 to August 7. The three major networks of the time agreed to take turns covering the hearings live, each network thus maintaining coverage of the hearings every third day, starting with ABC on May 17 and ending with NBC on August 7. An estimated 85% of Americans with television sets tuned into at least one portion of the hearings.[58] On Friday, July 13, during a preliminary interview, deputy minority counsel Donald Sanders asked White House assistant Alexander Butterfield if there was any type of recording system in the White House.[59] Butterfield said he was reluctant to answer, but finally admitted there was a new system in the White House that automatically recorded everything in the Oval Office, the Cabinet Room and others, as well as Nixon's private office in the Old Executive Office Building. On Monday, July 16, in front of a live, televised audience, chief minority counsel Fred Thompson asked Butterfield whether he was "aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president". Butterfield's revelation of the taping system transformed the Watergate investigation. Cox immediately subpoenaed the tapes, as did the Senate, but Nixon refused to release them, citing his executive privilege as president, and ordered Cox to drop his subpoena. Cox refused.[54] Saturday Night Massacre Main article: Saturday Night Massacre On October 20, 1973, after Cox, the special prosecutor, refused to drop the subpoena, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire him. Richardson resigned in protest rather than carry out the order. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox, but Ruckelshaus also resigned rather than fire him. Nixon's search for someone in the Justice Department willing to fire Cox ended with Solicitor General Robert Bork. Though Bork said he believed Nixon's order was valid and appropriate, he considered resigning to avoid being "perceived as a man who did the President's bidding to save my job".[60] Bork carried out the presidential order and dismissed the special prosecutor. These actions met considerable public criticism. Responding to the allegations of possible wrongdoing, in front of 400 Associated Press managing editors at Disney's Contemporary Resort,[61][62] on November 17, 1973, Nixon emphatically stated, "Well, I am not a crook."[63][64] He needed to allow Bork to appoint a new special prosecutor; Bork, with Nixon's approval, chose Leon Jaworski to continue the investigation.[65] Legal action against Nixon administration members On March 1, 1974, a grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicted several former aides of Nixon, who became known as the "Watergate Seven"—H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, John N. Mitchell, Charles Colson, Gordon C. Strachan, Robert Mardian, and Kenneth Parkinson—for conspiring to hinder the Watergate investigation. The grand jury secretly named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator. The special prosecutor dissuaded them from an indictment of Nixon, arguing that a president can be indicted only after he leaves office.[66] John Dean, Jeb Stuart Magruder, and other figures had already pleaded guilty. On April 5, 1974, Dwight Chapin, the former Nixon appointments secretary, was convicted of lying to the grand jury. Two days later, the same grand jury indicted Ed Reinecke, the Republican Lieutenant Governor of California, on three charges of perjury before the Senate committee. Release of the transcripts President Nixon explaining release of edited transcripts, April 29, 1974 The Nixon administration struggled to decide what materials to release. All parties involved agreed that all pertinent information should be released. Whether to release unedited profanity and vulgarity divided his advisers. His legal team favored releasing the tapes unedited, while Press Secretary Ron Ziegler preferred using an edited version where "expletive deleted" would replace the raw material. After several weeks of debate, they decided to release an edited version. Nixon announced the release of the transcripts in a speech to the nation on April 29, 1974. Nixon noted that any audio pertinent to national security information could be redacted from the released tapes.[67] Initially, Nixon gained a positive reaction for his speech. As people read the transcripts over the next couple of weeks, however, former supporters among the public, media and political community called for Nixon's resignation or impeachment. Vice President Gerald Ford said, "While it may be easy to delete characterization from the printed page, we cannot delete characterization from people's minds with a wave of the hand."[68] The Senate Republican Leader Hugh Scott said the transcripts revealed a "deplorable, disgusting, shabby, and immoral" performance on the part of the President and his former aides.[69] The House Republican Leader John Jacob Rhodes agreed with Scott, and Rhodes recommended that if Nixon's position continued to deteriorate, he "ought to consider resigning as a possible option".[70] The editors of The Chicago Tribune, a newspaper that had supported Nixon, wrote, "He is humorless to the point of being inhumane. He is devious. He is vacillating. He is profane. He is willing to be led. He displays dismaying gaps in knowledge. He is suspicious of his staff. His loyalty is minimal."[71] The Providence Journal wrote, "Reading the transcripts is an emetic experience; one comes away feeling unclean."[72] This newspaper continued that, while the transcripts may not have revealed an indictable offense, they showed Nixon contemptuous of the United States, its institutions, and its people. According to Time magazine, the Republican Party leaders in the Western U.S. felt that while there remained a significant number of Nixon loyalists in the party, the majority believed that Nixon should step down as quickly as possible. They were disturbed by the bad language and the coarse, vindictive tone of the conversations in the transcripts.[72][73] Supreme Court The issue of access to the tapes went to the United States Supreme Court. On July 24, 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Court ruled unanimously (8–0) that claims of executive privilege over the tapes were void. (Then-Justice William Rehnquist—who had recently been appointed to the Court by Nixon and most recently served in the Nixon Justice Department as Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel—recused himself from the case.) The Court ordered the President to release the tapes to the special prosecutor. On July 30, 1974, Nixon complied with the order and released the subpoenaed tapes to the public. Release of the tapes The tapes revealed several crucial conversations[74] that took place between the president and his counsel, John Dean, on March 21, 1973. In this conversation, Dean summarized many aspects of the Watergate case, and focused on the subsequent cover-up, describing it as a "cancer on the presidency". The burglary team was being paid hush money for their silence and Dean stated: "That's the most troublesome post-thing, because Bob [Haldeman] is involved in that; John [Ehrlichman] is involved in that; I am involved in that; Mitchell is involved in that. And that's an obstruction of justice." Dean continued, saying that Howard Hunt was blackmailing the White House demanding money immediately. Nixon replied that the money should be paid: "... just looking at the immediate problem, don't you have to have—handle Hunt's financial situation damn soon? ... you've got to keep the cap on the bottle that much, in order to have any options".[75] At the time of the initial congressional proceedings, it was not known if Nixon had known and approved of the payments to the Watergate defendants earlier than this conversation. Nixon's conversation with Haldeman on August 1, is one of several that establishes he did. Nixon said: "Well ... they have to be paid. That's all there is to that. They have to be paid."[76] During the congressional debate on impeachment, some believed that impeachment required a criminally indictable offense. Nixon's agreement to make the blackmail payments was regarded as an affirmative act to obstruct justice.[68] On December 7, investigators found that an 18½-minute portion of one recorded tape had been erased. Rose Mary Woods, Nixon's longtime personal secretary, said she had accidentally erased the tape by pushing the wrong pedal on her tape player when answering the phone. The press ran photos of the set-up, showing that it was unlikely for Woods to answer the phone while keeping her foot on the pedal. Later forensic analysis in 2003 determined that the tape had been erased in several segments—at least five, and perhaps as many as nine.[77] Final investigations and resignation Main article: Impeachment process against Richard Nixon Richard Nixon's resignation speech Duration: 15 minutes and 23 seconds.15:23 Resignation speech of President Richard Nixon, delivered August 8, 1974. Problems playing this file? See media help. Nixon's position was becoming increasingly precarious. On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives approved H.Res. 803 giving the Judiciary Committee authority to investigate impeachment of the President.[78][79] On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee voted 27-to-11 to recommend the first article of impeachment against the president: obstruction of justice. The Committee recommended the second article, abuse of power, on July 29, 1974. The next day, on July 30, 1974, the Committee recommended the third article: contempt of Congress. On August 20, 1974, the House authorized the printing of the Committee report H. Rep. 93–1305, which included the text of the resolution impeaching Nixon and set forth articles of impeachment against him.[80][81] "Smoking Gun" tape Duration: 7 minutes and 45 seconds.7:45 "Smoking Gun" tape of Nixon and H.R. Haldeman's conversation in Oval Office on June 23, 1972 On August 5, 1974, the White House released a previously unknown audio tape from June 23, 1972. Recorded only a few days after the break-in, it documented the initial stages of the cover-up: it revealed Nixon and Haldeman had a meeting in the Oval Office during which they discussed how to stop the FBI from continuing its investigation of the break-in, as they recognized that there was a high risk that their position in the scandal might be revealed. Haldeman introduced the topic as follows: ... the Democratic break-in thing, we're back to the—in the, the problem area because the FBI is not under control, because Gray doesn't exactly know how to control them, and they have ... their investigation is now leading into some productive areas ... and it goes in some directions we don't want it to go.[82] House Judiciary Committee members and staff, 1974 After explaining how the money from CRP was traced to the burglars, Haldeman explained to Nixon the cover-up plan: "the way to handle this now is for us to have Walters [CIA] call Pat Gray [FBI] and just say, 'Stay the hell out of this ... this is ah, business here we don't want you to go any further on it.'"[82] Nixon approved the plan, and after he was given more information about the involvement of his campaign in the break-in, he told Haldeman: "All right, fine, I understand it all. We won't second-guess Mitchell and the rest." Returning to the use of the CIA to obstruct the FBI, he instructed Haldeman: "You call them in. Good. Good deal. Play it tough. That's the way they play it and that's the way we are going to play it."[82][83] Nixon denied that this constituted an obstruction of justice, as his instructions ultimately resulted in the CIA truthfully reporting to the FBI that there were no national security issues. Nixon urged the FBI to press forward with the investigation when they expressed concern about interference.[84] Before the release of this tape, Nixon had denied any involvement in the scandal. He claimed that there were no political motivations in his instructions to the CIA, and claimed he had no knowledge before March 21, 1973, of involvement by senior campaign officials such as John Mitchell. The contents of this tape persuaded Nixon's own lawyers, Fred Buzhardt and James St. Clair, that "the President had lied to the nation, to his closest aides, and to his own lawyers—for more than two years".[85] The tape, which Barber Conable referred to as a "smoking gun", proved that Nixon had been involved in the cover-up from the beginning. In the week before Nixon's resignation, Ehrlichman and Haldeman tried unsuccessfully to get Nixon to grant them pardons—which he had promised them before their April 1973 resignations.[86] Resignation Further information: Richard Nixon's resignation speech and Inauguration of Gerald Ford Nixon's resignation letter, August 9, 1974. Pursuant to federal law, the letter was addressed to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. When Kissinger initialed the letter at 11:35 am, Ford officially became president. Oliver F. Atkins' photo of Nixon leaving the White House shortly before his resignation became effective, August 9, 1974 The release of the smoking gun tape destroyed Nixon politically. The ten congressmen who had voted against all three articles of impeachment in the House Judiciary Committee announced they would support the impeachment article accusing Nixon of obstructing justice when the articles came up before the full House.[87] Additionally, John Jacob Rhodes, the House leader of Nixon's party, announced that he would vote to impeach, stating that "coverup of criminal activity and misuse of federal agencies can neither be condoned nor tolerated".[88] On the night of August 7, 1974, Senators Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott and Congressman Rhodes met with Nixon in the Oval Office. Scott and Rhodes were the Republican leaders in the Senate and House, respectively; Goldwater was brought along as an elder statesman. The three lawmakers told Nixon that his support in Congress had all but disappeared. Rhodes told Nixon that he would face certain impeachment when the articles came up for vote in the full House; indeed, by one estimate, no more than 75 representatives were willing to vote against impeaching Nixon for obstructing justice.[88] Goldwater and Scott told the president that there were enough votes in the Senate to convict him, and that no more than 15 Senators were willing to vote for acquittal–not even half of the 34 votes he needed to stay in office. Faced with the inevitability of his impeachment and removal from office and with public opinion having turned decisively against him, Nixon decided to resign.[89] In a nationally televised address from the Oval Office on the evening of August 8, 1974, the president said, in part: In all the decisions I have made in my public life, I have always tried to do what was best for the Nation. Throughout the long and difficult period of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere, to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me. In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort. As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future. ... I would have preferred to carry through to the finish whatever the personal agony it would have involved, and my family unanimously urged me to do so. But the interest of the Nation must always come before any personal considerations. From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders, I have concluded that because of the Watergate matter I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the Nation would require. ... I have never been a quitter. To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad. To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home. Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.[90][91] The morning that his resignation took effect, the President, with Mrs. Nixon and their family, said farewell to the White House staff in the East Room.[92] A helicopter carried them from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Nixon later wrote that he thought, "As the helicopter moved on to Andrews, I found myself thinking not of the past, but of the future. What could I do now?" At Andrews, he and his family boarded an Air Force plane to El Toro Marine Corps Air Station in California, and then were transported to his home La Casa Pacifica in San Clemente. President Ford's pardon of Nixon Further information: Pardon of Richard Nixon Pen used by President Gerald R. Ford to pardon Richard Nixon on September 8, 1974 Wikisource has original text related to this article: The Nixon Pardon With Nixon's resignation, Congress dropped its impeachment proceedings. Criminal prosecution was still a possibility at the federal level.[66] Nixon was succeeded by Vice President Gerald Ford as president, who on September 8, 1974, issued a full and unconditional pardon of Nixon, immunizing him from prosecution for any crimes he had "committed or may have committed or taken part in" as president.[93] In a televised broadcast to the nation, Ford explained that he felt the pardon was in the best interest of the country. He said that the Nixon family's situation "is an American tragedy in which we all have played a part. It could go on and on and on, or someone must write the end to it. I have concluded that only I can do that, and if I can, I must."[94] Nixon continued to proclaim his innocence until his death in 1994. In his official response to the pardon, he said that he "was wrong in not acting more decisively and more forthrightly in dealing with Watergate, particularly when it reached the stage of judicial proceedings and grew from a political scandal into a national tragedy".[95] Some commentators have argued that pardoning Nixon contributed to President Ford's loss of the presidential election of 1976.[96] Allegations of a secret deal made with Ford, promising a pardon in return for Nixon's resignation, led Ford to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on October 17, 1974.[97][98] In his autobiography A Time to Heal, Ford wrote about a meeting he had with Nixon's Chief of Staff, Alexander Haig. Haig was explaining what he and Nixon's staff thought were Nixon's only options. He could try to ride out the impeachment and fight against conviction in the Senate all the way, or he could resign. His options for resigning were to delay his resignation until further along in the impeachment process, to try to settle for a censure vote in Congress, or to pardon himself and then resign. Haig told Ford that some of Nixon's staff suggested that Nixon could agree to resign in return for an agreement that Ford would pardon him. Haig emphasized that these weren't his suggestions. He didn't identify the staff members and he made it very clear that he wasn't recommending any one option over another. What he wanted to know was whether or not my overall assessment of the situation agreed with his. [emphasis in original] ... Next he asked if I had any suggestions as to courses of actions for the President. I didn't think it would be proper for me to make any recommendations at all, and I told him so. — Gerald Ford, A Time to Heal[99] Aftermath Final legal actions and effect on the law profession Charles Colson pled guilty to charges concerning the Daniel Ellsberg case; in exchange, the indictment against him for covering up the activities of the Committee to Re-elect the President was dropped, as it was against Strachan. The remaining five members of the Watergate Seven indicted in March went on trial in October 1974. On January 1, 1975, all but Parkinson were found guilty. In 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered a new trial for Mardian; subsequently, all charges against him were dropped. Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Mitchell exhausted their appeals in 1977. Ehrlichman entered prison in 1976, followed by the other two in 1977. Since Nixon and many senior officials involved in Watergate were lawyers, the scandal severely tarnished the public image of the legal profession.[100][101][102] The Watergate scandal resulted in 69 individuals being charged and 48 being found guilty, including:[14] John N. Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States who resigned to become Director of Committee to Re-elect the President, convicted of perjury about his involvement in the Watergate break-in. Served 19 months of a one- to four-year sentence.[23] Jeb Stuart Magruder, Deputy Director of Committee to Re-elect the President,[27] pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to the burglary, and was sentenced to 10 months to four years in prison, of which he served seven months before being paroled.[103] Frederick C. LaRue, Advisor to John Mitchell, convicted of obstruction of justice. He served four and a half months.[103] H. R. Haldeman, White House Chief of Staff, convicted of conspiracy to the burglary, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison.[104] John Ehrlichman, White House Domestic Affairs Advisor, convicted of conspiracy to the burglary, obstruction of justice, and perjury. Served 18 months in prison.[105] Egil Krogh, United States Under Secretary of Transportation, sentenced to six months for his part in the Daniel Ellsberg case.[103] John W. Dean III, White House Counsel, convicted of obstruction of justice, later reduced to felony offenses and sentenced to time already served, which totaled four months.[103] Dwight L. Chapin, Secretary to the President of the United States, convicted of perjury.[103] Maurice Stans, United States Secretary of Commerce who resigned to become Finance Chairman of Committee to Re-elect the President, convicted of multiple counts of illegal campaigning, fined $5,000 (in 1975 – $27,200 today).[106] Herbert W. Kalmbach, personal attorney to Nixon, convicted of illegal campaigning. Served 191 days in prison and fined $10,000 (in 1974 – $59,300 today).[103] Charles W. Colson, Director of the Office of Public Liaison, convicted of obstruction of justice. Served seven months in Federal Maxwell Prison.[107] Herbert L. Porter, aide to the Committee to Re-elect the President. Convicted of perjury.[103] G. Gordon Liddy, Special Investigations Group, convicted of masterminding the burglary, original sentence of up to 20 years in prison.[103][108] Served 4+1⁄2 years in federal prison.[109] E. Howard Hunt, security consultant, convicted of masterminding and overseeing the burglary, original sentence of up to 35 years in prison.[103][108] Served 33 months in prison.[110] James W. McCord Jr., convicted of six charges of burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping.[103] Served two months in prison.[109] Virgilio Gonzalez, convicted of burglary, original sentence of up to 40 years in prison.[103][108] Served 13 months in prison.[109] Bernard Barker, convicted of burglary, original sentence of up to 40 years in prison.[103][108] Served 18 months in prison.[111] Eugenio Martínez, convicted of burglary, original sentence of up to 40 years in prison.[103][108] Served 15 months in prison.[112] Frank Sturgis, convicted of burglary, original sentence of up to 40 years in prison.[103][108] Served 10 months in prison.[112] To defuse public demand for direct federal regulation of lawyers (as opposed to leaving it in the hands of state bar associations or courts), the American Bar Association (ABA) launched two major reforms. First, the ABA decided that its existing Model Code of Professional Responsibility (promulgated 1969) was a failure. In 1983, the ABA replaced the Model Code with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.[113] The Model Rules have been adopted in part or in whole by all 50 states. The Model Rules's preamble contains an emphatic reminder that the legal profession can remain self-governing only if lawyers behave properly.[114] Second, the ABA promulgated a requirement that law students at ABA-approved law schools take a course in professional responsibility (which means they must study the Model Rules). The requirement remains in effect.[115] On June 24 and 25, 1975, Nixon gave secret testimony to a grand jury. According to news reports at the time, Nixon answered questions about the 18+1⁄2-minute tape gap, altering White House tape transcripts turned over to the House Judiciary Committee, using the Internal Revenue Service to harass political enemies, and a $100,000 contribution from billionaire Howard Hughes. Aided by the Public Citizen Litigation Group, the historian Stanley Kutler, who has written several books about Nixon and Watergate and had successfully sued for the 1996 public release of the Nixon White House tapes,[116] sued for the release of the transcripts of the Nixon grand jury testimony.[117] On July 29, 2011, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth granted Kutler's request, saying historical interests trumped privacy, especially considering that Nixon and other key figures were deceased, and most of the surviving figures had testified under oath, have been written about, or were interviewed. The transcripts were not immediately released pending the government's decision on whether to appeal.[117] They were released in their entirety on November 10, 2011, although the names of people still alive were redacted.[118] Texas A&M University–Central Texas professor Luke Nichter wrote the chief judge of the federal court in Washington to release hundreds of pages of sealed records of the Watergate Seven. In June 2012 the U.S. Department of Justice wrote the court that it would not object to their release with some exceptions.[119] On November 2, 2012, Watergate trial records for G. Gordon Liddy and James McCord were ordered unsealed by Federal Judge Royce Lamberth.[120] Political and cultural reverberations According to Thomas J. Johnson, a professor of journalism at University of Texas at Austin, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger predicted during Nixon's final days that history would remember Nixon as a great president and that Watergate would be relegated to a "minor footnote".[121] When Congress investigated the scope of the president's legal powers, it belatedly found that consecutive presidential administrations had declared the United States to be in a continuous open-ended state of emergency since 1950. Congress enacted the National Emergencies Act in 1976 to regulate such declarations. The Watergate scandal left such an impression on the national and international consciousness that many scandals since then have been labeled with the "-gate suffix". One of a variety of anti-Ford buttons generated during the 1976 presidential election: it reads "Gerald ... Pardon me!" and depicts a thief cracking a safe labeled "Watergate". Disgust with the revelations about Watergate, the Republican Party, and Nixon strongly affected results of the November 1974 Senate and House elections, which took place three months after Nixon's resignation. The Democrats gained five seats in the Senate and forty-nine in the House (the newcomers were nicknamed "Watergate Babies"). Congress passed legislation that changed campaign financing, to amend the Freedom of Information Act, as well as to require financial disclosures by key government officials (via the Ethics in Government Act). Other types of disclosures, such as releasing recent income tax forms, became expected, though not legally required. Presidents since Franklin D. Roosevelt had recorded many of their conversations but the practice purportedly ended after Watergate. Ford's pardon of Nixon played a major role in his defeat in the 1976 presidential election against Jimmy Carter.[96] In 1977, Nixon arranged an interview with British journalist David Frost in the hope of improving his legacy. Based on a previous interview in 1968,[122] he believed that Frost would be an easy interviewer and was taken aback by Frost's incisive questions. The interview displayed the entire scandal to the American people, and Nixon formally apologized, but his legacy remained tarnished.[123] The 2008 movie Frost/Nixon is a media depiction of this. In the aftermath of Watergate, "follow the money" became part of the American lexicon and is widely believed to have been uttered by Mark Felt to Woodward and Bernstein. The phrase was never used in the 1974 book All the President's Men and did not become associated with it until the movie of the same name was released in 1976.