#1965 events candids

[tina-aumont]

Summer 1965

L-R: Scilla Gabel, Lex Schoorel,  Rossella Falk, Joseph Losey, Monica Vitti, Dirk Bogarde and Tina Aumont during a break or after filming Modesty Blaise (Joseph Losey, 1966).

Photo from She Blogged by Night blogspot

[fuckyeahbarbarastanwyck]

[muzaktomyears]

I never turned on the tape recorder, but I do remember my talk with Brian Epstein [in August 1965] vividly and without question. (...) Epstein was candid about his feelings for the Beatles, especially for Lennon, who he described as a "genius with genius problems." He was especially concerned that John's growing political activism might divert attention from the main event - the men and their music. He felt like a father to John, whom he described as overly petulant and difficult to manage. As the conversation progressed, I realized that I was serving as a depository for some pent-up, constrained feelings. I listened intently as he expressed concern that he was losing his grip on John and