[124] The 2017 movie Mark Felt: The Man Who Brought Down the White House is about Felt's role in the Watergate scandal and his identity as Deep Throat. The parking garage where Woodward and Felt met in Rosslyn still stands. Its significance was noted by Arlington County with a historical marker in 2011.[125][126] In 2017 it was announced that the garage would be demolished as part of construction of an apartment building on the site; the developers announced that the site's significance would be memorialized within the new complex.[127][128] Purpose of the break-in Despite the enormous impact of the Watergate scandal, the purpose of the break-in of the DNC offices has never been conclusively established. Records from the United States v. Liddy trial, made public in 2013, showed that four of the five burglars testified that they were told the campaign operation hoped to find evidence that linked Cuban funding to Democratic campaigns.[129] The longtime hypothesis suggests that the target of the break-in was the offices of Larry O'Brien, the DNC chairman.[citation needed][130] However, O'Brien's name was not on Alfred C. Baldwin III's list of targets that was released in 2013.[citation needed] Among those listed were senior DNC official R. Spencer Oliver, Oliver's secretary Ida "Maxine" Wells, co-worker Robert Allen and secretary Barbara Kennedy.[129] Based on these revelations, Texas A&M history professor Luke Nichter, who had successfully petitioned for the release of the information,[131] argued that Woodward and Bernstein were incorrect in concluding, based largely on Watergate burglar James McCord's word, that the purpose of the break-in was to bug O'Brien's phone to gather political and financial intelligence on the Democrats.[citation needed] Instead, Nichter sided with late journalist J. Anthony Lukas of The New York Times, who had concluded that the committee was seeking to find evidence linking the Democrats to prostitution, as it was alleged that Oliver's office had been used to arrange such meetings. However, Nichter acknowledged that Woodward and Bernstein's theory of O'Brien as the target could not be debunked unless the information was released about what Baldwin heard in his bugging of conversations.[citation needed] In 1968, O'Brien was appointed by Vice President Hubert Humphrey to serve as the national director of Humphrey's presidential campaign and, separately, by Howard Hughes to serve as Hughes' public-policy lobbyist in Washington. O'Brien was elected national chairman of the DNC in 1968 and 1970. In late 1971, the president's brother, Donald Nixon, was collecting intelligence for his brother at the time and asked John H. Meier, an adviser to Howard Hughes, about O'Brien. In 1956, Donald Nixon had borrowed $205,000 from Howard Hughes and had never repaid the loan. The loan's existence surfaced during the 1960 presidential election campaign, embarrassing Richard Nixon and becoming a political liability. According to author Donald M. Bartlett, Richard Nixon would do whatever was necessary to prevent another family embarrassment.[132] From 1968 to 1970, Hughes withdrew nearly half a million dollars from the Texas National Bank of Commerce for contributions to both Democrats and Republicans, including presidential candidates Humphrey and Nixon. Hughes wanted Donald Nixon and Meier involved but Nixon opposed this.[133] Meier told Donald Nixon that he was sure the Democrats would win the election because they had considerable information on Richard Nixon's illicit dealings with Hughes that had never been released, and that it resided with Larry O'Brien.[134] According to Fred Emery, O'Brien had been a lobbyist for Hughes in a Democrat-controlled Congress, and the possibility of his finding out about Hughes' illegal contributions to the Nixon campaign was too much of a danger for Nixon to ignore.[135] James F. Neal, who prosecuted the Watergate 7, did not believe Nixon had ordered the break-in because of Nixon's surprised reaction when he was told about it.[136] Reactions Australia Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam referred to the American presidency's "parlous position" without the direct wording of the Watergate scandal during Question Time in May 1973.[137] The following day responding to a question upon "the vital importance of future United States–Australia relations", Whitlam parried that the usage of the word 'Watergate' was not his.[138] United States–Australia relations have been considered to have figured as influential when, in November 1975, Australia experienced its own constitutional crisis which led to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government by Sir John Kerr, the Australian Governor-General.[139] Max Suich has suggested that the US was involved in ending the Whitlam government.[140] China Chinese then-Premier Zhou Enlai said in October 1973 that the scandal did not affect the relations between China and the United States.[141] According to the then–Prime Minister Kukrit Pramoj of Thailand in July 1975, Chairman Mao Zedong called the Watergate scandal "the result of 'too much freedom of political expression in the U.S.'"[142] Mao called it "an indication of American isolationism, which he saw as 'disastrous' for Europe". He further said, "Do Americans really want to go isolationist? ... In the two world wars, the Americans came [in] very late, but all the same, they did come in. They haven't been isolationist in practice."[143] Japan In August 1973, then–Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka said that the scandal had "no cancelling influence on U.S. leadership in the world". Tanaka further said, "The pivotal role of the United States has not changed, so this internal affair will not be permitted to have an effect."[144] In March 1975, Tanaka's successor, Takeo Miki, said at a convention of the Liberal Democratic Party, "At the time of the Watergate issue in America, I was deeply moved by the scene in the House Judiciary Committee, where each member of the committee expressed his own or her own heart based upon the spirit of the American Constitution. It was this attitude, I think, that rescued American democracy."[145] Singapore Then-Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said in August 1973 that the scandal may have led the United States to lessen its interests and commitments in world affairs, to weaken its ability to enforce the Paris Peace Accords on Vietnam, and to not react to violations of the Accords. Lee said further that the United States "makes the future of this peace in Indonesia an extremely bleak one with grave consequence for the contiguous states." Lee then blamed the scandal for economic inflation in Singapore because the Singapore dollar was pegged to the United States dollar at the time because Singapore had "unwisely" believed that the U.S. dollar was stronger than the British pound sterling.[146] Soviet Union In June 1973, when chairman Leonid Brezhnev arrived in the United States to have a one-week meeting with Nixon,[147] Brezhnev told the press, "I do not intend to refer to that matter—[the Watergate]. It would be completely indecent for me to refer to it ... My attitude toward Mr. Nixon is of very great respect." When one reporter suggested that Nixon and his position with Brezhnev were "weakened" by the scandal, Brezhnev replied, "It does not enter my mind to thin

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ The video featuring labor historian Stuart Hersh promises a compelling exploration of the often overlooked or misrepresented history of workers' struggles to organize. Hersh's expertise in labor history likely lends depth and credibility to the narrative, providing viewers with a nuanced understanding of the challenges faced by labor movements throughout history. The use of a slide show to visually enhance the presentation suggests a multimedia approach that can effectively capture viewers' attention and illustrate key points. This visual element likely serves to bring historical events and conditions to life, making them more relatable and impactful for the audience. One significant aspect of the video is its focus on the working conditions endured by laborers, as well as the brutal repressions they faced when attempting to organize and advocate for their rights. By highlighting these injustices, the video likely aims to shed light on the systemic inequalities that have historically plagued the labor force, drawing attention to the ongoing struggle for worker rights and dignity. Moreover, the mention of the distorted treatment of labor history by the press and historians suggests a critical examination of how narratives surrounding labor movements have been shaped and manipulated over time. This aspect of the video may prompt viewers to question mainstream accounts of history and consider alternative perspectives that more accurately reflect the experiences of workers. Overall, the video presented by Stuart Hersh promises to be an enlightening and thought-provoking exploration of labor history, offering viewers a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by workers and the ongoing significance of their struggle for justice and equality. The nature and power of organized labor in the United States is the outcome of historical tensions among counter-acting forces involving workplace rights, wages, working hours, political expression, labor laws, and other working conditions. Organized unions and their umbrella labor federations such as the AFL–CIO and citywide federations have competed, evolved, merged, and split against a backdrop of changing values and priorities, and periodic federal government intervention. In most industrial nations, the labor movement sponsored its own political parties, with the US as a conspicuous exception. Both major American parties vied for union votes, with the Democratic Party usually much more successful. Labor unions became a central element of the New Deal coalition that dominated national politics from the 1930s into the mid-1960s during the Fifth Party System.[1] Liberal Republicans who supported unions in the Northeast lost power after 1964.[2][3] In recent decades, an enduring alliance was formed between labor unions and the Democrats, whereas the Republican Party has become hostile to unions and collective bargaining rights.[4] The history of organized labor has been a specialty of scholars since the 1890s, and has produced a large amount of scholarly literature focused on the structure of organized unions. In the 1960s, as social history gained popularity, a new emphasis emerged on the history of workers, including unorganized workers, and with special regard to gender and race. This is called "the new labor history". Much scholarship has attempted to bring the social history perspectives into the study of organized labor.[5] By most measures, the strength of organized labor has declined in the United States over recent decades.[6] Organized labor prior to 1900 The history of labor disputes in America substantially precedes the Revolutionary period. In 1636, for instance, there was a fishermen's strike on an island off the coast of Maine and in 1677 twelve carmen were fined for going on strike in New York City.[7] However, most instances of labor unrest during the colonial period were temporary and isolated, and rarely resulted in the formation of permanent groups of laborers for negotiation purposes. Little legal recourse was available to those injured by the unrest, because strikes were not typically considered illegal. The only known case of criminal prosecution of workers in the colonial era occurred as a result of a carpenters' strike in Savannah, Georgia, in 1746.[7] Legality and Hunt (1842) Main article: Commonwealth v. Hunt By the early 19th century, the career path for most artisans still involved apprenticeship under a master, followed by moving into independent production.[8] However, over the course of the Industrial Revolution, this model rapidly changed, particularly in the major metropolitan areas. For instance, in Boston in 1790, the vast majority of the 1,300 artisans in the city described themselves as "master workman". By 1815, journeymen workers without independent means of production had displaced these "masters" as the majority. By that time journeymen also outnumbered masters in New York City and Philadelphia.[9] This shift occurred as a result of large-scale transatlantic and rural-urban migration. Migration into the coastal cities created a larger population of potential laborers, which in turn allowed controllers of capital to invest in labor-intensive enterprises on a larger scale. Craft workers found that these changes launched them into competition with each other to a degree that they had not experienced previously, which limited their opportunities and created substantial risks of downward mobility that had not existed prior to that time.[8] These conditions led to the first labor combination cases in America. Over the first half of the 19th century, there are twenty-three known cases of indictment and prosecution for criminal conspiracy, taking place in six states: Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Virginia.[10] The central question in these cases was invariably whether workmen in combination would be permitted to use their collective bargaining power to obtain benefits—increased wages, decreased hours, or improved conditions—which were beyond their ability to obtain as individuals. The cases overwhelmingly resulted in convictions. However, in most instances the plaintiffs' desire was to establish favorable precedent, not to impose harsh penalties, and the fines were typically modest.[11] One of the central themes of the cases prior to the landmark decision in Commonwealth v. Hunt, which settled the legality of unions, was the applicability of the English common law in post-revolutionary America. Whether the English common law applied—and in particular whether the common law notion that a conspiracy to raise wages was illegal applied—was frequently the subject of debate between the defense and the prosecution.[12] For instance, in Commonwealth v. Pullis, a case in 1806 against a combination of journeymen cordwainers in Philadelphia for conspiracy to raise their wages, the defense attorneys referred to the common law as arbitrary and unknowable and instead praised the legislature as the embodiment of the democratic promise of the revolution.[13] In ruling that a combination to raise wages was per se illegal, Recorder Moses Levy strongly disagreed, writing that "[t]he acts of the legislature form but a small part of that code from which the citizen is to learn his duties . . . [i]t is in the volumes of the common law we are to seek for information in the far greater number, as well as the most important causes that come before our tribunals."[13] As a result of the spate of convictions against combinations of laborers, the typical narrative of early American labor law states that, prior to Hunt in Massachusetts in 1842, peaceable combinations of workingmen to raise wages, shorten hours or ensure employment, were illegal in the United States, as they had been under English common law.[12] In England, criminal conspiracy laws were first held to include combinations in restraint of trade in the Court of Star Chamber early in the 17th century.[14] The precedent was solidified in 1721 by R v Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge, which found tailors guilty of a conspiracy to raise wages.[15] Leonard Levy went so far as to refer to Hunt as the "Magna Carta of American trade-unionism",[16] illustrating its perceived standing as the major point of divergence in the American and English legal treatment of unions which, "removed the stigma of criminality from labor organizations".[16] However, case law in America prior to Hunt was mixed. Pullis was actually unusual in strictly following the English common law and holding that a combination to raise wages was by itself illegal. More often combination cases prior to Hunt did not hold that unions were illegal per se, but rather found some other justification for a conviction.[17] After Pullis in 1806, eighteen other prosecutions of laborers for conspiracies followed within the next three decades. However, only one such case, People v. Fisher, also held that a combination for the purpose of raising wages was illegal. Several other cases held that the methods used by the unions, rather than the unions themselves, were illegal.[17] For instance, in People v. Melvin, cordwainers were again convicted of a conspiracy to raise wages. Unlike in Pullis, however, the court held that the combination's existence itself was not unlawful, but nevertheless reached a conviction because the cordwainers had refused to work for any master who paid lower wages, or with any laborer who accepted lower wages than what the combination had stipulated. The court held that methods used to obtain higher wages would be unlawful if they were judged to be deleterious to the general welfare of the community.[18] Commonwealth v. Morrow continued to refine this standard, stating that, "an agreement of two or more to the prejudice of the rights of others or of society" would be illegal.[19] Another line of cases, led by Justice John Gibson of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's decision in Commonwealth v. Carlisle, held that motive of the combination, rather than simply its existence, was the key to illegality. Gibson wrote, "Where the act is lawful for an individual, it can be the subject of a conspiracy, when done in concert, only where there is a direct intention that injury shall result from it".[18] Still other courts rejected Pullis' rule of per se illegality in favor of a rule that asked whether the combination was a but-for cause of injury. Thus, as economist Edwin Witte stated, "The doctrine that a combination to raise wages is illegal was allowed to die by common consent. No leading case was required for its overthrow".[20] Nevertheless, while Hunt was not the first case to hold that labor combinations were legal, it was the first to do so explicitly and in clear terms. Early federations Main articles: National Labor Union and Order of the Knights of St. Crispin The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen — now part of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters — was founded in May 1863.[21] The National Labor Union (NLU), founded in 1866, was the first national labor federation in the United States. It was dissolved in 1872. The regional Order of the Knights of St. Crispin was founded in the northeast in 1867 and claimed 50,000 members by 1870, by far the largest union in the country. A closely associated union of women, the Daughters of St. Crispin, formed in 1870. In 1879 the Knights formally admitted women, who by 1886 comprised 10 percent of the union's membership,[22] but it was poorly organized and soon declined. They fought encroachments of machinery and unskilled labor on autonomy of skilled shoe workers. One provision in the Crispin constitution explicitly sought to limit the entry of "green hands" into the trade, but this failed because the new machines could be operated by semi-skilled workers and produce more shoes than hand sewing.[23] Railroad brotherhoods The Great Southwest Railroad Strike of 1886 was a trade union strike involving more than 200,000 workers.[24] With the rapid growth and consolidation of large railroad systems after 1870, union organizations sprang up, covering the entire nation. By 1901, 17 major railway brotherhoods were in operation; they generally worked amicably with management, which recognized their usefulness.[25] Key unions included the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE), Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Division (BMWED), the Order of Railway Conductors, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen, and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen.[26] Their main goal was building insurance and medical packages for their members, as well as negotiating work rules, such as those involving seniority and grievance procedures.[27] They were not members of the AFL, and fought off more radical rivals such as the Knights of Labor in the 1880s and the American Railroad Union in the 1890s. They consolidated their power in 1916, after threatening a national strike, by securing the Adamson Act, a federal law that provided 10 hours pay for an eight-hour day. At the end of World War I they promoted nationalization of the railroads, and conducted a national strike in 1919. Both programs failed, and the brotherhoods were largely stagnant in the 1920s. They generally were independent politically, but supported the third party campaign of Robert M. La Follette in 1924.[28] Knights of Labor Main article: Knights of Labor The first effective labor organization that was more than regional in membership and influence was the Knights of Labor, organized in 1869. The Knights believed in the unity of the interests of all producing groups and sought to enlist in their ranks not only all laborers but everyone who could be truly classified as a producer. The acceptance of all producers led to explosive growth after 1880. Under the leadership of Terence V. Powderly they championed a variety of causes, sometimes through political or cooperative ventures.[29] Powderly hoped to gain their ends through politics and education rather than through economic coercion. The Knights were especially successful in developing a working class culture, involving women, families, sports, and leisure activities and educational projects for the membership. The Knights strongly promoted their version of republicanism that stressed the centrality of free labor, preaching harmony and cooperation among producers, as opposed to parasites and speculators.[29] One of the earliest railroad strikes was also one of the most successful. In 1885, the Knights of Labor led railroad workers to victory against Jay Gould and his entire Southwestern Railway system. In early 1886, the Knights were trying to coordinate 1,400 strikes involving over 600,000 workers spread over much of the country. The tempo had doubled over 1885, and involved peaceful as well as violent confrontations in many sectors, such as railroads, street railroads, and coal mining, with demands usually focused on the eight hour day. Suddenly, it all collapsed, largely because the Knights were unable to handle so much on their plate at once, and because they took a smashing blow in the aftermath of the Haymarket Riot in May 1886 in Chicago.[30] The Haymarket Riot started as a strike organized by the Knights at the McCormick Reaper Factory in Chicago. Along with the McCormick strike, on May 1, 80,000 mostly immigrant workers led a general strike in Chicago, along with 340,000 workers in the rest of the United States. Attending the strike were a rising movement of armed anarchists formed as a result of the police violence of the Great Railroad Strike of 1877. While beginning relatively peacefully, police and strikers began to clash.[31] As strikers rallied against the McCormick plant, a team of political anarchists, who were not Knights, tried to piggyback support among striking Knights workers. A bomb exploded as police were dispersing a peaceful rally, killing seven policemen and wounding many others. The anarchists—who had built the bomb—were blamed. Their spectacular trial gained national attention. The Knights of Labor were seriously injured by the false accusation that the Knights promoted anarchistic violence. Some Knights locals transferred to the less radical and more respectable AFL unions or railroad brotherhoods.[32] American Federation of Labor Main article: American Federation of Labor The American Federation of Labor union label, c. 1900 Samuel Gompers in 1894; he was the AFL leader 1886–1924. The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions began in 1881 under the leadership of Samuel Gompers. Like the National Labor Union, it was a federation of different unions and did not directly enroll workers. Its original goals were to encourage the formation of trade unions and to obtain legislation, such as prohibition of child labor, a national eight hour day, and exclusion of Chinese and other foreign contract workers.[33][34] Strikes organized by labor unions became routine events by the 1880s. There were 37,000 strikes between 1881 and 1905. By far the largest number were in the building trades, followed far behind by coal miners. The main goal was control of working conditions, setting uniform wage scales, protesting the firing of a member, and settling which rival union was in control. Most strikes were of very short duration. In times of depression strikes were more violent but less successful, because the company was losing money anyway. They were successful in times of prosperity when the company was losing profits and wanted to settle quickly.[35] The Federation made some efforts to obtain favorable legislation, but had little success in organizing or chartering new unions. It came out in support of the proposal, traditionally attributed to Peter J. McGuire of the Carpenters Union, for a national Labor Day holiday on the first Monday in September. It also threw itself behind the eight hour movement, which sought to limit the workday by either legislation or union negotiation.[36] In 1886, as the relations between the trade union movement and the Knights of Labor worsened, McGuire and other union leaders called for a convention to be held at Columbus, Ohio, on December 8. The Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions merged with the new organization, known as the American Federation of Labor or AFL, formed at that convention.[37] The AFL was formed in large part because of the dissatisfaction of many trade union leaders with the Knights of Labor, an organization that contained many trade unions and that had played a leading role in some of the largest strikes of the era. The new AFL distinguished itself from the Knights by emphasizing the autonomy of each trade union affiliated with it and limiting membership to workers and organizations made up of workers, unlike the Knights which, because of its producerist focus, welcomed some who were not wage workers. The AFL grew steadily in the late 19th century while the Knights all but disappeared. Although Gompers at first advocated something like industrial unionism, he retreated from that in the face of opposition from the craft unions that made up most of the AFL. The unions of the AFL were composed primarily of skilled men; unskilled workers, African-Americans, and women were generally excluded. The AFL saw women as threatening the jobs of men, since they often worked for lower wages.[38] Western Federation of Miners Main article: Western Federation of Miners The Western Federation of Miners (WFM) was created in 1893. Frequently in competition with the American Federation of Labor, the WFM spawned new federations, including the Western Labor Union (later renamed to the American Labor Union). The WFM took a conservative turn in the aftermath of the Colorado Labor Wars and the trials of its president, Charles Moyer, and its secretary treasurer, Big Bill Haywood, for the conspiratorial assassination of Idaho's former governor. Although both were found innocent, the WFM, headed by Moyer, separated itself from the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) (launched by Haywood and other labor radicals, socialists, and anarchists in 1905) just a few years after that organization's founding convention. In 1916 the WFM became the International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, which was eventually absorbed by the United Steelworkers of America.[39] Pullman Strike Main article: Pullman Strike During the major economic depression of the early 1890s, the Pullman Palace Car Company cut wages in its factories. Discontented workers joined the American Railway Union (ARU), led by Eugene V. Debs, which supported their strike by launching a boycott of all Pullman cars on all railroads. ARU members across the nation refused to switch Pullman cars onto trains. When these switchmen were disciplined, the entire ARU struck the railroads on June 26, 1894. Within four days, 125,000 workers on twenty-nine railroads had people quit work rather than handle Pullman cars.[40] Strikers and their supporters also engaged in riots and sabotage.[41][42] The railroads were able to get Edwin Walker, general counsel for the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railway, appointed as a special federal attorney with responsibility for dealing with the strike. Walker went to federal court and obtained an injunction barring union leaders from supporting the boycott in any way. The court injunction was based on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act which prohibited "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States". Debs and other leaders of the ARU ignored the injunction, and federal troops were called into action.[43] The strike was broken up by United States Marshals and some 2,000 United States Army troops, commanded by Nelson Miles, sent in by President Grover Cleveland on the premise that the strike interfered with the delivery of US Mail. During the course of the strike, 13 strikers were killed and 57 were wounded. An estimated $340,000 worth of property damage occurred during the strike. Debs went to prison for six months for violating the federal court order, and the ARU disintegrated. Organized labor, 1900–1920 Part of a series on Organized labour Labour movement Labour rights Trade unions Trade unions by country Trade union federations International comparisons ITUCWFTU Strike action Labour parties Academic disciplines vte New York City shirtwaist workers on strike, taking a lunch break Australian historian Peter Shergold confirms the findings of many scholars[who?] that the standard of living for US industrial workers was higher than in Europe. He compares wages and the standard of living in Pittsburgh with Birmingham, England. He finds that, after taking into account the cost of living (which was 65 percent higher in the US), the standard of living of unskilled workers was about the same in the two cities, while skilled workers had about twice as high a standard of living. The American advantage grew over time from 1890 to 1914, and there was a heavy steady flow of skilled workers from Britain to industrial America.[44] Shergold revealed that skilled Americans did earn higher wages than the British, yet unskilled workers did not, while Americans worked longer hours, with a greater chance of injury, and had fewer social services.[44] American industry had the highest rate of accidents in the world.[45][46] The US was also the only industrial power to have no workman's compensation program in place to support injured workers.[46] From 1860 to 1900, the wealthiest 2 percent of American households owned more than a third of the nation's wealth, while the top 10 percent owned roughly three-quarters of it.[47] The bottom 40 percent had no wealth at all.[48] In terms of property, the wealthiest 1 percent owned 51 percent, while the bottom 44 percent claimed 1.1 percent.[48] Historian Howard Zinn argues that this disparity along with precarious working and living conditions for the working classes prompted the rise of populist, anarchist, and socialist movements.[49][50] French economist Thomas Piketty notes that economists during this time, such as Willford I. King, were concerned that the United States was becoming increasingly inegalitarian to the point of becoming like old Europe, and "further and further away from its original pioneering ideal."[51] Nationwide from 1890 to 1914 the unionized wages in manufacturing rose from $17.63 a week to $21.37, and the average work week fell from 54.4 to 48.8 hours a week. The pay for all factory workers was $11.94 and $15.84 because unions reached only the more skilled factory workers.[52] Coal strikes, 1900–1902 Main article: Coal strike of 1902 The United Mine Workers was successful in its strike against soft coal (bituminous) mines in the Midwest in 1900, but its strike against the hard coal (anthracite) mines of Pennsylvania turned into a national political crisis in 1902. President Theodore Roosevelt brokered a compromise solution that kept the flow of coal going, and higher wages and shorter hours, but did not include recognition of the union as a bargaining agent.[53] Women's Trade Union League Main article: Women's Trade Union League The Women's Trade Union League, formed in 1903, was the first labor organization dedicated to helping working women. It did not organize them into locals; its goal was to support the AFL and encourage more women to join labor unions. It was composed of both working women and middle-class reformers, and provided financial assistance, moral support, and training in work skills and social refinement for blue-collar women. Most active in 1907–1922 under Margaret Dreier Robins, it publicized the cause and lobbied for minimum wages and restrictions on hours of work and child labor. Also under Dreier's leadership, they were able to pass crucial legislation for wage workers, and establish new safety regulations.[54][55][56] In 1911, a fire broke out in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in Manhattan, New York City. Due to the lack of fire safety measures in the building, 146 primarily female workers were killed in the incident. This incident led to a movement to increase safety measures in factories. It also was an opportunity for the Women's Trade Union League to open conversation for the conditions of women's workplaces in the labor movement.[57] Industrial Workers of the World Main article: Industrial Workers of the World Flyer distributed in Lawrence, Massachusetts, September 1912. The Lawrence textile strike was a strike of immigrant workers. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), whose members became known as "Wobblies", was founded in Chicago in 1905 by a group of about 30 labor radicals. Their most prominent leader was William "Big Bill" Haywood.[58] The IWW pioneered creative tactics, and organized along the lines of industrial unionism rather than craft unionism; in fact, they went even further, pursuing the goal of "One Big Union" and the abolition of the wage system. Many, though not all, Wobblies favored anarcho-syndicalism.[59] Much of the IWW's organizing took place in the West, and most of its early members were miners, lumbermen, cannery, and dock workers. In 1912 the IWW organized a strike of more than twenty thousand textile workers, and by 1917 the Agricultural Workers Organization (AWO) of the IWW claimed a hundred thousand itinerant farm workers in the heartland of North America.[60] Eventually the concept of One Big Union spread from dock workers to maritime workers, and thus was communicated to many different parts of the world. Dedicated to workplace and economic democracy, the IWW allowed men and women as members, and organized workers of all races and nationalities, without regard to current employment status. At its peak it had 150,000 members (with 200,000 membership cards issued between 1905 and 1916[61]), but it was fiercely repressed during, and especially after, World War I with many[citation needed] of its members killed, about 10,000[citation needed] organizers imprisoned, and thousands more deported as foreign agitators. In 1927 the IWW also led a successful Colorado general coal strike for better conditions.[62] The IWW proved that unskilled workers could be organized. The IWW exists today, but its most significant impact was during its first two decades of existence. Government and labor See also: National Civic Federation, Injunction, and Norris–La Guardia Act of 1932 In 1908 the US Supreme Court decided Loewe v. Lawlor (the Danbury Hatters' Case). In 1902 the Hatters' Union instituted a nationwide boycott of the hats made by a nonunion company in Connecticut. Owner Dietrich Loewe brought suit against the union for unlawful combinations to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Court ruled that the union was subject to an injunction and liable for the payment of triple damages. In 1915 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, speaking for the Court, again decided in favor of Loewe, upholding a lower federal court ruling ordering the union to pay damages of $252,130. (The cost of lawyers had already exceeded $100,000, paid by the AFL). This was not a typical case in which a few union leaders were punished with short terms in jail; specifically, the life savings of several hundreds of the members were attached. The lower court ruling established a major precedent, and became a serious issue for the unions. The Clayton Act of 1914 presumably exempted unions from the antitrust prohibition and established for the first time the Congressional principle that "the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce". However, judicial interpretation so weakened it that prosecutions of labor under the antitrust acts continued until the enactment of the Norris-La Guardia Act in 1932. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908), 235 U.S. 522 (1915) State legislation 1912–1918: 36 states adopted the principle of workmen's compensation for all industrial accidents. Also: prohibition of the use of an industrial poison, several states require one day's rest in seven, the beginning of effective prohibition of night work, of maximum limits upon the length of the working day, and of minimum wage laws for women. Colorado Coalfield War Main article: Colorado Coalfield War On 23 September 1913, the United Mine Workers of America declared a strike against the Rockefeller-owned Colorado Fuel and Iron, in what is better known as the Colorado Coalfield War. The peak of the violence came after months of back-and-forth murders that culminated in the 20 April 1914 Ludlow Massacre that killed over a dozen women and children when Colorado National Guard opened fire on a striker encampment at Ludlow. The strike is considered the deadliest labor unrest in American history.[63] World War I Main article: United States home front during World War I Samuel Gompers and nearly all labor unions were strong supporters of the war effort. They used their leverage to gain recognition and higher wages.[64] They minimized strikes as wages soared and full employment was reached. To keep factories running smoothly, Wilson established the National War Labor Board in 1918, which forced management to negotiate with existing unions.[65] The AFL unions and the railway brotherhoods strongly encouraged their young men to enlist in the United States Armed Forces. They fiercely opposed efforts to reduce recruiting and slow war production by the anti-war IWW and left-wing Socialists. President Wilson appointed Gompers to the powerful Council of National Defense, where he set up the War Committee on Labor. The AFL membership soared to 2.4 million in 1917. Anti-war socialists controlled the IWW, which fought against the war effort and was in turn shut down by legal action of the federal government.[66] Women in the labor force during WWI During WWI, large numbers of women were recruited into jobs that had either been vacated by men who had gone to fight in the war, or had been created as part of the war effort. The high demand for weapons and the overall wartime situation resulted in munitions factories collectively becoming the largest employer of American women by 1918.[67] While there was initial resistance to hiring women for jobs traditionally held by men, the war made the need for labor so urgent that women were hired in large numbers and the government even actively promoted the employment of women in war-related industries through recruitment drives. As a result, women not only began working in heavy industry, but also took other jobs traditionally reserved solely for men, such as railway guards, ticket collectors, bus and tram conductors, postal workers, police officers, firefighters, and clerks.[68] World War I saw women taking traditionally men's jobs in large numbers for the first time in American history.[67] Many women worked on the assembly lines of factories, producing trucks and munitions, while department stores employed African American women as elevator operators and cafeteria waitresses for the first time. The Food Administration helped housewives prepare more nutritious meals with less waste and with optimum use of the foods available.[68] Morale of women remained high, as millions joined the Red Cross as volunteers to help soldiers and their families, and with rare exceptions, women did not protest the draft.[69] The United States Department of Labor created a Women in Industry group, headed by prominent labor researcher and social scientist Mary van Kleeck.[70] This group helped develop standards for women who were working in industries connected to the war, alongside the War Labor Policies Board, of which van Kleeck was also a member. After the war, the Women in Industry Service group developed into the US Women's Bureau, headed by Mary Anderson.[71] Women of Color in 20th Century Labor Movements This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (February 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) Women of color played a significant role in the American labor movement of the 20th century, helping to advance workers' rights in a variety of workplace environments, including fields, factories, and homes. They used instruments including labor unions, strikes, and legislative campaigning to improve their working conditions, pay, and hours. These women took part in neighborhood projects addressing labor rights in addition to being involved in the women's suffrage and civil rights movements. Their principal battle was for equal treatment in society. A particularly famous leader of the African-American community was Ella Baker who helped organize the Young Negroes Cooperative League in the early 1930s, a group that was help pool community resources and provide cheaper goods and services to members. She later cofounded In Friendship, an organization that raised money for the civil rights movement. She went on to help form the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. Two other important leaders, Dorothy Height—who worked to help improve opportunities for African-American women—and activist Dolores Huerta—who lobbied on behalf of migrant farmers and eventually founded the United Farm Workers of America—were also essential in promoting social justice and fair labor standards. Their combined efforts made a big difference in creating a more diverse and equal workplace. Picture of Rose Schneiderman Jewish Women in 20th Century Labor Movements One must also recognize the significant role Jewish women played in the American labor movement of the 20th century. Jewish mass immigration came to the United States in the early twentieth century, just as the ready-made clothing industry skyrocketed. In the Old Country, most Jewish women were married off as quickly as possible; in America, that was no longer an option. Families counted on women's wages, sometimes sending that money back to their families in Europe or using it to pay the rent, buy food and clothing, bring relatives from Europe to America, or keep the men in their family in school. Most women learned to sew in the workshops of the Old Country and they utilized this skill to help them find jobs in the United States. Unfortunately, women who worked in garment factories were often subject to sexual harassment, unsafe conditions, exploitation, and wage discrimination. And yet, as Jews who emerged from a left-wing progressive tradition, these female garment workers nurtured a commitment to social justice, one that served as the catalyst for the labor organizing that these women later led. A number of unions were created in the Lower East Side during the beginning of the 20th century. Most were organized by the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, an organization that was founded in 1900 and, while initially founded by and only accessible to men, went on to be run by many Jewish women who advocated for education as a means of shaping a society that could support the working class. Strikes in the women's garment industry occurred almost yearly in one city or another. A notable example took place in 1909 and was led by Rose Schneiderman. Schneiderman worked as a cap maker in New York City and, after encountering poor working conditions, decided to organize a local union of the United Cloth and Cap Makers in New York City. Soon after, Schneiderman began serving as vice president of the New York Women's Trade Union League, where she organized the "Uprising of the 20,000" a landmark garment workers' strike that took place from 1909 to 1910 and eventually led to basic improvements for workers. Strikes of 1919 Main article: US Strike wave of 1919 See also: First Red Scare and Red Summer This article is missing information about the broader events & cause of the strikes. While the AFL did call some strikes, many independent strikes occurred, the AFL was not the cause, it was the end of the war. Please expand the article to include this information. Further details may exist on the talk page. (August 2023) In 1919, the AFL tried to make their gains permanent and called a series of major strikes in meat, steel,[72] and many other industries. Management counterattacked, claiming that key strikes were run by Communists intent on destroying capitalism.[73] Nearly all the strikes ultimately failed,[dubious – discuss] forcing unions back to positions similar to those around 1910.[74] Coal strike of 1919 Main article: UMW Coal Strike of 1919 "Keeping Warm": the Los Angeles Times, a conservative newspaper, demands federal action to stop the coal strike, November 22, 1919. The United Mine Workers under John L. Lewis called a strike for November 1, 1919, in all soft (bituminous) coal fields.[75] They had agreed to a wage agreement to run until the end of World War I and now sought to make permanent their wartime gains. US Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer invoked the Lever Act, a wartime measure that made it a crime to interfere with the production or transportation of necessities. Ignoring the court order 400,000 coal workers walked out. The coal operators played the radical card, saying Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky had ordered the strike and were financing it, and some of the press echoed that language.[76] Lewis, facing criminal charges and sensitive to the propaganda campaign, withdrew his strike call. Lewis did not fully control the faction-ridden UAW and many locals ignored his call.[77] As the strike dragged on into its third week, supplies of the nation's main fuel were running low and the public called for ever stronger government action. Final agreement came after five weeks with the miners getting a 14 percent raise.[78][79] Women telephone operators win strike in 1919 One important strike was won by labor. Moved to action by the rising cost of living, the president of the Boston Telephone Operator's Union, Julia O'Connor, asked for higher wages from the New England Telephone Company. Wages of operators averaged a third less than women in manufacturing.[80] In April, 9,000 women operators in New England went on strike, shutting down most telephone service. The company hired college students as strikebreakers, but they came under violent attack by men supporting the strikers. In a few days a settlement was reached giving higher wages. After the success O'Connor began a national campaign to organize women operators.[80] Weakness of organized labor, 1920–1929 The 1920s marked a period of sharp decline for the labor movement. Union membership and activities fell sharply due to many factors including generalized economic prosperity, a lack of leadership within the movement, and anti-union sentiments from employers, governments and the general population. Labor unions were much less able to organize strikes. In 1919, more than 4 million workers (or 21 percent of the labor force) participated in about 3,600 strikes. In contrast, 1929 witnessed about 289,000 workers (or 1.2 percent of the labor force) stage only 900 strikes.[81] The aftermath of the 1910 Los Angeles Times Bombing also contributed to a widespread decline in unionization. The bombing, one of dozens of terrorist sabotage events nationwide organized by members of the International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, killed 21 and injured over 100. The guilty verdicts "devastated the American labor movement, virtually paralyzing it until the New Deal."[82] After a short recession in 1920, the 1920s was a generally prosperous decade outside of farming and coal mining. The GNP growth 1921-29 was a very strong 6.0 percent, double the long-term average of about 3 percent.[83] Real annual earnings (in 1914 dollars) for all employees (deducting for unemployment) was $566 in 1921 and $793 in 1929, a real gain of 40 percent.[84] The economic prosperity of the decade led to stable prices, eliminating one major incentive to join unions.[85] Unemployment fell from 11.7 percent in 1921 to 2.4 percent in 1923 and remained in the range of 2 to 5 percent until 1930.[86] The 1920s also saw a lack of strong leadership within the labor movement. Samuel Gompers of the American Federation of Labor died in 1924 after serving as the organization's president for 37 years. Observers said successor William Green, who was the secretary-treasurer of the United Mine Workers, "lacked the aggressiveness and the imagination of the AFL's first president".[87] The AFL was down to less than 3 million members in 1925 after hitting a peak of 4 million members in 1920.[88] Employers across the nation led a successful campaign against unions known as the "American Plan", which sought to depict unions as "alien" to the nation's individualistic spirit.[89] In addition, some employers, like the National Association of Manufacturers, used Red Scare tactics to discredit unionism by linking them to subversive activities.[90] US courts were less hospitable to union activities during the 1920s than in the past. In this decade, corporations used twice as many court injunctions against strikes than any comparable period. In addition, the practice of forcing employees (by threat of termination) to sign yellow-dog contracts that said they would not join a union was not outlawed until 1932.[90] Although the labor movement fell in prominence during the 1920s, the Great Depression would ultimately bring it back to life. Battle of Blair Mountain Main article: Battle of Blair Mountain The Battle of Blair Mountain, August 25, 1921 – September 2, 1921, was the largest labor uprising in United States history. The conflict occurred in Logan County, West Virginia, as part of the Coal Wars, a series of early-20th-century labor disputes in Appalachia. For five days from late August to early September 1921, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers recruited and backed by coal mine operators during the miners' attempt to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after the United States Army, represented by the West Virginia Army National Guard, intervened by presidential order, and the miners, many of whom were veterans, declined to shoot at the soldiers. In the short term the battle was an overwhelming victory for coal industry owners and management. United Mine Workers of America membership plummeted from more than 50,000 miners to approximately 10,000 over the next several years. New England Textile Strike of 1922 Main article: 1922 New England Textile Strike The New England Textile strike was widespread textile mill strike throughout New England, starting on January 23. Anywhere from 40,000 to 68,000 workers struck and it lasted until around November for most mills. The immediate cause was a proposal for a 20% wage cut and increased working hours. The strike led to a reversal of the wage cut for most workers.[91][92][93] Great Railroad Strike of 1922 Main article: Great Railroad Strike of 1922 The Great Railroad Strike of 1922, a nationwide railroad shop workers strike, began on July 1. The immediate cause of the strike was the Railroad Labor Board's announcement that hourly wages for railway repair and maintenance workers would be cut by seven cents on July 1. This cut, which represented an average 12 percent wage decrease for the affected workers, prompted a shop workers vote on whether or not to strike. The operators' union did not join in the strike, and the railroads employed strikebreakers to fill three-fourths of the roughly 400,000 vacated positions, increasing hostilities between the railroads and the striking workers.[94] On September 1, a federal judge issued the sweeping "Daugherty Injunction" against striking, assembling, and picketing. Unions bitterly resented the injunction; a few sympathy strikes shut down some railroads completely. The strike eventually died out as many shopmen made deals with the railroads on the local level. The often unpalatable concessions — coupled with memories of the violence and tension during the strike — soured relations between the railroads and the shopmen for years.[94] Organized labor, 1929–1955 Open battle between striking teamsters armed with pipes and the police in the streets of Minneapolis in June 1934 Further information: Strikes in the United States in the 1930s The Great Depression and organized labor Main article: Great Depression in the United States The stock market crashed in October 1929, and ushered in the Great Depression. By the winter of 1932–33, the economy was so perilous that the unemployment rate hit the 25 percent mark.[95] Unions lost members during this time because laborers could not afford to pay their dues and furthermore, numerous strikes against wage cuts left the unions impoverished: "one might have expected a reincarnation of organizations seeking to overthrow the capitalistic system that was now performing so poorly. Some workers did indeed turn to such radical movements as the Communist Party, but, in general, the nation seemed to have been shocked into inaction".[96] Though unions were not acting yet, cities across the nation witnessed local and spontaneous marches by frustrated relief applicants. In March 1930, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers marched through New York City, Detroit, Washington, San Francisco and other cities in a mass protest organized by the Communist Party's Unemployed Councils. In 1931, more than 400 relief protests erupted in Chicago and that number grew to 550 in 1932.[95] The leadership behind these organizations often came from radical groups like Communist and Socialist parties, who wanted to organize "unfocused neighborhood militancy into organized popular defense organizations".[95] However the Great Depression spawned labor action in Harlan County, Kentucky, now known as the Harlan County War, when the Harlan County Coal Operators Association cut wages by 10% in the winter of 1931. This decision had caused the United Mine Workers to organize, leading to the eviction of the mine workers from the coal town. These evicted workers immigrated to the town of Evarts, Kentucky, where they would plan union activity. Sheriff J. H. Blair led a force of 140 deputies who were mostly paid by the coal company. Various skirmishes between striking miners and deputies ensued in Evarts. As the situation escalated, socialist organizations such as the Industrial Workers of the World sent aid to the miners, giving it national coverage.[97] The Norris–La Guardia Anti-Injunction Act of 1932 Main article: Norris–La Guardia Act Organized labor became more active in 1932, with the passage of the Norris–La Guardia Act. On March 23, 1932, Republican President Herbert Hoover signed the Norris–La Guardia Act, marking the first of many pro-union bills that Washington would pass in the 1930s.[88] Also known as the Anti-Injunction Bill, it offered procedural and substantive protections against the easy issuance of court injunctions during labor disputes, which had limited union behavior in the 1920s.[98] Although the act only applied to federal courts, numerous states would pass similar acts in the future. Additionally, the act outlawed yellow-dog contracts, which were documents some employers forced their employees to sign to ensure they would not join a union; employees who refused to sign were terminated from their jobs.[99] The passage of the Norris–La Guardia Act signified a victory for the American Federation of Labor, which had been lobbying Congress to pass it for slightly more than five years.[88] It also marked a large change in public policy. Up until the passage of this act, the collective bargaining rights of workers were severely hampered by judicial control.[100] FDR and the National Industrial Recovery Act Main articles: New Deal and National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office on March 4, 1933, and immediately began implementing programs to alleviate the economic crisis. In June, he passed the National Industrial Recovery Act, which gave workers the right to organize into unions.[88] Though it contained other provisions, like minimum wage and maximum hours, its most significant passage was, "Employees shall have the right to organize and bargain collectively through representative of their own choosing, and shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers." This portion, which was known as Section 7(a), was symbolic to workers in the United States because it stripped employers of their rights to either coerce them or refuse to bargain with them.[98] While no power of enforcement was written into the law, it "recognized the rights of the industrial working class in the United States".[101] For example, the now United Mine Workers of America were able to reignite the coal labor movement in Kentucky and West Virginia with Section 7(a) and eliminated compulsory residence in company towns for 350,000 miners.[102] Although the National Industrial Recovery Act was ultimately deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1935 and replaced by the Wagner Act two months after that, it fueled workers to join unions and strengthened those organizations.[88] In response to both the Norris–La Guardia Act and the NIRA, workers who were previously unorganized in a number of industries—such as rubber workers, oil and gas workers and service workers—began to look for organizations that would allow them to band together.[101] The NIRA strengthened workers' resolve to unionize and instead of participating in unemployment or hunger marches, they started to participate in strikes for union recognition in various industries".[103] In 1933, the number of work stoppages jumped to 1,695, double its figure from 1932. In 1934, 1,865 strikes occurred, involving more than 1.4 million workers.[104] The elections of 1934 might have reflected the "radical upheaval sweeping the country", as Roosevelt won the greatest majority either party ever held in the Senate and 322 Democrats won seats in the United States House of Representatives versus 103 Republicans. It is possible that "the great social movement from below thus strengthened the independence of the executive branch of government".[101] Despite the impact of such changes on the United States' political structure and on workers' empowerment, some scholars have criticized the impacts of these policies from a classical economic perspective. Cole and Ohanian (2004) find that the New Deal's pro-labor policies are an important factor in explaining the weak recovery from the Great Depression and the rise in real wages in some industrial sectors during this time.[105] The American Federation of Labor: craft unionism vs. industrial unionism The AFL was growing rapidly, from 2.1 million members in 1933 to 3.4 million in 1936. But it was experiencing severe internal stresses regarding how to organize new members.[106] Traditionally, the AFL organized unions by craft rather than industry, where electricians or stationary engineers would form their own skill-oriented unions, rather than join a large automobile-making union. Most AFL leaders, including president William Green, were reluctant to shift from the organization's long-standing craft unionism and started to clash with other leaders within the organization, such as John L. Lewis.[98] The issue came up at the annual AFL convention in San Francisco in 1934 and 1935, but the majority voted against a shift to industrial unionism both years. After the defeat at the 1935 convention, nine leaders from the industrial faction led by Lewis met and organized the Committee for Industrial Organization within the AFL to "encourage and promote organization of workers in the mass production industries" for "educational and advisory" functions.[98] The CIO, which later changed its name to the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), formed unions with the hope of bringing them into the AFL, but the AFL refused to extend full membership privileges to CIO unions. In 1938, the AFL expelled the CIO and its million members, and they formed a rival federation.[107] The two federations fought it out for membership; while both supported Roosevelt and the New Deal, the CIO was further to the left, while the AFL had close ties to the big city machines. John L. Lewis and the CIO Main article: Congress of Industrial Organizations John L. Lewis (1880–1969) was the president of the United Mine Workers of America (UMW) from 1920 to 1960, and the driving force behind the founding of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). Using UMW organizers the new CIO established the United Steel Workers of America (USWA) and organized millions of other industrial workers in the 1930s.[108] Lewis threw his support behind Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) at the outset of the New Deal. After the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935, Lewis traded on the tremendous appeal that Roosevelt had with workers in those days, sending organizers into the coal fields to tell workers "The President wants you to join the Union." His UMW was one of FDR's main financial supporters in 1936, contributing over $500,000.[109] Lewis expanded his base by organizing the so-called "captive mines", those held by the steel producers such as US Steel. That required in turn organizing the steel industry, which had defeated union organizing drives in 1892 and 1919 and which had resisted all organizing efforts since then fiercely. The task of organizing steelworkers, on the other hand, put Lewis at odds with the AFL, which looked down on both industrial workers and the industrial unions that represented all workers in a particular industry, rather than just those in a particular skilled trade or craft. Lewis was the first president of the Committee of Industrial Organizations. Lewis, in fact, was the CIO: his UMWA provided the great bulk of the financial resources that the CIO poured into organizing drives by the United Automobile Workers (UAW), the United Steelworkers of America, the Textile Workers Union and other newly formed or struggling unions. Lewis hired back many of the people he had exiled from the UMWA in the 1920s to lead the CIO and placed his protégé Philip Murray at the head of the Steel Workers Organizing Committee. The most dramatic success was the 1936-7 sit-down strike that paralyzed General Motors. It enabled CIO unionization of GM and the main automobile firms (except the Ford Motor Company, which held out for a few years).[110] However it had negative ramifications, as the Gallup Poll reported, "More than anything else the use of the sit-down strike alienated the sympathies of the middle classes".[111] The CIO's actual membership (as opposed to publicity figures) was 2,850,000 for February 1942. This included 537,000 members of the auto workers (UAW), nearly 500,000 Steel Workers, almost 300,000 members of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, about 180,000 Electrical Workers, and about 100,000 Rubber Workers. The CIO also included 550,000 members of the United Mine Workers, which did not formally withdraw from the CIO until later in the year. The remaining membership of 700,000 was scattered among thirty-odd smaller unions.[112] Historians of the union movement in the 1930s have tried to explain its remarkable success in terms of the rank and file—what motivated them to suddenly rally around leaders (such as John L. Lewis) who had been around for decades with little success. Why was the militancy of the mid-1930s so short lived?[113][114][115] Union upsurge in World War II Main article: United States home front during World War II Union membership grew very rapidly from 2.8 million in 1933 to 8.4 million in 1941, covering 23% of the non-farm workforce, reaching 14 million in 1945, about 36 percent of the work force. By the mid-1950s, the merged AFL-CIO still collected dues from over 15 million members, a third of the non-farm workforce. Unionization was strongest in large northern cities, and weakest across the south, where repeated mobilization efforts failed. The 1937 split off of the CIO cost the AFL over a million members, but it added 760,000 on its own. Between 1937 and 1945 the CIO recruited two million new members, but the AFL recruited nearly 4 million. After some bitter battles in the late 1930s, the AFL and CIO had relatively few jurisdictional disputes, each focusing on its own specialized industries. The CIO was strongest in large manufacturing industries especially auto, steel, meatpacking, coal, and electrical appliances. The AFL affiliates were strongest in construction trades, trucking, department stores, and public service. The railway brotherhoods continued their independent status.[116] Both the AFL and CIO supported Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, with 75 percent or more of their votes, after spending millions of dollars, and mobilizing tens of thousands of precinct workers.[117][118] However, Lewis opposed Roosevelt on foreign policy grounds in 1940, but his members ignored his advice to voted against FDR and he resigned as CIO chief. During the 22 months 1939-1941 when Stalin and Hitler supported each other, the far-left opposed American aid to Britain's war against Germany. They called strikes in war industries that were supplying Lend Lease to Britain. The most dramatic case came in early June 1941, when a wildcat strike near Los Angeles closed the plant that produced a fourth of the fighter-planes. With the approval of CIO leadership, President Roosevelt sent in the national guard to reopen the plant. However, when Germany suddenly invaded the USSR in late June 1941, the Communist activists suddenly became the strongest supporters of war production; they crushed wildcat strikes.[119][120][121] Lewis realized that he had enormous leverage over the nation's energy supply. In 1943, the middle of the war, when the rest of labor was observing a policy against strikes, Lewis led the coal miners out on a twelve-day strike for higher wages. The bipartisan Conservative coalition in Congress passed anti-union legislation over liberal opposition, most notably the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947.[122] A statistical analysis of the AFL and CIO national and local leaders in 1945 shows that opportunity for advancement in the labor movement was wide open. In contrast with other elites, the labor leaders did not come from established WASP families with rich, well-educated backgrounds. Indeed, they closely resembled the overall national population of adult men, with fewer from the South and from farm backgrounds. The union leaders were heavily Democratic. The newer CIO had a younger leadership, and one more involved with third parties, and less involved with local civic activities. Otherwise the AFL and CIO leaders were quite similar in background.[123] Women take new jobs in World War II The war caused the military mobilization of 16 million American men, leaving a huge hole in the urban work force. (Men in farming were exempt from the draft.) In 1945, 37% of women were employed, encouraged by factors such as patriotism[124] and the chance for high wages.[125] One in 4 married women were working by 1945.[126] Many domestic workers took jobs that paid much better, especially in war factories.[127] During the war nearly 6 million women joined the workforce. They filled roles that men had monopolized, such as steel workers, lumber workers, and bus drivers.[68] By 1945 there were 4.7 women in clerical positions which was an 89% increase from 1940. Another 4.5 million women working in factories, usually in unskilled positions, up 112%.[127] The aviation industry saw the highest increase in female workers during the war. By 1943 310,000 women worked there, or 65% of the industry's workforce.[126] While women's wages rose more relative to men's during this period, real wages did not increase due to higher wartime income taxes.[128] Although jobs that had been previously closed to women opened up, demographics such as African American women who had already been participating more fully experienced less change. Their husbands' income effect was historically even more positive than white women's. During the war, African American women engagement as domestic servants decreased from 59.9% to 44.6%, but Karen Anderson in 1982 characterized their experience as “last hired, first fired.”[129] At the end of the war, most of the munitions-making jobs ended. Many factories were closed; others retooled for civilian production. In some jobs, women were replaced by returning veterans who did not lose seniority because they were in service. However, the number of women at work in 1946 was 87% of the number in 1944, leaving 13% left the labor force to become housewives.[130] Walter Reuther and UAW Main article: United Auto Workers The Flint Sit-Down Strike of 1936–37 was the decisive event in the formation of the United Auto Workers Union (UAW). During the war Walter Reuther took control of the UAW, and soon led major strikes in 1946. He ousted the Communists from the positions of power, especially at the Ford local. He was one of the most articulate and energetic leaders of the CIO, and of the merged AFL-CIO. Using brilliant negotiating tactics he leveraged high profits for the Big Three automakers into higher wages and superior benefits for UAW members.[131] PAC and politics of 1940s New enemies appeared for the labor unions after 1935. Newspaper columnist Westbrook Pegler was especially outraged by the New Deal's support for powerful labor unions that he considered morally and politically corrupt. Pegler saw himself a populist and muckraker whose mission was to warn the nation that dangerous leaders were in power. In 1941 Pegler became the first columnist ever to win a Pulitzer Prize for reporting, for his work in exposing racketeering in Hollywood labor unions, focusing on the criminal career of William Morris Bioff. Pegler's popularity reflected a loss of support for unions and liberalism generally, especially as shown by the dramatic Republican gains in the 1946 elections, often using an anti-union theme.[132] Strike wave of 1945 Main article: Strike wave of 1945–1946 With the end of the war in August 1945 came a wave of major strikes, mostly led by the CIO. In November, the UAW sent their 180,000 GM workers to the picket lines; they were joined in January 1946 by a half-million steelworkers, as well as over 200,000 electrical workers and

The dark side of history: https://thememoryhole.substack.com/ The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly known as the School of the Americas,[2] is a United States Department of Defense school located at Fort Moore in Columbus, Georgia, renamed in the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act. The institute was founded in 1946; by 2000, more than 60,000 Latin American military, law enforcement, and security personnel had attended the school. The school was located in the Panama Canal Zone until its expulsion in 1984. The school is strongly associated with the dirty wars carried out by U.S.-supported military juntas in South America, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s. Many of its alumni served in repressive, undemocratic governments and engaged in human rights abuses, such as torture and enforced disappearances. History Latin American Training Center-Ground Division In 1946, the United States Army founded the Latin American Training Center-Ground Division (Centro de Entrenamiento Latino Americano, Division Terrestre)[3] at Fort Amador in the Panama Canal Zone to centralize the "administrative tasks involved in training the increasing number of Latin Americans attending U.S. service schools in the canal zone."[3][4] The school trained Latin American military personnel to use artillery and advanced weapons purchased from the United States and provided instruction in nation-building. The army soon renamed the division the Latin American Ground School (Escuela Latino Americana Terrestre) and divided it into three departments: engineering, communications, and weapons and tactics. The school was affiliated with army training schools in Panama that included the Food Service School (Fort Clayton), the Motor Mechanics School (Fort Randolph), and the Medical School (Fort Clayton).[3] Chronic under-enrollment occurred during the school's first few years, as Latin American officials preferred to have personnel trained within the continental United States. Cadets of varying degrees of education and military experience were placed in the same courses. In 1947, discussions of national castes and class divisions in Latin American countries among U.S. officials led to changes in course structure that created separate classes for officers and lower-ranks.[5] During the 1940s and 1950s, the school sought to prove that the quality of training provided matched or exceeded training provided by institutions within the U.S. When a group of Argentine officers attended a three-month course in 1948, the school painstakingly structured the program to convince them that the U.S. was "enterprising, efficient, and powerful." Administrators leveraged preconceived notions around Argentine racial superiority in Latin America to cultivate feelings of equality between the Argentine officers and their U.S. counterparts.[5] Scholar Lesley Gill has argued that the Ground School not only trained students, but incorporated them "into the ideology of the 'American way of life' by steeping them in a vision of empire that identified their aspirations with those of the United States."[6] U.S. Army Caribbean School In February 1949, the army consolidated the training schools in the Panama Canal Zone and transferred operations to Fort Gulick.[7] The army changed the name of the Latin American Ground School to the U.S. Army Caribbean School.[8][9] Some courses were taught in Spanish to accommodate requests from Latin American countries that the school served.[10][3] The school graduated 743 U.S. military personnel and 251 Latin Americans representing ten countries in 1949.[citation needed] Mutual defense assistance agreements bound the U.S. Army to the militaries of Latin America by the middle of the 1950s, with only Mexico and Argentina as exceptions.[11] By 1954, the school's pupils were overwhelmingly from Latin American countries due to a decrease in U.S. military personnel in the region, an increased utilization of the school by governments in Latin America, and an agreement that the United States would pay "transportation, per diem and course costs for military trainees from MDAP countries in Latin America."[12] In 1956, English was eliminated as an instructional language and the school adopted Spanish as its official language. Accordingly, the majority of U.S. personnel the school trained between 1956 and 1964 were Puerto Rican.[citation needed] During this period, the army utilized the school for translation. In 1955, the Department of the Army established the Spanish Translation Review Board within the school to "review new and old translations of U.S. Army Field Manuals prior to publishing to correct grammatical and technical errors and to assist in the standardization of military terms" employed in Spanish-language curricula. In 1961, General Lyman Lemnitzer suggested that Latin American students could be utilized to "review translations to insure conformance with individual country language and practical applicability."[13] After the 1959 revolution in Cuba, the U.S. Military adopted a national security doctrine under the perceived threat of an "international communist conspiracy."[14] In 1961, President John F. Kennedy ordered the school to focus on teaching "anti-communist" counterinsurgency training to military personnel from Latin America.[15] Broadly, the U.S. offered training to Latin Americans in riot and mob control, special warfare, jungle warfare, intelligence and counterintelligence, civil affairs, and public information.[16] According to anthropologist Lesley Gill, the label "communist" was a highly elastic category that could accommodate almost any critic of the status quo."[17] Nicaraguan Dictator Anastasio Somoza made occasional visits to the school.[18] Curriculum To accommodate objectives of cooperation between the United States and Latin America established by President Kennedy in the Alliance for Progress in 1961, the school's curriculum was constructed and reorganized into two departments.[citation needed] The Department of Internal Defense dealt with "national internal defense", while the Counterinsurgency Committee provided counterinsurgency training in ten-week and two-week courses.[19][citation needed] According to the Department of Defense, the school provided intelligence and counter-intelligence training to "foreign military personnel" under the Mutual Assistance Program.[20] It also trained military police and maintained a close relationship with the Inter-American Police Academy.[19] As part of an effort to emphasize "nation building and economic growth through military civic action," the school taught "technical skills applicable to civic action programs."[19][citation needed] These skills included bridge building, well-drilling, radio repair, medical technique, and water purification.[citation needed] School of the Americas The grounds of the school in Panama, photographed post-closure in 2006. In 1963, officials renamed the facility the U.S. Army School of the Americas "to better reflect its hemispheric orientation."[21] By its closure in 2000, The USARSA had graduated 60,428 officers, cadets, noncommissioned officers, police and civilian defense officials from 22 Latin American countries and the United States.[22] During the mid-1960s, the school was one of several institutions through which the U.S. Army augmented "training in jungle warfare".[23] In the first years of the decade, the Army made the Jungle Operations Committee part of the School of the Americas.[citation needed] This addition resulted in a surge in attendance by U.S. military personnel. By 1967, the school had graduated 22,265 U.S. soldiers.[citation needed] The Department of Defense reported to President Lyndon B. Johnson that 180 students from the Continental U.S. Base had been trained in 1965, including 60 from the 1st Cavalry Division deployed in the Republic of Vietnam.[23] The Jungle Operations Course included in-field exercises. For example, in 1966 a company of 103 students from Panama and 4 other Latin American countries enrolled in the Jungle Operations Course, U.S. Army School of the Americas, Fort Gulick, Canal Zone, recently completed a 9 day tactical exercise crossing the Isthmus of Panama, a ground distance of about 55 miles, through jungle, swamp and water. Symbolically following in the footsteps of Spanish explorers 300 years ago, the crossing began with an amphibious landing on the Pacific side of the Isthmus. The exercise ended with the last student completing the trek by emptying a container of Pacific Ocean Water into the Caribbean. The 9 day exercise emphasized jungle operations and tactics and techniques of combat in this environment. The U.S. Army School of the Americas' Jungle Operations Committee supervised and controlled the maneuver.[24] Heightened tensions in Southeast Asia increased demand for "jungle operations techniques".[24] In 1966, the army ordered the Commander, U.S. Army Forces Southern Command, to augment the school's Jungle Operations Course to accommodate more students. Specifically, these new students were to be soldiers "enroute to assignments in units serving in the Republic of Vietnam."[24] A feedback-loop created between the school and General Westmoreland's headquarters allowed the Army to ensure that "lessons learned" in Vietnam were incorporated into the curriculum.[24] Scholar J. Patrice McSherry has argued that methods derived from Vietnam and incorporated into the curriculum included "torture techniques and other dirty war methods".[25] Further, the school leveraged instructors returning from service in Vietnam to "insure currency of the instruction".[24] As new techniques were developed and adopted, the military became increasingly protective of course content. According to one scholar, by the mid-to-late 1960s "trainees required security clearances even to view the course descriptions of military intelligence courses."[26] The counterinsurgency manuals that the school used for instruction were produced during the Army's Project X, established under the Foreign Intelligence Assistance Program in 1965–66, which relied on knowledge produced during the Central Intelligence Agency's Phoenix Program.[26] According to Major Joseph Blair, a former instructor at the school, "the author of SOA and CIA torture manuals [...] drew from intelligence materials used during the Vietnam War that advocated assassination, torture, extortion, and other 'techniques'."[26] McSherry argues that the authors of the manuals "believed that oversight regulations and prohibitions applied only to U.S. personnel, not to foreign officers."[26] Use of the manuals was suspended under President Jimmy Carter over concerns about their correlation to human rights abuses.[25] Despite Carter's worries about the school's training materials, he believed that the international military education and training provided by the School of the Americas, among other institutions, was critical to furthering "the national interests of the United States".[27] He considered the training conducted in Panama to be essential because it enhanced American "access to the politically influential leadership" of the Panamanian National Guard and instilled in its personnel "attitudes favorable to the United States".[27] Further, he believed the training served to "increase respect for United States foreign policy goals and the United States concept of military-civilian relationships at the national level".[27] To justify his decision to "provision international military education and training" to Panama in 1980, Carter argued that not doing so would "endanger the future operation" of the School of the Americas and the Inter-American Air Force Academy.[27] Training manuals suspended under Carter were re-introduced into the school's curriculum under the Reagan Administration in 1982.[26] During the 1970s, the quantity of trainees sent by Latin American dictatorships backed by the United States increased greatly. Between 1970 and 1979, cadets from Chile, Colombia, Bolivia, Panama, Peru, and Honduras made up sixty-three percent of the school's students.[28] In the late 1970s, civil wars and communist revolutions intensified the Central American crisis. In 1980, the United States increased economic aid to Honduras, which remained relatively stable compared to other Central American countries. Journalist Ray Bonner reported that much of this aid would go toward training military officers at the School of the Americas and to training programs within the continental United States.[29] Hundreds of Hondurans were trained at the school during the 1980s, when the country became increasingly critical to President Ronald Reagan's efforts to overthrow and defeat the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and other revolutionary guerrilla movements in the region.[30] The surge in trainees during the 1980s marked the second wave of Hondurans to be trained by the school. The first wave took place between 1950 and 1969, when 1000 Honduran cadets were trained at the school or other facilities within the United States.[31] During the 1980s, Mexico, El Salvador, and Colombia made-up seventy two percent of the school's cadets.[32] On September 21, 1984, the school was expelled from Panama under the terms of the Panama Canal Treaty. Prior to this expulsion, politicians and journalists in Panama had complained that civilian graduates from the school engaged in repressive and antidemocratic behavior.[33] The army considered relocating the school to Fort Allen in Juana Díaz, Puerto Rico, ultimately choosing Fort Benning (now Fort Moore), Georgia, where it re-opened in December 1984 as part of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command.[34] In 1989, the school established a policy on human rights instruction and revised its curriculum to integrate human rights training.[35] According to the school, cadets received between four and forty hours of human rights training depending on their length of attendance. Instructors received sixteen hours of human rights training before they began to teach.[36] As the Cold War drew to a close around 1991, the foreign policy of the United States shifted focus from "anti-communism" to the War on Drugs, with "narcoguerillas" replacing "communists".[37]: 10  This term was later replaced by "the more ominous sounding 'terrorist'".[37]: 10  Now, all elements of the School of the Americas are located at Fort Moore with the exception of the Helicopter School Battalion which is located at Fort Novosel, Alabama.[38] Congressional Criticism and Debate In 1993, a released list of 60,000 graduates confirmed that "dictators, death squad operatives, and assassins" had been educated at the SOA.[4] Two bills to cut funding to the school were rejected by the House of Representatives in 1993 and 1994. These bills were introduced by Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II with the intent to close the school by eliminating the amount of funding dedicated to running the school. Despite the rejection of the 1994 bill, legislative action that year required a report on the school's promotion of respect for human rights and civilian authority. This request was included in the Foreign Operations Appropriations measure for fiscal year 1995. The report required explanation of how the "School of the Americas IMET program" would "contribute to the promotion of human rights, respect for civilian authority and the rule of law, the establishment of legitimate judicial mechanisms for the military, and achieving the goal of right sizing military forces."[36] In 1995, the House Appropriations Committee urged the Department of Defense to continue its ongoing efforts to incorporate human rights training into the School of the Americas regular training curriculum, as well as to employ stringent screening processes to potential students to ensure that they had not carried out past human rights abuse.[36] That same year, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II introduced bill H.R. 2652, which sought "to close the School of the Americas and establish a U.S. Academy for Democracy and Civil-Military Relations." The bill stalled in January 1996 while awaiting executive comment from the Department of Defense.[39] Again in 1996, the committee urged the Department of Defense to continue efforts to incorporate human rights training into the regular curriculum and to monitor the human rights performance of its graduates. A report regarding the school's selection process and monitoring of human rights practices of its graduates, as well as examples in which graduates made significant contributions to democracy-building and improved human rights practices, was requested by the House Appropriations Committee in 1996.[36] In September 1996, the Pentagon made training manuals used by the School of the Americas available to the public and confirmed publicly that tactics conveyed in the manuals "violated American policy and principles." The Pentagon declared that all copies of the manuals had been destroyed apart from a single copy retained by its general counsel.[40] An investigation was undertaken to ensure that the school's contemporary intelligence and counterintelligence materials were in "complete compliance with law, regulations and policy."[40] Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II stated that the manuals confirmed that "taxpayer dollars have been used to train military officers in executions, extortion, beatings and other acts of intimidation – all clear civil rights abuses which have no place in civilized society."[40][41] Rep. Nancy Pelosi addressed the issue in the congressional record: For years, some of us have had serious questions about the Army's School of the Americas and its connection to some of the worst human rights violators in our hemisphere. Last weekend, information released by the Pentagon confirmed our worst suspicions: U.S. Army intelligence manuals, distributed to thousands of military officers throughout Latin America, promoted the use of executions, torture, blackmail, and other forms of coercion. We now have concrete proof of what we had suspected. For almost 10 years, U.S. taxpayer dollars were used to promote an approach that advocates using, and I quote, "fear, payment of bounties for enemy dead, beatings, false imprisonment, executions, and the use of truth serum".[42] Congress continued to debate whether or not to close the school throughout 1997. In February, Representative Kennedy introduced another bill, H.R. 611, that sought to close the school. Instead of pressing for the establishment of the U.S. Academy for Democracy and Civil-Military Relations, the bill urged the Department of Defense to create an Inter-American Center for Defense Studies in order to "provide professional training and education relevant to defense management in a democratic constitutional context." Senator Dick Durbin introduced a similar bill, S.980, into the senate in June. That same month, the Department of Defense submitted the report previously requested to address screening and monitoring of the school's students. The House Appropriations Committee noted that the report was delivered six months beyond its deadline and criticized its content as "woefully inadequate". The report divulged that the screening and selection processes of school candidates differed between countries and that each country was responsible for screening and selecting candidates. According to the report, the names of selected candidates were sent to the "appropriate [U.S.] mission offices and agencies", who were expected to run their own background checks on the candidates. It also suggested that the resources required to monitor all 60,000 graduates were not available.[36] In July, the House Appropriations Commission reported that the House version of the foreign operations appropriation bill required major reforms before funding would be provided to the school.[36] In September, numerous senators entered statements in the congressional record to support or close the School of the Americas. Rep. Sanford Bishop, whose district includes the school, argued for keeping it open: I am proud of the school. All Americans should be. It has provided professional training to thousands of military and civilian police personnel from throughout Latin America, including extensive indoctrination in the principles of human rights and representative democracy. For less than $4 million a year, the school promotes democracy, builds stronger relationships with our neighbors, and combats narcotics trafficking. Some handful of the school's graduates have committed terrible crimes, but over 68,000 have been on the front lines of the move toward democracy in Latin America. The school has undergone a series of investigations and studies, and all confirm that it has been a force for good in our hemisphere. I urge all of my colleagues to visit the school, learn more about the job it is doing, and not to rush to judgment on the basis of false and unfounded accusations made by people who may have good intentions, but who have little regard for the facts. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the truth. Support the School of the Americas.[43] Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II entered a counterargument into the congressional record: Mr. Speaker, in the next couple of hours, this House will have the opportunity of closing down the School of the Americas. This is one of the worst vestiges of this country's foreign policies over the course of the last couple of decades. While the cold war has ended, the association of this country in hundreds of villages throughout Latin America, in thousands of families where human rights abuses have taken place time and time and time again, those who perpetrated those human rights abuses have one thing in common. They were graduates of the School of the Americas. This is a school that is funded by U.S. taxpayers. It has trained the Latin American militaries how to come to this country and learn to kill, torture, and maim more efficiently. It is a school that should never have been associated with U.S. taxpayer funds. It is a school whose time has not only come and gone, but whose time should never have been associated with this country. It is time, I believe, for us to close down the School of the Americas. I ask Members on both sides of the aisle, save the taxpayers money. Close the School of the Americas. In July 1999, the House of Representatives voted 230–197 to reduce funding for the school by two million dollars. A House-Senate committee voted 8–7 to overturn the vote in the weeks that followed. WHINSEC By 2000, the School of the Americas was under increasing criticism in the United States for training students who later participated in undemocratic governments and committed human rights abuses. In 2000, the US Congress, through the FY01 National Defense Act, withdrew the Secretary of the Army's authority to operate USARSA.[44] The next year, the institute was renamed to WHINSEC. U.S. Army Maj. Joseph Blair, a former director of instruction at the school, said in 2002 that "there are no substantive changes besides the name. ...They teach the identical courses that I taught and changed the course names and use the same manuals."[45] In 2013, researcher Ruth Blakeley concluded after interviews with WHINSEC personnel and anti-SOA/WHINSEC protesters that "there was considerable transparency ... established after the transition from SOA to WHINSEC" and that "a much more rigorous human rights training program was in place than in any other US military institution".[46] However, the first WHINSEC Director, Richard Downie, became the controversial director of the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS), the educational institution of both the U.S. Northern and U.S. Southern Commands (SOUTHCOM), at the National Defense University in Washington, DC. from March 2004–March, 2013. During Downie's tenure at CHDS, the institution faced controversy over its continued employment of a former military officer from Chile, who was later indicted by a civilian court for his alleged participation in torture and murder and who was defended by Downie.[47][48] In addition, The Intercept reported that Honduran plotters in the illegal 2009 military coup received "behind-the-scenes assistance" from CHDS officials working for Downie. The detailed August 2017 article noted that Cresencio Arcos, a former U.S. ambassador to Honduras who was working at the Center at the time the coup occurred, received an angry call from a Congressional staffer who had met with the Honduran colonels who were meeting with Members of Congress in Washington. The colonels purportedly told the staffer they had the center's support. Arcos confronted Downie and Center Deputy Director Ken LaPlante, telling them, "We cannot have this sort of thing happening, where we're supporting coups." LaPlante was a former instructor at the notorious School of the Americas and an ardent defender of that institution while at what is now called the William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies.[49][50][51][52] Participation Since its opening in 2001, WHINSEC has trained more than 19,000 students from 36 countries of the Western Hemisphere.[53] In 2014–2015, the principal "Command & General Staff Officer" course had 65 graduates (60 male and five female) representing 13 nations: Belize, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and the U.S.[54] In 2004, Venezuela ceased all training of its soldiers at WHINSEC[55] after a long period of chilling relations between the United States and Venezuela. On March 28, 2006, the government of Argentina, headed by President Néstor Kirchner, decided to stop sending soldiers to train at WHINSEC, and the government of Uruguay affirmed that it would continue its current policy of not sending soldiers to WHINSEC.[56][57] In 2007, Óscar Arias, president of Costa Rica, decided to stop sending Costa Rican police to the WHINSEC, although he later reneged, saying the training would be beneficial for counter-narcotics operations. Costa Rica has no military but has sent some 2,600 police officers to the school.[58] Bolivian President Evo Morales formally announced on February 18, 2008, that he would not send Bolivian military or police officers to WHINSEC.[59] In 2012, President Rafael Correa announced that Ecuador would withdraw all their troops from the military school at Ft. Benning, citing links to human rights violations.[60] In 2005, a bill to abolish the institute, with 134 cosponsors, was introduced to the House Armed Services Committee.[61] In June 2007, the McGovern/Lewis Amendment to shut off funding for the Institute failed by six votes.[62] This effort to close the institute was endorsed by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, which described the Institute as a "black eye" for America.[63] Commandants USCARIB School This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items. (June 2018) Col. Cecil Himes (1959–1961). Col. Edgar W. Schroeder (1961–1963) (According to another source, Cecil Himes was commandant from 1958 to 1961.) School of the Americas This list is incomplete; you can help by adding missing items. (March 2018) ? (1964–1972) Col. John O. Ford (June 1968-January 1971) Col. Joseph Villa (around 1973) ? (1973–1984) Col. Michael J. Sierra (1984–1985) (transfer from Fort Gulick, Panama to Fort Benning, GA) Col. Miguel A. García (1985–1988) Col. William DePalo (1989–1991) Col. José Feliciano (1991–1993) Col. José Álvarez (1993–1995) Col. Roy R. Trumble (1995–1999) Col. Glenn R. Weidner (1999–2000) WHINSEC Col. Richard D. Downie (2001–2004)[64] Col. Gilberto R. Pérez (2004–2008)[64] Col. Félix Santiago (2008–2010)[64] Col. Glenn R. Huber Jr. (2010–2014)[64] Col. Keith W. Anthony (2014–2017)[64] Col. Robert F. Alvaro (2017–2019)[65][66] Col. John D. Suggs jr. (2019-)[67] Current organization Charter The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (November 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Authorized by the United States Congress through 10 U.S.C. § 2166 in 2001,[68] WHINSEC is responsible for providing professional education and training on the context of the democratic principles in the Charter of the Organization of American States[69] (such charter being a treaty to which the United States is a party), and foster mutual knowledge, transparency, confidence, and cooperation among the participating nations and promoting democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of United States customs and traditions.[70] WHINSEC has provided training for more than 10,000 individuals since its existence and over 60,000 US and international students since its original establishment in 1946. Its educational format incorporates guest lecturers and experts from sectors of US and international government, non-government, human rights, law enforcement, academic institutions, and interagency departments[71] to share best practices in pursuit of improved security cooperation between all nations of the Western Hemisphere. Independent Review Board When the National Defense Authorization Act for 2001 was signed into law, WHINSEC was created. The law called for a federal advisory committee – the Board of Visitors (BoV) – to maintain independent review, observation, and recommendations regarding operations of the institute. The 14-member BoV includes members of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees along with representatives from the State Department, U.S. Southern Command, U.S. Northern Command, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, and six members designated by the Secretary of Defense. These six members include representatives from the human rights, religious, academic, and business communities. The board reviews and advises on areas such as curriculum, academic instruction, and fiscal affairs of the institute. Their reviews ensure relevance and consistency with US policy, laws, regulations, and doctrine. Members of the Board are not compensated by reason of service on the Board. Board of Visitors As of August 2018, Board members include: Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Jim Inhofe, or his designee Ranking minority member of the SASC, Sen. Jack Reed, or his designee Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mac Thornberry, or his designee; (Rep. Austin Scott [Ga-8] is the current designee.) Ranking minority member of the HASC, Rep. Adam Smith, or his designee. The Secretary of State designates a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, usually from the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. Commander, U.S. Southern Command, Adm. Kurt W. Tidd or his designee Commander, U.S. Northern Command, Gen. Terrence J. O'Shaughnessy or his designee Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, or his designee Dr. Dafna H. Rand, Adjunct Professor at the Near East South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, National Defense University Archbishop Timothy Broglio, Archbishop for the Military Services Dr. Frank Mora, Director, Kimberly Green Latin American and Caribbean Center and Professor in the Department of Politics & International Relations at Florida International University. Amb. (Ret) Carmen Maria Martinez, United States diplomat and career foreign service officer. She served as the U.S. Ambassador to Zambia from 2005 to 2008. Hon. Dan Trimble, U.S. Immigration Judge LTG(R) Ken Keen, Associate Dean for Leadership Development at Emory University's Goizueta Business School Criticism Accusations of human rights violations The School of the Americas has been blamed for human rights violations committed by former students.[45][72][73] By the early 1980s, Latin American critics accused the school of teaching techniques of repression to be used toward civilians.[74] According to the Center for International Policy, "The School of the Americas had been questioned for years, as it trained many military personnel before and during the years of the 'national security doctrine' – the dirty war years in the Southern Cone and the civil war years in Central America – in which the armed forces within several Latin American countries ruled or had disproportionate government influence and committed serious human rights violations in those countries."[75] The institute itself explicitly denies accusations of teaching torture: in 1999 the School of the Americas FAQ had several answers denying accusations of torture, such as "Q: What about the accusations that the School teaches torture and murder? A: Absolutely false. The School teaches U.S. Army doctrine which is based on over 200 years of success, and includes a variety of military subjects, none of which include criminal misconduct."[15] WHINSEC says that its curriculum includes human rights,[75] and that "no school should be held accountable for the actions of its graduates."[75] Human Rights Watch says that "training alone, even when it includes human rights instruction, does not prevent human rights abuses."[72] SOA Watch Main article: School of the Americas Watch Since 1990, Washington, DC,-based nonprofit human rights organization School of the Americas Watch has worked to monitor graduates of the institution and to close the former SOA, now WHINSEC, through legislative action, grassroots organizing and nonviolent direct action.[76] It maintains a database with graduates of both the SOA and WHINSEC who have been accused of human rights violations and other criminal activity.[77] In regard to the renaming of the institution, SOA Watch claims that the approach taken by the Department of Defense is not grounded in any critical assessment of the training, procedures, performance, or results (consequences) of the training programs of the SOA. According to critics of the SOA, the name change ignores congressional concern and public outcry over the SOA's past and present link to human rights atrocities.[78] Protests and public demonstrations Since 1990, SOA Watch has sponsored an annual public demonstration of protest of SOA/WHINSEC at Ft. Benning. In 2005, the demonstration drew 19,000 people. The protests are timed to coincide with the anniversary of the assassination of six Jesuit priests in El Salvador in November 1989 by graduates of the School of the Americas.[79] On November 16, 1989, these six Jesuit priests (Ignacio Ellacuría, Segundo Montes, Ignacio Martín-Baró, Joaquín López y López, Juan Ramón Moreno, and Amado López), along with their housekeeper Elba Ramos and her daughter Celia Marisela Ramos, were murdered by the Atlácatl Battalion on the campus of the University of Central America in San Salvador, El Salvador, because they had been labeled as subversives by the government.[80] A United Nations panel concluded that nineteen of the 27 killers were SOA graduates.[81] Graduates of the School of the Americas The U.S. Army School of the Americas is a school that has run more dictators than any other school in the history of the world. — Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II[82] A number of graduates of the SOA and WHINSEC have been accused and sentenced for human rights violations, genocide,[83][84][85] crimes against humanity and other criminal activity in their home countries.[86] In response to Freedom of Information Act requests, records were released regarding graduates of the school.[33] In August 2007, according to an Associated Press report, Colonel Alberto Quijano of the Colombian Army's Special Forces was arrested for providing security and mobilizing troops for Diego León Montoya Sánchez (aka "Don Diego"), the leader of the Norte del Valle Cartel and one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. School of the Americas Watch said in a statement that it matched the names of those in the scandal with its database of attendees at the institute. Alberto Quijano attended courses and was an instructor who taught classes on peacekeeping operations and democratic sustainment at the school from 2003 to 2004.[87] Other former students include Salvadoran Colonel and Atlácatl Battalion leader Domingo Monterrosa and other members of his group who were responsible for the El Mozote massacre,[88][37] and Franck Romain, former leader of the Tonton Macoute, which was alleged to be responsible for the St. Jean Bosco massacre.[89] Honduran General Luis Alonso Discua was also a graduate of the school who later on commanded Battalion 3-16, a military death squad.[37] According to an article in Human Rights Review, training statistics show that Argentina, a country that engaged in much anti-Communist sentiment and violence during the Dirty War during the Cold War era, had a relatively small number of military personnel educated at the school.[90] In 2018, two of the highest officers of the Venezuelan Army, Minister of Defense Vladimir Padrino López and SEBIN director Gustavo González López, were sanctioned by the United States for human rights abuses against opposition protesters and dissidents, corruption leading to the economic collapse of the country, and drug trafficking charges. They were found to have been students of psychological operations courses at SOA in 1995 and 1991 respectively.[91] For the Fiscal Year 2021 a total of 1,193 students trained at WHINSEC with the highest number of those students coming from Colombia (697).[92] Notable Graduates Country Graduate About Argentina Emilio Eduardo Massera Argentine Navy officer, and a leading participant in the Argentine coup d'état of 1976. Argentina Jorge Rafael Videla Senior commander in the Argentine Army and dictator of Argentina from 1976 to 1981. Argentina Leopoldo Galtieri Argentine general and President of Argentina from 22 December 1981 to 18 June 1982, during the last military dictatorship. Argentina Roberto Eduardo Viola Argentine military officer who briefly served as president of Argentina from 29 March to 11 December 1981 under a military dictatorship. Bolivia Hugo Banzer Suárez Bolivian politician, military general and President of Bolivia. He held the Bolivian presidency twice: from 1971 to 1978, as a dictator and from 1997 to 2001, as a constitutional President. Under Banzer's seven-year dictatorship, hundreds of Bolivians were murdered, deported, and/or tortured, while more than 4,000 were imprisoned or detained as political prisoners.[11] Bolivia Luis Arce Gómez Bolivian colonel who backed the coup that brought General Luis García Meza to power. Arce served as García Meza's Minister of the Interior. Bolivia Juan Ramón Quintana Taborga Minister of the Presidency under Evo Morales from 2006 to 2009.[93] Bolivia Manfred Reyes Villa Bolivian politician, businessman, and former military officer. Chile Raúl Iturriaga Chilean Army general and a former deputy director of the DINA, the Chilean secret police under the Augusto Pinochet military dictatorship.[94] Chile Manuel Contreras Chilean Army officer and the former head of the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA), the Chilean secret police under the Augusto Pinochet military dictatorship. Chile Miguel Krassnoff Held several high-ranking positions in the Pinochet regime, including in the Chilean intelligence agency, DINA. He was responsible for the interrogation, torture, and disappearance of political prisoners at the detention center, Villa Grimaldi. After Pinochet's demise, Krassnoff was convicted by Chilean courts of crimes against humanity.[94] Colombia General Hernán José Guzmán Rodríguez Offered protection and support to Muerte a Secuestradores, a paramilitary group responsible for 147 murders between 1987 and 1990.[95] Colombia Captain Gilberto Ibarra Forced peasant children to lead his patrol through a minefield. Two children were killed and one wounded.[95] Colombia General Rito Alejo del Rio Linked to paramilitary death squads.[96] Colombia Nestor Ramirez Commander of soldiers who beat unarmed protestors.[95] Colombia Lt. Col. Luis Bernardo Urbina Sánchez The former head of Colombia's Department of Administrative Security. Evidence linked him to various human rights violations between 1977 and 1989, including kidnapping, torture, and murder.[97] Ecuador Guillermo Rodríguez Military dictator of Ecuador from February 15, 1972, to January 11, 1976. El Salvador Roberto D'Aubuisson Extreme-right Salvadoran soldier, politician and death-squad leader. In 1981, he co-founded and became the first leader of the Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) and served as President of El Salvador's Constituent Assembly from 1982 to 1983. He was a candidate for President in 1984, losing in the second round to José Napoleón Duarte. He was named by the UN-established Truth Commission for El Salvador as having ordered the assassination of then-Archbishop Saint Óscar Romero in 1980. El Salvador Domingo Monterrosa Salvadoran Colonel and Atlácatl Battalion leader who led the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador in 1981.[98][88][37] El Salvador Col. Roberto Mauricio Staben Commander of the Salvadoran Arce Immediate Reaction Infantry Battalion that carried out the El Mozote Massacre. Involved in a kindapping-for-profit ring active in the mid-1980s.[99] El Salvador Col. Francisco del Cid Díaz Implicated in the 1983 Las Hojas massacre[100] Guatemala Hector Gramajo General in the Guatemalan Army who served as Defense Minister from February 1, 1987, to May 20, 1990, during the long years of the Guatemalan Civil War (1960–1996). Responsible for rape and torture of Sister Dianna Ortiz.[8] Guatemala Efraín Ríos Montt Former President of Guatemala who took power as a result of a coup d'état on March 23, 1982. In 2012, he was indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity in a Guatemalan court. Guatemala Marco Antonio Yon Sosa Leader of the Revolutionary Movement 13th November and participant in the 1960 military uprising against president Miguel Ydígoras.[101] Guatemala Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez Guatemalan Army official and CIA intelligence asset. In 1992, Alpirez received $44,000, nearly forty-six times the average yearly income in Guatemala, from the CIA for his intelligence work. He allegedly oversaw the murder of American citizen Michael Divine and Guatemalan citizen Efrain Bamaca.[102] Guatemala Otto Pérez Molina Member of the group of army officers who backed Defence Minister Óscar Mejía's coup d'état against de facto president Efraín Ríos Montt.[103] Haiti Franck Romain Former leader of the Tonton Macoute accused of being responsible for the St. Jean Bosco massacre.[104] Haiti Raul Cedras Dictator of Haiti, leader of military junta after the 1991 Haitian coup d'état.[105] Honduras Juan Carlos Bonilla Valladares Charged with drug trafficking and related weapons offenses in April 2020 by the U.S. He was also accused of killing for President Juan Orlando Hernández in a cocaine trafficking scheme.[106] Honduras General Luis Alonso Discua Elvir First commanding officer of the Battalion 316 death squad.[107] Honduras Humberto Regalado Former Honduran Chief of Staff linked to Colombian drug smuggling operations.[108] Honduras Jesus A Marmol Yanes The Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights accused Marmol Yanes of cover-up and abuse of authority in the killing of 15-year-old Ebed Jassiel Yanes Caceres in 2012[109] (2013 report). Honduras Juan Rubén Girón Reyes Was one of those charged with the cover up of Ebed Yanes’ death.[110] According to one soldier they were ordered by Giron to pick up the shell casings and to not speak of what happened.[111] Honduras Reynel Funes Ponce In 2013 he was accused of withholding information about the killing of Ebed Yanes.[112] He allegedly ordered that the weapons used in the incident be exchanged to cover up the killing.[111] Honduras Herberth Bayardo Inestroza Membreño Denied that the forced removal of President Zelaya was a coup by saying “It was a fast operation. It was over in minutes, and there were no injuries, no deaths. We said, ‘Sir, we have a judicial order to detain you.’ We did it with respect.”[113] Later he admitted to the Miami Herald that the act of removing Zelaya from the country went beyond the scope of the judicial order. "In the moment that we took him out of the country, in the way that he was taken out, there is a crime. Because of the circumstances of the moment this crime occurred, there is going to be a justification and cause for acquittal that will protect us."[114] Honduras Luis Javier Prince Suazo During the 2009 coup as head of the Honduran Air Force he arranged for President Zelaya to be flown into exile[115] Honduras Gustavo Alvarez Martínez A 1997 CIA study identified the Honduran Anti-Communist Liberation Army, or ELACH, as a "death squad" with close ties to a special security unit reporting to Alvarez. In 1983, a dissident Honduran army officer accused Alvarez of masterminding "death squads." In 1994 a lawyer appointed by the Honduran parliament to investigate human rights abuse blamed the Honduran army for 174 disappearances and kidnappings in the 1980s. Most of the incidents took place before the 1984 ouster of Alvarez. In 1984 Alvarez was accused by his fellow generals of abuse of power and sent into exile.[116] Mexico Los Zetas Though the Mexican and US Governments have never released a full list, several sources claimed that many of the initial 34 founders of Los Zetas were GAFE Special Forces Operators trained at SOA throughout the late 80s to early 90s.[117][118] Panama Omar Torrijos Commander of the Panamanian National Guard and the de facto dictator of Panama from 1968 to 1981. Torrijos was never officially the president of Panama, but instead held titles including "Leader of the Panamanian Revolution" and "Chief of Government." Torrijos took power in a coup d'état and instituted a number of social reforms. Panama Manuel Noriega Panamanian politician and military officer who was the de facto ruler of Panama from 1983 to 1989. He had longstanding ties to United States intelligence agencies; however, he was removed from power by the U.S. invasion of Panama. Peru Juan Velasco Alvarado Left-wing Peruvian General who served as the 58th President of Peru during the dictatorship from 1968 to 1975[119] Peru Vladimiro Montesinos Former long-standing head of Peru's intelligence service, Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (SIN), under President Alberto Fujimori. Peru Ollanta Humala Peruvian politician who served as the 65th President of Peru from 2011 to 2016. Venezuela Vladimir Padrino López Minister of Defense for the National Armed Forces of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela under Nicolás Maduro. Sanctioned by the United States for human rights abuses against opposition protesters and dissidents, corruption leading to the economic collapse of the country, and drug trafficking charges. Attended psychological operations courses at SOA in 1995. Venezuela Gustavo González López Venezuelan Minister of Popular Power for Interior, Justice and Peace (MPPRIJP) from 2015 to 2016. Current director of the National Intelligence Service (SEBIN). Sanctioned by the United States for human rights abuses against opposition protesters and dissidents, corruption leading to the economic collapse of the country, and drug trafficking charges. Attended psychological operations courses at SOA in 1991. Venezuela Nestor Reverol Venezuelan Minister of Popular Power for Interior, Justice and Peace. Former Commander of the Venezuelan National Guard (BNG) from 2014 to 2016. Responsible for killings and torture of Protesters during his tenure as BNG Commander. Sanctioned by the United States for human rights abuses against opposition protesters and dissidents, corruption leading to the economic collapse of the country, and drug trafficking charges. Attended psychological operations courses at SOA in 1996.[120][121] Media representation School of the Americas Assassins, a 1994 short documentary film produced by Robert Richter. It was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary Short Hidden in Plain Sight,[122] a 2003 feature-length documentary film produced by Andrés Thomas Conteris, Vivi Letsou, and John Smihula The War on Democracy, a 2007 documentary film produced by Youngheart Entertainment PTY Limited The Empire Files: The U.S. School That Trains Dictators and Death Squads, a 2015 documentary produced by Abby Martin and broadcast on teleSUR El Conde, a 2023 Chilean fictional film by Pablo Larrain See also Army Foreign Intelligence Assistance Program Death squad Dorothy Hennessey Gwen Hennessey Latin America–United States relations Operation Condor School of the Americas Watch United States Army Command and General Staff College United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) War on Drugs Sources Rodriguez, Milton Mariani (January 25, 2021). "WHINSEC Commandant honored by the Peruvian Army". army.mil. Retrieved April 27, 2021. Starr, Barbara (December 15, 2000). "Controversial 'School of the Americas' Closes". ABC News. Ormsbee, William (1984). "U.S. Army School of the Americas (USARSA) Profile of a Training Institution" (PDF). pp. 83–85. Archived from the original (PDF) on November 6, 2019. Retrieved November 5, 2019. Gill, Lesley (2004). The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Duke University Press. pp. 137–138. ISBN 978-0-8223-3392-0. Retrieved March 13, 2016. Gill, Lesley (2004). The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Duke University Press. pp. 65-70. ISBN 978-0-8223-3392-0. Retrieved 2019-11-12. Gill, Lesley (2004). The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Duke University Press. pp. 65. ISBN 978-0-8223-3392-0. Retrieved 2019-11-12. Ormsbee, William H., US Army School of the Americas (USARSA): Profile of a Training Institution (1984) Cohn, Marjorie (April 11, 2013). "Teaching Torture at the School of the Americas". Thomas Jefferson Law Review. 35 (1): 1–14. SSRN 2246205. ProQuest 1808871635. Hastedt, Glenn P. (2011). "School of the Americas". Spies, wiretaps, and secret operations : an encyclopedia of American espionage. ABC-CLIO. pp. 683–684. ISBN 9781851098071. OCLC 639939932. "US Army School of the Americas (USARSA/SOA)". www.globalsecurity.org. Retrieved November 2, 2022. Gareau, Frederick H. (Frederick Henry) (2004). State terrorism and the United States : from countersurgency to the war on terrorism. Zed. pp. 23–42. ISBN 1842775340. OCLC 605192779. Latin America, United States Objectives and Courses of Action with Respect to. Transmittal Memorandum, Elmer B. Staats, Exec. Officer, Operations Coordinating Board, to James S. Lay, Jr., Exec. Secy, NSC. Feb. 3, 1955. 2 p. Att: Same title [progress in fulfilling the objectives of NSC 5432/1 are detailed: the Communist government of Guatemala has been overthrown, and a government favorable to the US has come to power; the US has increased financial support to the OAS; criticism of US economic policy has subsided; assistance has been given to Haiti and Honduras for disaster relief; course, travel, and per diem costs are being paid for Latin American military trainees in the US; military agreements have been made with Honduras and Nicaragua; the information program has been reoriented for more impact on priority areas. Problems may arise from the Soviet Union's program aimed at indoctrination of Latin American labor, efforts to implement the policy to extend credit for the sale of military equipment, and Latin American desire to extend sovereignty beyond the three-mile limit]. Progress Report on NSC 5432/1. Jan. 19, 1955. 4 p.; Annex: Detailed Development of Major Actions. Report. 25 p. TOP SECRET. Declassified Dec. 8, 1980. Eisenhower Library, White House Office, Office of the Spec. Asst. for Nat. Security Affairs: Records, 1952-61, NSC Series; Policy Papers Subseries, Box 13, NSC 5432/1, Policy toward Latin America. National Security Council, 3 Feb. 1955. U.S. Declassified Documents Online, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/C9oXm5 . Retrieved November 6, 2019. A. Latin America, Military Actions for. Transmittal Memorandum, JCSM-832-61, Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Chairman, to the President. November 30, 1961. 2 p. App. (A): Part I. Recommendations with Statement of the Problem and Need for Action [the US has a greater capability for furthering its objectives in Latin America than it is presently using]. 7 p.; App. (B): Part II. Recommendations with Supporting Data [actions and programs are outlined that are to be implemented within the DOD, that are to implemented within the DOD in conjunction with other agencies, and that require host government acceptance and participation]. 15 p.; Annex (A) to App. (B): Basis for United States Military Participation in Support of the Alliance for Progress. 4 p.; Annex (B) to App. (B): Requirement for Intelligence. 2 p.; Annex (C) to App. (B): The Military Assistance Program in Latin America. 4 p.; Annex (D) to App. (B): Proposed Implementation for a Latin American Military Information and Education Program. 5 p.; Annex (E) to App. (B): A Proposal for Latin American Civilian Conservation Corps Programs. 4 p.; Annex (F) to App. (B): Latin American Military Air Transport in Support of the Alliance for Progress. 3 p.; Annex (G) to App. (B): Nation Building and Civic Actions. 2 p.; App. (C): Part III. Factual Data [information on bloc penetration; Communist Parties in Latin America; influence of the US on the Latin American military; indigenous politics; economics, social, cultural, and psychological life; and significant US military accomplishments in Latin America]. 25 p. SECRET to CONFIDENTIAL. SANITIZED copy. Released Mar. 20-23, 1981. Kennedy Library, NSF, Meetings and Memoranda, NSAM 118, JCS Recommendations, Parts I-III, Dec. 1961, Box 333. Department Of Defense, 30 November 1961. U.S. Declassified Documents Online, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/C9pba3 . Retrieved November 6, 2019. "Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Cuba, Volume VI - Office of the Historian". history.state.gov. Retrieved September 17, 2021. "U.S. Army School of the Americas: Frequently Asked Questions". United States Army. 1999. Archived from the original on April 28, 1999. Retrieved August 12, 2012. A. Latin America, Military Actions for. Transmittal Memorandum, JCSM-832-61, Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, Chairman, to the President. November 30, 1961. 2 p. App. (A): Part I. Recommendations with Statement of the Problem and Need for Action [the US has a greater capability for furthering its objectives in Latin America than it is presently using]. 7 p.; App. (B): Part II. Recommendations with Supporting Data [actions and programs are outlined that are to be implemented within the DOD, that are to implemented within the DOD in conjunction with other agencies, and that require host government acceptance and participation]. 15 p.; Annex (A) to App. (B): Basis for United States Military Participation in Support of the Alliance for Progress. 4 p.; Annex (B) to App. (B): Requirement for Intelligence. 2 p.; Annex (C) to App. (B): The Military Assistance Program in Latin America. 4 p.; Annex (D) to App. (B): Proposed Implementation for a Latin American Military Information and Education Program. 5 p.; Annex (E) to App. (B): A Proposal for Latin American Civilian Conservation Corps Programs. 4 p.; Annex (F) to App. (B): Latin American Military Air Transport in Support of the Alliance for Progress. 3 p.; Annex (G) to App. (B): Nation Building and Civic Actions. 2 p.; App. (C): Part III. Factual Data [information on bloc penetration; Communist Parties in Latin America; influence of the US on the Latin American military; indigenous politics; economics, social, cultural, and psychological life; and significant US military accomplishments in Latin America]. 25 p. SECRET to CONFIDENTIAL. SANITIZED copy. Released Mar. 20-23, 1981. Kennedy Library, NSF, Meetings and Memoranda, NSAM 118, JCS Recommendations, Parts I-III, Dec. 1961, Box 333. Department Of Defense, 30 November 1961. U.S. Declassified Documents Online, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/C9pba3 . Retrieved November 6, 2019. Gill, Lesley (September 13, 2004). The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Duke University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-8223-8600-1. Gill, Lesley. The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Duke University Press, 2004, pp. 76-77. ISBN 978-0822333920. Retrieved November 12, 2019. JCS report on participation of U.S. and Latin American armed forces in attainment of common objectives in Latin America detailed. Department Of Defense, n.d. U.S. Declassified Documents Online, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/C9iJJ0 . Retrieved November 6, 2019. Appendix of report on guerrilla and counter-guerrilla training conducted by U.S. military forces. Department Of Defense, n.d. U.S. Declassified Documents Online, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/C9iHy8 . Retrieved November 6, 2019. "United States Army School of the Americas: Background and Congressional Concerns". fas.org. Retrieved January 19, 2021. Fox, Carlton T, Jr., The U.S. Army School of the Americas and U.S. National Interests in the 20th Century (2001) "Operations in SE Asia; US-Latin American defense exercise; determination of mid-line in Persian Gulf; increased jungle training of Army and Marine units; other subjects. Report for the President. September 14, 1965. 42 p. SECRET to UNCLASSIFIED. SANITIZED copy. Released Jan. 30, 1978. Johnson Library, White House Central File, Confidential File, Subject Reports, DOD, September 1965. United States: Department Of Defense, 14 September 1965. U.S. Declassified Documents Online". Gale U.S. Declassified Documents. September 1965. Retrieved November 1, 2019.[permanent dead link] [Summary of combat sorties flown in SE Asia; review of ground and sea operations in Vietnam; modernization of the Air Force's tactical fighter force in Europe; replacement of Army observation helicopters with new models; launches of satellite, Pershing, and Minuteman; other subjects.] Report for the President. Aug. 9, 1966. 69 p. SECRET to UNCLASSIFIED. FORMERLY RESTRICTED DATA. HANDLE AS RESTRICTED DATA IN FOREIGN DISSEMINATION. ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954. SANITIZED copy. Released Aug. 10, 1978. Johnson Library, White House Central File, Confidential File, Subject Reports, DOD, Aug. 1966. Department Of Defense, 9 Aug. 1966. U.S. Declassified Documents Online, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/CA4NJ6 . Retrieved November 6, 2019. "Predatory Rule and Illegal Economic Practices", States and Illegal Practices, Hart Publishing, 1999, doi:10.5040/9781474215572.ch-004, ISBN 9781474215572 McSherry, J. Patrice. (2012). Predatory States. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN 978-1283599610. OCLC 817812594. Paper regarding justification for presidential determination to authorize international military education and training for Panama in fiscal year 1980. Department Of State, n.d. U.S. Declassified Documents Online, http://tinyurl.gale.com/tinyurl/C9rQDX . Retrieved November 6, 2019. Gill, Lesley (2004). The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Duke University Press. pp. 78. ISBN 978-0-8223-3392-0. Retrieved 2019-11-12. Bonner, Ray (February 24, 1980). "Honduras is Central America's oasis of peace". S.F. Sunday Examiner & Chronicle. Gill, Lesley (2004). The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Duke University Press. pp. 17. ISBN 978-0-8223-3392-0. Retrieved 2018-11-12. Sieder, Rachel. "Honduras: The Politics of Exception and Military Reformism (1972-1978)." Journal of Latin American Studies 27, no. 1 (1995): 99-127. JSTOR 158204. Gill, Lesley (2004). The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Duke University Press. pp. 83. ISBN 978-0-8223-3392-0. Retrieved 2019-11-12. McCoy, Katherine E. (2005). "Trained to Torture? The Human Rights Effects of Military Training at the School of the Americas". Latin American Perspectives. 32 (6): 47–64. doi:10.1177/0094582x05281113. S2CID 144445783. Quiles Meléndez, Inés María. "EL PLAN 20: UNA NUEVA ESTRATEGIA DE DESARROLLO PARA PUERTO RICO Y SU VINCULACION CON EL CARIBE." Problemas Del Desarrollo 15, no. 60 (1984): 215-29. JSTOR 43906796. Grimmett, Richard F., and Mark P. Sullivan. "US Army School of the Americas: Background and Congressional Concerns." LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 2001. Grimmett, Richard F., and Mark P. Sullivan. "US Army School of the Americas: Background and Congressional Concerns." LIBRARY OF CONGRESS WASHINGTON DC CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE, 2001. 2-9. Gill, Lesley (2004). The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political Violence in the Americas. Duke University Press. ISBN 978-0-8223-3392-0. Retrieved March 13, 2016. Grimmett, Richard F.; Sullivan, Mark P. "U.S. School of the Americas:Background and Congressional Concerns". CRS (Congressional Research Service) Issue Brief for Congress. Federation of American Scientists (FAS). Retrieved May 6, 2016. "PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS; Congressional Record Vol. 141, No. 182 (House of Representatives - November 16, 1995)". Archived from the original on December 6, 2019. Retrieved December 6, 2019. "U.S. training manuals urged abusive tactics; Bribery, blackmail advocated in 1980s in Latin America Sun staff writers Gary Cohn and Ginger Thompson contributed to this article". The Baltimore Sun. September 22, 1996. p. 1A. ProQuest 406931788. "RL30532 -- U.S. Army School of the Americas: Background and Congressional Concerns". www.everycrsreport.com. Retrieved November 2, 2022. CLOSE THE ARMY SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS; Congressional Record Vol. 142, No. 138 (Extensions of Remarks - September 30, 1996) PRIDE IN THE SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS, (House of Representatives - September 04, 1997). "Public Law 106–398: National Defense Authorization, Fiscal Year 2001" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. October 30, 2000. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 16, 2012. Retrieved August 12, 2012. Bill Wallace; Jim Houston (July 13, 2002). "Bay Area protesters sentenced in Georgia". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved August 12, 2012. Ruth Blakeley (2013). "Chapter 13: Elite interviews". In Laura J. Shepherd (ed.). Critical Approaches to Security: An Introduction to Theories and Methods. Routledge. Taylor, Marisa; Hall, Kevin G. (March 28, 2015). "For years, Pentagon paid professor despite revoked visa and accusations of torture in Chile". Miami Herald. Taylor, Marisa; Hall, Kevin G. (March 27, 2015). "Chilean accused of murder, torture taught 13 years for Pentagon". McClatchyDC. Johnston, Jake (August 29, 2017). "How Pentagon Officials May Have Encouraged a 2009 coup in Honduras". The Intercept. Retrieved February 5, 2023. "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: The Story of Whistleblower Martin Edwin Andersen". progressive.org. July 13, 2018. "ARMY SCHOOL DENIES CLAIMS IT TEACHES TORTURE TACTICS". dailypress.com. Archived from the original on October 14, 2018. "U.S. INSTRUCTED LATINS ON EXECUTIONS, TORTURE". washingtonpost.com. September 21, 1996. "The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation History". WHINSEC. Archived from the original on November 17, 2015. Retrieved November 15, 2015. "WHINSEC Command & General Staff Officer Course graduates". KMOV.com. May 28, 2015. Archived from the original on November 17, 2015. Retrieved November 15, 2015. "National Vene

Avram Noam Chomsky[a] (born December 7, 1928) is an American professor and public intellectual known for his work in linguistics, political activism, and social criticism. Sometimes called "the father of modern linguistics",[b] Chomsky is also a major figure in analytic philosophy and one of the founders of the field of cognitive science. He is a laureate professor of linguistics at the University of Arizona and an institute professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Among the most cited living authors, Chomsky has written more than 150 books on topics such as linguistics, war, and politics. Ideologically, he aligns with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism. Born to Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants in Philadelphia, Chomsky developed an early interest in anarchism from alternative bookstores in New York City. He studied at the University of Pennsylvania. During his postgraduate work in the Harvard Society of Fellows, Chomsky developed the theory of transformational grammar for which he earned his doctorate in 1955. That year he began teaching at MIT, and in 1957 emerged as a significant figure in linguistics with his landmark work Syntactic Structures, which played a major role in remodeling the study of language. From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. He created or co-created the universal grammar theory, the generative grammar theory, the Chomsky hierarchy, and the minimalist program. Chomsky also played a pivotal role in the decline of linguistic behaviorism, and was particularly critical of the work of B. F. Skinner. An outspoken opponent of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, which he saw as an act of American imperialism, in 1967 Chomsky rose to national attention for his anti-war essay "The Responsibility of Intellectuals". Becoming associated with the New Left, he was arrested multiple times for his activism and placed on President Richard Nixon's list of political opponents. While expanding his work in linguistics over subsequent decades, he also became involved in the linguistics wars. In collaboration with Edward S. Herman, Chomsky later articulated the propaganda model of media criticism in Manufacturing Consent, and worked to expose the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. His defense of unconditional freedom of speech, including that of Holocaust denial, generated significant controversy in the Faurisson affair of the 1980s. Chomsky's commentary on the Cambodian genocide also generated controversy. Since retiring from active teaching at MIT, he has continued his vocal political activism, including opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and supporting the Occupy movement. An anti-Zionist, Chomsky considers Israel's treatment of Palestinians worse than South African-style apartheid, and criticizes U.S. support for Israel, as well as being highly critical of the PLO, Arab states, and violent resistance. Chomsky is widely recognized as having helped to spark the cognitive revolution in the human sciences, contributing to the development of a new cognitivistic framework for the study of language and the mind. Chomsky remains a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, contemporary capitalism, U.S. involvement and Israel's role in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and mass media. Chomsky and his ideas are highly influential in the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements. He has been teaching at the University of Arizona since 2017. Life Childhood: 1928–1945 Chomsky was born on December 7, 1928, in the East Oak Lane neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[20] His parents, William Chomsky and Elsie Simonofsky, were Jewish immigrants.[21] William had fled the Russian Empire in 1913 to escape conscription and worked in Baltimore sweatshops and Hebrew elementary schools before attending university.[22] After moving to Philadelphia, William became principal of the Congregation Mikveh Israel religious school and joined the Gratz College faculty. He placed great emphasis on educating people so that they would be "well integrated, free and independent in their thinking, concerned about improving and enhancing the world, and eager to participate in making life more meaningful and worthwhile for all", a mission that shaped and was subsequently adopted by his son.[23] Elsie, who also taught at Mikveh Israel, shared her leftist politics and care for social issues with her sons.[23] Noam's only sibling, David Eli Chomsky (1934–2021), was born five years later, and worked as a cardiologist in Philadelphia.[23][24] The brothers were close, though David was more easygoing while Noam could be very competitive. They were raised Jewish, being taught Hebrew and regularly involved with discussing the political theories of Zionism; the family was particularly influenced by the Left Zionist writings of Ahad Ha'am.[25] Chomsky has called his parents "dedicated Hebraists".[26] He faced antisemitism as a child, particularly from Philadelphia's Irish and German communities.[27] Chomsky attended the independent, Deweyite Oak Lane Country Day School[28] and Philadelphia's Central High School, where he excelled academically and joined various clubs and societies, but was troubled by the school's hierarchical and domineering teaching methods.[29] He also attended Hebrew High School at Gratz College, where his father taught.[30] Chomsky has said that his father's doctoral dissertation on the medieval Hebrew grammarian David Kimhi influenced his later thinking on linguistics.[26] Chomsky has described his parents as "normal Roosevelt Democrats" with center-left politics, but relatives involved in the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union exposed him to socialism and far-left politics.[31] He was substantially influenced by his uncle and the Jewish leftists who frequented his New York City newspaper stand to debate current affairs.[32] Chomsky himself often visited left-wing and anarchist bookstores when visiting his uncle in the city, voraciously reading political literature.[33] He became absorbed in the story of the 1939 fall of Barcelona and suppression of the Spanish anarchosyndicalist movement, writing his first article on the topic at the age of 10.[34] That he came to identify with anarchism first rather than another leftist movement, he described as a "lucky accident".[35] Chomsky was firmly anti-Bolshevik by his early teens.[36] University: 1945–1955 Carol Schatz married Chomsky in 1949. In 1945, at the age of 16, Chomsky began a general program of study at the University of Pennsylvania, where he explored philosophy, logic, and languages and developed a primary interest in learning Arabic.[37] Living at home, he funded his undergraduate degree by teaching Hebrew.[38] Frustrated with his experiences at the university, he considered dropping out and moving to a kibbutz in Mandatory Palestine,[39] but his intellectual curiosity was reawakened through conversations with the linguist Zellig Harris, whom he first met in a political circle in 1947. Harris introduced Chomsky to the field of theoretical linguistics and convinced him to major in the subject.[40] Chomsky's BA honors thesis, "Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew", applied Harris's methods to the language.[41] Chomsky revised this thesis for his MA, which he received from the University of Pennsylvania in 1951; it was subsequently published as a book.[42] He also developed his interest in philosophy while at university, in particular under the tutelage of Nelson Goodman.[43] From 1951 to 1955, Chomsky was a member of the Society of Fellows at Harvard University, where he undertook research on what became his doctoral dissertation.[44] Having been encouraged by Goodman to apply,[45] Chomsky was attracted to Harvard in part because the philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine was based there. Both Quine and a visiting philosopher, J. L. Austin of the University of Oxford, strongly influenced Chomsky.[46] In 1952, Chomsky published his first academic article in The Journal of Symbolic Logic.[45] Highly critical of the established behaviorist currents in linguistics, in 1954, he presented his ideas at lectures at the University of Chicago and Yale University.[47] He had not been registered as a student at Pennsylvania for four years, but in 1955 he submitted a thesis setting out his ideas on transformational grammar; he was awarded a Doctor of Philosophy degree for it, and it was privately distributed among specialists on microfilm before being published in 1975 as part of The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory.[48] Harvard professor George Armitage Miller was impressed by Chomsky's thesis and collaborated with him on several technical papers in mathematical linguistics.[49] Chomsky's doctorate exempted him from compulsory military service, which was otherwise due to begin in 1955.[50] In 1947, Chomsky began a romantic relationship with Carol Doris Schatz, whom he had known since early childhood. They married in 1949.[51] After Chomsky was made a Fellow at Harvard, the couple moved to the Allston area of Boston and remained there until 1965, when they relocated to the suburb of Lexington.[52] The couple took a Harvard travel grant to Europe in 1953.[53] He enjoyed living in Hashomer Hatzair's HaZore'a kibbutz while in Israel, but was appalled by his interactions with Jewish nationalism, anti-Arab racism and, within the kibbutz's leftist community, Stalinism.[54] On visits to New York City, Chomsky continued to frequent the office of the Yiddish anarchist journal Fraye Arbeter Shtime and became enamored with the ideas of Rudolf Rocker, a contributor whose work introduced Chomsky to the link between anarchism and classical liberalism.[55] Chomsky also read other political thinkers: the anarchists Mikhail Bakunin and Diego Abad de Santillán, democratic socialists George Orwell, Bertrand Russell, and Dwight Macdonald, and works by Marxists Karl Liebknecht, Karl Korsch, and Rosa Luxemburg.[56] His politics were reaffirmed by Orwell's depiction of Barcelona's functioning anarchist society in Homage to Catalonia (1938).[57] Chomsky read the leftist journal Politics, which furthered his interest in anarchism,[58] and the council communist periodical Living Marxism, though he rejected the Marxist orthodoxy of its editor, Paul Mattick.[59] Early career: 1955–1966 Chomsky befriended two linguists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)—Morris Halle and Roman Jakobson—the latter of whom secured him an assistant professor position there in 1955. At MIT, Chomsky spent half his time on a mechanical translation project and half teaching a course on linguistics and philosophy.[60] He described MIT as open to experimentation where he was free to pursue his idiosyncratic interests.[61] MIT promoted him to the position of associate professor in 1957, and over the next year he was also a visiting professor at Columbia University.[62] The Chomskys had their first child, Aviva, that same year.[63] He also published his first book on linguistics, Syntactic Structures, a work that radically opposed the dominant Harris–Bloomfield trend in the field.[64] Responses to Chomsky's ideas ranged from indifference to hostility, and his work proved divisive and caused "significant upheaval" in the discipline.[65] The linguist John Lyons later asserted that Syntactic Structures "revolutionized the scientific study of language".[66] From 1958 to 1959 Chomsky was a National Science Foundation fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey.[67] The Great Dome at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Chomsky began working at MIT in 1955. Chomsky's provocative critique of B. F. Skinner, who viewed language as learned behavior, and its challenge to the dominant behaviorist paradigm thrust Chomsky into the limelight. Chomsky argued that behaviorism underplayed the role of human creativity in learning language and overplayed the role of external conditions in influencing verbal behavior.[68] He proceeded to found MIT's graduate program in linguistics with Halle. In 1961, Chomsky received tenure and became a full professor in the Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics.[69] He was appointed plenary speaker at the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, held in 1962 in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which established him as the de facto spokesperson of American linguistics.[70] Between 1963 and 1965 he consulted on a military-sponsored project to teach computers to understand natural English commands from military generals.[71] Chomsky continued to publish his linguistic ideas throughout the decade, including in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar (1966), and Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (1966).[72] Along with Halle, he also edited the Studies in Language series of books for Harper and Row.[73] As he began to accrue significant academic recognition and honors for his work, Chomsky lectured at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1966.[74] These lectures were published as Language and Mind in 1968.[75] In the late 1960s, a high-profile intellectual rift later known as the linguistic wars developed between Chomsky and some of his colleagues and doctoral students—including Paul Postal, John Ross, George Lakoff, and James D. McCawley—who contended that Chomsky's syntax-based, interpretivist linguistics did not properly account for semantic context (general semantics). A post hoc assessment of this period concluded that the opposing programs ultimately were complementary, each informing the other.[76] Anti-war activism and dissent: 1967–1975 [I]t does not require very far-reaching, specialized knowledge to perceive that the United States was invading South Vietnam. And, in fact, to take apart the system of illusions and deception which functions to prevent understanding of contemporary reality [is] not a task that requires extraordinary skill or understanding. It requires the kind of normal skepticism and willingness to apply one's analytical skills that almost all people have and that they can exercise. —Chomsky on the Vietnam War[77] Chomsky joined protests against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War in 1962, speaking on the subject at small gatherings in churches and homes.[78] His 1967 critique of U.S. involvement, "The Responsibility of Intellectuals", among other contributions to The New York Review of Books, debuted Chomsky as a public dissident.[79] This essay and other political articles were collected and published in 1969 as part of Chomsky's first political book, American Power and the New Mandarins.[80] He followed this with further political books, including At War with Asia (1970), The Backroom Boys (1973), For Reasons of State (1973), and Peace in the Middle East? (1974), published by Pantheon Books.[81] These publications led to Chomsky's association with the American New Left movement,[82] though he thought little of prominent New Left intellectuals Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm and preferred the company of activists to that of intellectuals.[83] Chomsky remained largely ignored by the mainstream press throughout this period.[84] He also became involved in left-wing activism. Chomsky refused to pay half his taxes, publicly supported students who refused the draft, and was arrested while participating in an anti-war teach-in outside the Pentagon.[85] During this time, Chomsky co-founded the anti-war collective RESIST with Mitchell Goodman, Denise Levertov, William Sloane Coffin, and Dwight Macdonald.[86] Although he questioned the objectives of the 1968 student protests,[87] Chomsky regularly gave lectures to student activist groups and, with his colleague Louis Kampf, ran undergraduate courses on politics at MIT independently of the conservative-dominated political science department.[88] When student activists campaigned to stop weapons and counterinsurgency research at MIT, Chomsky was sympathetic but felt that the research should remain under MIT's oversight and limited to systems of deterrence and defense.[89] Chomsky has acknowledged that his MIT lab's funding at this time came from the military.[90] He later said he considered resigning from MIT during the Vietnam War.[91] There has since been a wide-ranging debate about what effects Chomsky's employment at MIT had on his political and linguistic ideas.[92] External images Chomsky participating in the anti-Vietnam War March on the Pentagon, October 21, 1967 image icon Chomsky with other public figures image icon The protesters passing the Lincoln Memorial en route to the Pentagon Chomsky's anti-war activism led to his arrest on multiple occasions and he was on President Richard Nixon's master list of political opponents.[93] Chomsky was aware of the potential repercussions of his civil disobedience, and his wife began studying for her own doctorate in linguistics to support the family in the event of Chomsky's imprisonment or joblessness.[94] Chomsky's scientific reputation insulated him from administrative action based on his beliefs.[95] In 1970 he visited southeast Asia to lecture at Vietnam's Hanoi University of Science and Technology and toured war refugee camps in Laos. In 1973 he helped lead a committee commemorating the 50th anniversary of the War Resisters League.[96] His work in linguistics continued to gain international recognition as he received multiple honorary doctorates.[97] He delivered public lectures at the University of Cambridge, Columbia University (Woodbridge Lectures), and Stanford University.[98] His appearance in a 1971 debate with French continental philosopher Michel Foucault positioned Chomsky as a symbolic figurehead of analytic philosophy.[99] He continued to publish extensively on linguistics, producing Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar (1972),[95] an enlarged edition of Language and Mind (1972),[100] and Reflections on Language (1975).[100] In 1974 Chomsky became a corresponding fellow of the British Academy.[98] Edward S. Herman and the Faurisson affair: 1976–1980 See also: Cambodian genocide denial § Chomsky and Herman, and Faurisson affair Chomsky in 1977 In the late 1970s and 1980s, Chomsky's linguistic publications expanded and clarified his earlier work, addressing his critics and updating his grammatical theory.[101] His political talks often generated considerable controversy, particularly when he criticized the Israeli government and military.[102] In the early 1970s Chomsky began collaborating with Edward S. Herman, who had also published critiques of the U.S. war in Vietnam.[103] Together they wrote Counter-Revolutionary Violence: Bloodbaths in Fact & Propaganda, a book that criticized U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia and the mainstream media's failure to cover it. Warner Modular published it in 1973, but its parent company disapproved of the book's contents and ordered all copies destroyed.[104] While mainstream publishing options proved elusive, Chomsky found support from Michael Albert's South End Press, an activist-oriented publishing company.[105] In 1979, South End published Chomsky and Herman's revised Counter-Revolutionary Violence as the two-volume The Political Economy of Human Rights,[106] which compares U.S. media reactions to the Cambodian genocide and the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. It argues that because Indonesia was a U.S. ally, U.S. media ignored the East Timorese situation while focusing on events in Cambodia, a U.S. enemy.[107] Chomsky's response included two testimonials before the United Nations' Special Committee on Decolonization, successful encouragement for American media to cover the occupation, and meetings with refugees in Lisbon.[108] Marxist academic Steven Lukes most prominently publicly accused Chomsky of betraying his anarchist ideals and acting as an apologist for Cambodian leader Pol Pot.[109] Herman said that the controversy "imposed a serious personal cost" on Chomsky,[110] who considered the personal criticism less important than the evidence that "mainstream intelligentsia suppressed or justified the crimes of their own states".[111] Chomsky had long publicly criticized Nazism, and totalitarianism more generally, but his commitment to freedom of speech led him to defend the right of French historian Robert Faurisson to advocate a position widely characterized as Holocaust denial. Without Chomsky's knowledge, his plea for Faurisson's freedom of speech was published as the preface to the latter's 1980 book Mémoire en défense contre ceux qui m'accusent de falsifier l'histoire.[112] Chomsky was widely condemned for defending Faurisson,[113] and France's mainstream press accused Chomsky of being a Holocaust denier himself, refusing to publish his rebuttals to their accusations.[114] Critiquing Chomsky's position, sociologist Werner Cohn later published an analysis of the affair titled Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers.[115] The Faurisson affair had a lasting, damaging effect on Chomsky's career,[116] especially in France.[117] Critique of propaganda and international affairs External videos video icon Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, a 1992 documentary exploring Chomsky's work of the same name and its impact In 1985, during the Nicaraguan Contra War—in which the U.S. supported the contra militia against the Sandinista government—Chomsky traveled to Managua to meet with workers' organizations and refugees of the conflict, giving public lectures on politics and linguistics.[118] Many of these lectures were published in 1987 as On Power and Ideology: The Managua Lectures.[119] In 1983 he published The Fateful Triangle, which argued that the U.S. had continually used the Israeli–Palestinian conflict for its own ends.[120] In 1988, Chomsky visited the Palestinian territories to witness the impact of Israeli occupation.[121] Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988) outlines their propaganda model for understanding mainstream media. Even in countries without official censorship, they argued, the news is censored through five filters that greatly influence both what and how news is presented.[122] The book received a 1992 film adaptation.[123] In 1989, Chomsky published Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, in which he suggests that a worthwhile democracy requires that its citizens undertake intellectual self-defense against the media and elite intellectual culture that seeks to control them.[124] By the 1980s, Chomsky's students had become prominent linguists who, in turn, expanded and revised his linguistic theories.[125] Chomsky speaking in support of the Occupy movement in 2011 In the 1990s, Chomsky embraced political activism to a greater degree than before.[126] Retaining his commitment to the cause of East Timorese independence, in 1995 he visited Australia to talk on the issue at the behest of the East Timorese Relief Association and the National Council for East Timorese Resistance.[127] The lectures he gave on the subject were published as Powers and Prospects in 1996.[127] As a result of the international publicity Chomsky generated, his biographer Wolfgang Sperlich opined that he did more to aid the cause of East Timorese independence than anyone but the investigative journalist John Pilger.[128] After East Timor attained independence from Indonesia in 1999, the Australian-led International Force for East Timor arrived as a peacekeeping force; Chomsky was critical of this, believing it was designed to secure Australian access to East Timor's oil and gas reserves under the Timor Gap Treaty.[129] Chomsky was widely interviewed after the September 11 attacks in 2001 as the American public attempted to make sense of the attacks.[130] He argued that the ensuing War on Terror was not a new development but a continuation of U.S. foreign policy and concomitant rhetoric since at least the Reagan era.[131] He gave the D.T. Lakdawala Memorial Lecture in New Delhi in 2001,[132] and in 2003 visited Cuba at the invitation of the Latin American Association of Social Scientists.[133] Chomsky's 2003 Hegemony or Survival articulated what he called the United States' "imperial grand strategy" and critiqued the Iraq War and other aspects of the War on Terror.[134] Chomsky toured internationally with greater regularity during this period.[133] Retirement Chomsky retired from MIT in 2002,[135] but continued to conduct research and seminars on campus as an emeritus.[136] That same year he visited Turkey to attend the trial of a publisher who had been accused of treason for printing one of Chomsky's books; Chomsky insisted on being a co-defendant and amid international media attention, the Security Courts dropped the charge on the first day.[137] During that trip Chomsky visited Kurdish areas of Turkey and spoke out in favor of the Kurds' human rights.[137] A supporter of the World Social Forum, he attended its conferences in Brazil in both 2002 and 2003, also attending the Forum event in India.[138] Duration: 41 minutes and 5 seconds.41:05 Chomsky discussing ecology, ethics and anarchism in 2014 Chomsky supported the 2011 Occupy movement, speaking at encampments and publishing on the movement, which he called a reaction to a 30-year class war.[139] The 2015 documentary Requiem for the American Dream summarizes his views on capitalism and economic inequality through a "75-minute teach-in".[140] Chomsky taught a short-term politics course at the University of Arizona in 2017[141] and was later hired as a part-time professor in the linguistics department there, his duties including teaching and public seminars.[142] His salary is covered by philanthropic donations.[143] Linguistic theory Main article: Linguistics of Noam Chomsky What started as purely linguistic research ... has led, through involvement in political causes and an identification with an older philosophic tradition, to no less than an attempt to formulate an overall theory of man. The roots of this are manifest in the linguistic theory ... The discovery of cognitive structures common to the human race but only to humans (species specific), leads quite easily to thinking of unalienable human attributes. —Edward Marcotte on the significance of Chomsky's linguistic theory[144] The basis of Chomsky's linguistic theory lies in biolinguistics, the linguistic school that holds that the principles underpinning the structure of language are biologically preset in the human mind and hence genetically inherited.[145] He argues that all humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of sociocultural differences.[146] In adopting this position Chomsky rejects the radical behaviorist psychology of B. F. Skinner, who viewed speech, thought, and all behavior as a completely learned product of the interactions between organisms and their environments. Accordingly, Chomsky argues that language is a unique evolutionary development of the human species and distinguished from modes of communication used by any other animal species.[147][148] Chomsky argues that his nativist, internalist view of language is consistent with the philosophical school of "rationalism" and contrasts with the anti-nativist, externalist view of language consistent with the philosophical school of "empiricism",[149] which contends that all knowledge, including language, comes from external stimuli.[144] Historians have disputed Chomsky's claim about rationalism on the basis that his theory of innate grammar excludes propositional knowledge and instead focuses on innate learning capacities or structures.[150] Universal grammar Main article: Universal grammar Since the 1960s, Chomsky has maintained that syntactic knowledge is at least partially inborn, implying that children need only learn certain language-specific features of their native languages. He bases his argument on observations about human language acquisition and describes a "poverty of the stimulus": an enormous gap between the linguistic stimuli to which children are exposed and the rich linguistic competence they attain. For example, although children are exposed to only a very small and finite subset of the allowable syntactic variants within their first language, they somehow acquire the highly organized and systematic ability to understand and produce an infinite number of sentences, including ones that have never before been uttered, in that language.[151] To explain this, Chomsky reasoned that the primary linguistic data must be supplemented by an innate linguistic capacity. Furthermore, while a human baby and a kitten are both capable of inductive reasoning, if they are exposed to exactly the same linguistic data, the human will always acquire the ability to understand and produce language, while the kitten will never acquire either ability. Chomsky referred to this difference in capacity as the language acquisition device, and suggested that linguists needed to determine both what that device is and what constraints it imposes on the range of possible human languages. The universal features that result from these constraints would constitute "universal grammar".[152][153][154] Multiple scholars have challenged universal grammar on the grounds of the evolutionary infeasibility of its genetic basis for language,[155] the lack of universal characteristics between languages,[156] and the unproven link between innate/universal structures and the structures of specific languages.[157] Scholar Michael Tomasello has challenged Chomsky's theory of innate syntactic knowledge as based on theory and not behavioral observation.[158] Although it was influential from 1960s through 1990s, Chomsky's nativist theory was ultimately rejected by the mainstream child language acquisition research community owing to its inconsistency with research evidence.[159][160] It was also argued by linguists including Robert Freidin, Geoffrey Sampson, Geoffrey K. Pullum and Barbara Scholz that Chomsky's linguistic evidence for it had been false.[161] Transformational-generative grammar Main articles: Transformational grammar, Generative grammar, Chomsky hierarchy, and Minimalist program Transformational-generative grammar is a broad theory used to model, encode, and deduce a native speaker's linguistic capabilities.[162] These models, or "formal grammars", show the abstract structures of a specific language as they may relate to structures in other languages.[163] Chomsky developed transformational grammar in the mid-1950s, whereupon it became the dominant syntactic theory in linguistics for two decades.[162] "Transformations" refers to syntactic relationships within language, e.g., being able to infer that the subject between two sentences is the same person.[164] Chomsky's theory posits that language consists of both deep structures and surface structures: Outward-facing surface structures relate phonetic rules into sound, while inward-facing deep structures relate words and conceptual meaning. Transformational-generative grammar uses mathematical notation to express the rules that govern the connection between meaning and sound (deep and surface structures, respectively). By this theory, linguistic principles can mathematically generate potential sentence structures in a language.[144] A set of 4 ovals inside one another, each resting at the bottom of the one larger than itself. There is a term in each oval; from smallest to largest: regular, context-free, context-sensitive, recursively enumerable. Set inclusions described by the Chomsky hierarchy Chomsky is commonly credited with inventing transformational-generative grammar, but his original contribution was considered modest when he first published his theory. In his 1955 dissertation and his 1957 textbook Syntactic Structures, he presented recent developments in the analysis formulated by Zellig Harris, who was Chomsky's PhD supervisor, and by Charles F. Hockett.[c] Their method is derived from the work of the Danish structural linguist Louis Hjelmslev, who introduced algorithmic grammar to general linguistics.[d] Based on this rule-based notation of grammars, Chomsky grouped logically possible phrase-structure grammar types into a series of four nested subsets and increasingly complex types, together known as the Chomsky hierarchy. This classification remains relevant to formal language theory[165] and theoretical computer science, especially programming language theory,[166] compiler construction, and automata theory.[167] Transformational grammar was the dominant research paradigm through the mid-1970s. The derivative[162] government and binding theory replaced it and remained influential through the early 1990s, [162] when linguists turned to a "minimalist" approach to grammar. This research focused on the principles and parameters framework, which explained children's ability to learn any language by filling open parameters (a set of universal grammar principles) that adapt as the child encounters linguistic data.[168] The minimalist program, initiated by Chomsky,[169] asks which minimal principles and parameters theory fits most elegantly, naturally, and simply.[168] In an attempt to simplify language into a system that relates meaning and sound using the minimum possible faculties, Chomsky dispenses with concepts such as "deep structure" and "surface structure" and instead emphasizes the plasticity of the brain's neural circuits, with which come an infinite number of concepts, or "logical forms".[148] When exposed to linguistic data, a hearer-speaker's brain proceeds to associate sound and meaning, and the rules of grammar we observe are in fact only the consequences, or side effects, of the way language works. Thus, while much of Chomsky's prior research focused on the rules of language, he now focuses on the mechanisms the brain uses to generate these rules and regulate speech.[148][170] Political views Main article: Political positions of Noam Chomsky The second major area to which Chomsky has contributed—and surely the best known in terms of the number of people in his audience and the ease of understanding what he writes and says—is his work on sociopolitical analysis; political, social, and economic history; and critical assessment of current political circumstance. In Chomsky's view, although those in power might—and do—try to obscure their intentions and to defend their actions in ways that make them acceptable to citizens, it is easy for anyone who is willing to be critical and consider the facts to discern what they are up to. —James McGilvray, 2014[171] Chomsky is a prominent political dissident.[e] His political views have changed little since his childhood,[172] when he was influenced by the emphasis on political activism that was ingrained in Jewish working-class tradition.[173] He usually identifies as an anarcho-syndicalist or a libertarian socialist.[174] He views these positions not as precise political theories but as ideals that he thinks best meet human needs: liberty, community, and freedom of association.[175] Unlike some other socialists, such as Marxists, Chomsky believes that politics lies outside the remit of science,[176] but he still roots his ideas about an ideal society in empirical data and empirically justified theories.[177] In Chomsky's view, the truth about political realities is systematically distorted or suppressed by an elite corporatocracy, which uses corporate media, advertising, and think tanks to promote its own propaganda. His work seeks to reveal such manipulations and the truth they obscure.[178] Chomsky believes this web of falsehood can be broken by "common sense", critical thinking, and understanding the roles of self-interest and self-deception,[179] and that intellectuals abdicate their moral responsibility to tell the truth about the world in fear of losing prestige and funding.[180] He argues that, as such an intellectual, it is his duty to use his social privilege, resources, and training to aid popular democracy movements in their struggles.[181] Although he has participated in direct action demonstrations—joining protests, being arrested, organizing groups—Chomsky's primary political outlet is education, i.e., free public lessons.[182] He is a longtime member of the Industrial Workers of the World international union,[183] as was his father.[184] United States foreign policy Chomsky at the 2003 World Social Forum, a convention for counter-hegemonic globalization, in Porto Alegre Chomsky has been a prominent critic of American imperialism[185] but is not a pacifist, believing World War II was justified as America's last defensive war.[186][26] He believes that U.S. foreign policy's basic principle is the establishment of "open societies" that are economically and politically controlled by the U.S. and where U.S.-based businesses can prosper.[187] He argues that the U.S. seeks to suppress any movements within these countries that are not compliant with U.S. interests and to ensure that U.S.-friendly governments are placed in power.[180] When discussing current events, he emphasizes their place within a wider historical perspective.[188] He believes that official, sanctioned historical accounts of U.S. and British extraterritorial operations have consistently whitewashed these nations' actions in order to present them as having benevolent motives in either spreading democracy or, in older instances, spreading Christianity; by criticizing these accounts, he seeks to correct them.[189] Prominent examples he regularly cites are the actions of the British Empire in India and Africa and U.S. actions in Vietnam, the Philippines, Latin America, and the Middle East.[189] Chomsky's political work has centered heavily on criticizing the actions of the United States.[188] He has said he focuses on the U.S. because the country has militarily and economically dominated the world during his lifetime and because its liberal democratic electoral system allows the citizenry to influence government policy.[190] His hope is that, by spreading awareness of the impact U.S. foreign policies have on the populations affected by them, he can sway the populations of the U.S. and other countries into opposing the policies.[189] He urges people to criticize their governments' motivations, decisions, and actions, to accept responsibility for their own thoughts and actions, and to apply the same standards to others as to themselves.[191] Chomsky has been critical of U.S. involvement in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, arguing that it has consistently blocked a peaceful settlement.[180] He also criticizes the U.S.'s close ties with Saudi Arabia and involvement in Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen, highlighting that Saudi Arabia has "one of the most grotesque human rights records in the world".[192] While calling the Russian invasion of Ukraine a "war crime" similar to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,[193] Chomsky has nevertheless argued that Russia was conducting the war less brutally than the U.S. did the Iraq war.[194] He considered support for Ukraine's self-defense legitimate, but also argued that the U.S. rejection of a compromise and negotiated settlement with Russia was an obstacle to the only likely way of achieving peace, might have contributed to the war breaking out in the first place, and meant sacrificing Ukraine's own well-being and survival for the sake of using it as a weapon against Russia.[193] Capitalism and socialism In his youth, Chomsky developed a dislike of capitalism and the pursuit of material wealth.[195] At the same time, he developed a disdain for authoritarian socialism, as represented by the Marxist–Leninist policies of the Soviet Union.[196] Rather than accepting the common view among U.S. economists that a spectrum exists between total state ownership of the economy and total private ownership, he instead suggests that a spectrum should be understood between total democratic control of the economy and total autocratic control (whether state or private).[197] He argues that Western capitalist countries are not really democratic,[198] because, in his view, a truly democratic society is one in which all persons have a say in public economic policy.[199] He has stated his opposition to ruling elites, among them institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and GATT (precursor to the WTO).[200] Chomsky highlights that, since the 1970s, the U.S. has become increasingly economically unequal as a result of the repeal of various financial regulations and the unilateral rescinding of the Bretton Woods financial control agreement by the U.S.[201] He characterizes the U.S. as a de facto one-party state, viewing both the Republican Party and Democratic Party as manifestations of a single "Business Party" controlled by corporate and financial interests.[202] Chomsky has said that he considers Franklin D. Roosevelt the best U.S. president.[26] Chomsky highlights that, within Western capitalist liberal democracies, at least 80% of the population has no control over economic decisions, which are instead in the hands of a management class and ultimately controlled by a small, wealthy elite.[203] Noting the entrenchment of such an economic system, Chomsky believes that change is possible through the organized cooperation of large numbers of people who understand the problem and know how they want to reorganize the economy more equitably.[203] Acknowledging that corporate domination of media and government stifles any significant change to this system, he sees reason for optimism in historical examples such as the social rejection of slavery as immoral, the advances in women's rights, and the forcing of government to justify invasions.[201] He views violent revolution to overthrow a government as a last resort to be avoided if possible, citing the example of historical revolutions where the population's welfare has worsened as a result of upheaval.[203] Chomsky sees libertarian socialist and anarcho-syndicalist ideas as the descendants of the classical liberal ideas of the Age of Enlightenment,[204] arguing that his ideological position revolves around "nourishing the libertarian and creative character of the human being".[205] He envisions an anarcho-syndicalist future with direct worker control of the means of production and government by workers' councils, who would select temporary and revocable representatives to meet together at general assemblies.[206] The point of this self-governance is to make each citizen, in Thomas Jefferson's words, "a direct participator in the government of affairs."[207] He believes that there will be no need for political parties.[208] By controlling their productive life, he believes that individuals can gain job satisfaction and a sense of fulfillment and purpose.[209] He argues that unpleasant and unpopular jobs could be fully automated, carried out by workers who are specially remunerated, or shared among everyone.[210] Israeli–Palestinian conflict A left-anarchist who believes in a radically different way of ordering society and of states and is largely critical of existing institutions, and an anti-war American Jewish socialist, Chomsky has nuanced and complex views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[211] He has written prolifically about it, aiming to raise public awareness of it.[212] A labor Zionist who later became what is today considered an anti-Zionist, Chomsky has criticized the Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which he likens to a settler colony.[213] He has said that when the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine was adopted, he thought it was "a very bad decision".[26] Nevertheless, given the realpolitik of the situation, he has also considered a two-state solution on the condition that the nation-states exist on equal terms.[214] Chomsky has said that characterizing Israel's treatment of the Palestinians as apartheid, similar to the system that existed in South Africa, would be a "gift to Israel", as he has long held that "the Occupied Territories are much worse than South Africa".[215][216] South Africa depended on its black population for labor, but Chomsky argues the same is not true of Israel, which in his view seeks to make the situation for Palestinians under its occupation unlivable, especially in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where "atrocities" take place every day.[215] He also argues that, unlike South Africa, Israel has not sought the international community's approval, but rather relies solely on U.S. support.[215] Chomsky has said that the Israeli-led blockade of the Gaza Strip has turned it into a "concentration camp" and expressed similar fears to Israeli intellectual Yeshayahu Leibowitz's 1990s warning that the continued occupation of the Palestinian territories could turn Israeli Jews into "Judeo-Nazis". Chomsky has said that Leibowitz's warning "was a direct reflection of the continued occupation, the humiliation of people, the degradation, and the terrorist attacks by the Israeli government".[217] He has also called the U.S. a violent state that exports violence by supporting Israeli "atrocities" against the Palestinians and said that listening to American mainstream media, including CBS, is like listening to "Israeli propaganda agencies".[218] Chomsky was denied entry to the West Bank in 2010 because of his criticisms of Israel. He had been invited to deliver a lecture at Bir Zeit University and was to meet with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.[219][220][221][222] An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman later said that Chomsky was denied entry by mistake.[223] Chomsky has also criticized the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Arab states for their "self-destructiveness" and "suicidal character" and disapproves of their programs of "armed struggle" and "erratic violence". Per Edward Said, he also criticized the Arab regimes for being indecent and unpopular.[224] Chomsky's views, given his origin in what he describes as a very Jewish upbringing with deeply Zionist activist parents, have inspired controversy and criticism. They are rooted in the kibbutzim and socialist binational cooperation.[225] A consistent critic of the arms industry, Chomsky has said that the charter of Hamas, which calls for Israel's destruction, is empty and meaningless rhetoric, and that Israeli propagandists overstate the group's violent capacity.[216] Mass media and propaganda Main article: Propaganda model External videos video icon Chomsky on propaganda and the manufacturing of consent, June 1, 2003 Chomsky's political writings have largely focused on ideology, social and political power, mass media, and state policy.[226] One of his best-known works, Manufacturing Consent, dissects the media's role in reinforcing and acquiescing to state policies across the political spectrum while marginalizing contrary perspectives. Chomsky asserts that this version of censorship, by government-guided "free market" forces, is subtler and harder to undermine than was the equivalent propaganda system in the Soviet Union.[227] As he argues, the mainstream press is corporate-owned and thus reflects corporate priorities and interests.[228] Acknowledging that many American journalists are dedicated and well-meaning, he argues that the mass media's choices of topics and issues, the unquestioned premises on which that coverage rests, and the range of opinions expressed are all constrained to reinforce the state's ideology:[229] although mass media will criticize individual politicians and political parties, it will not undermine the wider state-corporate nexus of which it is a part.[230] As evidence, he highlights that the U.S. mass media does not employ any socialist journalists or political commentators.[231] He also points to examples of important news stories that the U.S. mainstream media has ignored because reporting on them would reflect badly upon the country, including the murder of Black Panther Fred Hampton with possible FBI involvement, the massacres in Nicaragua perpetrated by U.S.-funded Contras, and the constant reporting on Israeli deaths without equivalent coverage of the far larger number of Palestinian deaths in that conflict.[232] To remedy this situation, Chomsky calls for grassroots democratic control and involvement of the media.[233] Chomsky considers most conspiracy theories fruitless, distracting substitutes for thinking about policy formation in an institutional framework, where individual manipulation is secondary to broader social imperatives.[234] He separates his Propaganda Model from conspiracy in that he is describing institutions following their natural imperatives rather than collusive forces with secret controls.[235] Instead of supporting the educational system as an antidote, he believes that most education is counterproductive.[236] Chomsky describes mass education as a system solely intended to turn farmers from independent producers into unthinking industrial employees.[236] Reactions of critics and counter-criticism: 1980s–present In the 2004 book The Anti-Chomsky Reader, Peter Collier and David Horowitz accuse Chomsky of cherry-picking facts to suit his theories.[237] Horowitz has also criticized Chomsky's anti-Americanism:[238] For 40 years Noam Chomsky has turned out book after book, pamphlet after pamphlet and speech after speech with one message, and one message alone: America is the Great Satan; it is the fount of evil in the world. In Chomsky's demented universe, America is responsible not only for its own bad deeds, but for the bad deeds of others, including those of the terrorists who struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In this attitude he is the medium for all those who now search the ruins of Manhattan not for the victims and the American dead, but for the "root causes" of the catastrophe that befell them. For the conservative public policy think tank the Hoover Institution, Peter Schweizer wrote in January 2006, "Chomsky favors the estate tax and massive income redistribution—just not the redistribution of his income." Schweizer criticized Chomsky for setting up an estate plan and protecting his own intellectual property as it relates to his published works, as well as the high speaking fees that Chomsky received on a regular basis, around $9,000–$12,000 per talk at that time.[239][240] Chomsky has been accused of treating socialist or communist regimes with credulity and examining capitalist regimes with greater scrutiny or criticism:[241] Chomsky's analysis of U.S. actions plunged deep into dark U.S. machinations, but when traveling among the Communists he rested content with appearances. The countryside outside Hanoi, he reported in The New York Review of Books, displayed "a high degree of democratic participation at the village and regional levels." But how could he tell? Chomsky did not speak Vietnamese, and so he depended on government translators, tour guides, and handlers for information. In [Communist] Vietnamese hands, the clear-eyed skepticism turned into willing credulousness.[241] According to Nikolas Kozloff, writing for Al Jazeera in September 2012, Chomsky "has drawn the world's attention to the various misdeeds of the US and its proxies around the world, and for that he deserves credit. Yet, in seeking to avoid controversy at all costs Chomsky has turned into something of an ideologue. Scour the Chomsky web site and you won't find significant discussion of Belarus or Latin America's flirtation with outside authoritarian leaders, for that matter."[242] Political activist George Monbiot has argued that "Part of the problem is that a kind of cult has developed around Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, which cannot believe they could ever be wrong, and produces ever more elaborate conspiracy theories to justify their mistakes."[243] Anarchist and primitivist John Zerzan has accused Chomsky of not being a real anarchist, saying that he is instead "a liberal-leftist politically, and downright reactionary in his academic specialty, linguistic theory. Chomsky is also, by all accounts, a generous, sincere, tireless activist—which does not, unfortunately, ensure his thinking has liberatory value."[244] Defenders of Chomsky have countered that he has been censored or left out of public debate. Claims of this nature date to the Reagan era. Writing for The Washington Post in February 1988, Saul Landau wrote, "It is unhealthy that Chomsky's insights are excluded from the policy debate. His relentless prosecutorial prose, with a hint of Talmudic whine and the rationalist anarchism of Tom Paine, may reflect a justified frustration."[245] Philosophy Chomsky has also been active in a number of philosophical fields, including philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, and philosophy of science.[246] In these fields he is credited with ushering in the "cognitive revolution",[246] a significant paradigm shift that rejected logical positivism, the prevailing philosophical methodology of the time, and reframed how philosophers think about language and the mind.[169] Chomsky views the cognitive revolution as rooted in 17th-century rationalist ideals.[247] His position—the idea that the mind contains inherent structures to understand language, perception, and thought—has more in common with rationalism than behaviorism.[248] He named one of his key works Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought (1966).[247] This sparked criticism from historians and philosophers who disagreed with Chomsky's interpretations of classical sources and use of philosophical terminology.[f] In the philosophy of language, Chomsky is particularly known for his criticisms of the notion of reference and meaning in human language and his perspective on the nature and function of mental representations.[249] Chomsky's famous 1971 debate on human nature with the French philosopher Michel Foucault was a symbolic clash of the analytic and continental philosophy traditions, represented by Chomsky and Foucault, respectively.[99] It showed what appeared to be irreconcilable differences between two moral and intellectual luminaries of the 20th century. Foucault held that any definition of human nature is connected to our present-day conceptions of ourselves; Chomsky held that human nature contained universals such as a common standard of moral justice as deduced through reason.[250] Chomsky criticized postmodernism and French philosophy generally, arguing that the obscure language of postmodern, leftist philosophers gives little aid to the working classes.[251] He has also debated analytic philosophers, including Tyler Burge, Donald Davidson, Michael Dummett, Saul Kripke, Thomas Nagel, Hilary Putnam, Willard Van Orman Quine, and John Searle.[169] Chomsky's contributions span intellectual and world history, including the history of philosophy.[252] Irony is a recurring characteristic of his writing, such as rhetorically implying that his readers already know something to be true, which engages the reader more actively in assessing the veracity of his claims.[253] Personal life Wasserman and Chomsky in 2014 Chomsky endeavors to separate his family life, linguistic scholarship, and political activism from each other.[254] An intensely private person,[255] he is uninterested in appearances and the fame his work has brought him.[256] He also has little interest in modern art and music.[257] McGilvray suggests that Chomsky was never motivated by a desire for fame, but impelled to tell what he perceived as the truth and a desire to aid others in doing so.[258] Chomsky acknowledges that his income affords him a privileged life compared to the majority of the world's population;[259] nevertheless, he characterizes himself as a "worker", albeit one who uses his intellect as his employable skill.[260] He reads four or five newspapers daily; in the US, he subscribes to The Boston Globe, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and The Christian Science Monitor.[261] Chomsky is non-religious but has expressed approval of forms of religion such as liberation theology.[262] Chomsky was married to Carol (née Carol Doris Schatz) from 1949 until her death in 2008.[260] They had three children together: Aviva (b. 1957), Diane (b. 1960), and Harry (b. 1967).[263] In 2014, Chomsky married Valeria Wasserman.[264] Public image Chomsky is known to use charged language ("corrupt", "fascist", "fraudulent") when describing established political and academic figures, which can polarize his audience but is in keeping with his belief that much scholarship is self-serving.[265] His colleague Steven Pinker has said that he "portrays people who disagree with him as stupid or evil, using withering scorn in his rhetoric", and that this contributes to the extreme reactions he receives.[266] Chomsky avoids academic conferences, including left-oriented ones such as the Socialist Scholars Conference, preferring to speak to activist groups or hold university seminars for mass audiences.[267] His approach to academic freedom has led him to support MIT academics whose actions he deplores; in 1969, when Chomsky heard that Walt Rostow, a major architect of the Vietnam war, wanted to return to work at MIT, Chomsky threatened "to protest publicly" if Rostow were denied a position at MIT. In 1989, when Pentagon adviser John Deutch applied to be president of MIT, Chomsky supported his candidacy. Later, when Deutch became head of the CIA, The New York Times quoted Chomsky as saying, "He has more honesty and integrity than anyone I've ever met. ... If somebody's got to be running the CIA, I'm glad it's him."[268] Reception and influence [Chomsky's] voice is heard in academia beyond linguistics and philosophy: from computer science to neuroscience, from anthropology to education, mathematics and literary criticism. If we include Chomsky's political activism then the boundaries become quite blurred, and it comes as no surprise that Chomsky is increasingly seen as enemy number one by those who inhabit that wide sphere of reactionary discourse and action. —Sperlich, 2006[269] Chomsky has been a defining Western intellectual figure, central to the field of linguistics and definitive in cognitive science, computer science, philosophy, and psychology.[270] In addition to being known as one of the most important intellectuals of his time,[g] Chomsky has a dual legacy as a leader and luminary in both linguistics and the realm of political dissent.[271] Despite his academic success, his political viewpoints and activism have resulted in his being distrusted by mainstream media, and he is regarded as being "on the outer margin of acceptability".[272] Chomsky's public image and social reputation often color his work's public reception.[9] In academia McGilvray observes that Chomsky inaugurated the "cognitive revolution" in linguistics,[273] and that he is largely responsible for establishing the field as a formal, natural science,[274] moving it away from the procedural form of structural linguistics dominant during the mid-20th century.[275] As such, some have called Chomsky "the father of modern linguistics".[b] Linguist John Lyons further remarked that within a few decades of publication, Chomskyan linguistics had become "the most dynamic and influential" school of thought in the field.[276] By the 1970s his work had also come to exert a considerable influence on philosophy,[277] and a Minnesota State University Moorhead poll ranked Syntactic Structures as the single most important work in cognitive science.[278] In addition, his work in automata theory and the Chomsky hierarchy have become well known in computer science, and he is much cited in computational linguistics.[279][280][281] Chomsky's criticisms of behaviorism contributed substantially to the decline of behaviorist psychology;[282] in addition, he is generally regarded as one of the primary founders of the field of cognitive science.[283][246] Some arguments in evolutionary psychology are derived from his research results;[284] Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee who was the subject of a study in animal language acquisition at Columbia University, was named after Chomsky in reference to his view of language acquisition as a uniquely human ability.[285] ACM Turing Award winner Donald Knuth credited Chomsky's work with helping him combine his interests in mathematics, linguistics, and computer science.[286] IBM computer scientist John Backus, another Turing Award winner, used some of Chomsky's concepts to help him develop FORTRAN, the first widely used high-level computer programming language.[287] Chomsky's theory of generative grammar has also influenced work in music theory and analysis, such as Fred Lerdahl's and Ray Jackendoff's generative theory of tonal music.[288][289][290] Chomsky is among the most cited authors living or dead.[h] He was cited within the Arts and Humanities Citation Index more often than any other living scholar from 1980 to 1992.[291] Chomsky was also extensively cited in the Social Sciences Citation Index and Science Citation Index during the same period. The librarian who conducted the research said that the statistics show that "he is very widely read across disciplines and that his work is used by researchers across disciplines ... it seems that you can't write a paper without citing Noam Chomsky."[270] As a result of his influence, there are dueling camps of Chomskyan and non-Chomskyan linguistics. Their disputes are often acrimonious.[292] Additionally, according to journalist Maya Jaggi, Chomsky is among the most quoted sources in the humanities, ranking alongside Marx, Shakespeare and the Bible.[266] In politics Chomsky's status as the "most-quoted living author" is credited to his political writings, which vastly outnumber his writings on linguistics.[293] Chomsky biographer Wolfgang B. Sperlich characterizes him as "one of the most notable contemporary champions of the people";[255] journalist John Pilger has described him as a "genuine people's hero; an inspiration for struggles all over the world for that basic decency known as freedom. To a lot of people in the margins—activists and movements—he's unfailingly supportive."[266] Arundhati Roy has called him "one of the greatest, most radical public thinkers of our time",[294] and Edward Said thought him "one of the most significant challengers of unjust power and delusions".[266] Fred Halliday has said that by the start of the 21st century Chomsky had become a "guru" for the world's anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist movements.[266] The propaganda model of media criticism that he and Herman developed has been widely accepted in radical media critiques and adopted to some level in mainstream criticism of the media,[295] also exerting a significant influence on the growth of alternative media, including radio, publishers, and the Internet, which in turn have helped to disseminate his work.[296] Despite this broad influence, university departments devoted to history and political science rarely include Chomsky's work on their undergraduate syllabi.[297] Critics have argued that despite publishing widely on social and political issues, Chomsky has no formal expertise in these areas; he has responded that such issues are not as complex as many social scientists claim and that almost everyone is able to comprehend them regardless of whether they have been academically trained to do so.[181] Some have responded to these criticisms by questioning the critics' motives and their understanding of Chomsky's ideas. Sperlich, for instance, says that Chomsky has been vilified by corporate interests, particularly in the mainstream press.[136] Likewise, according to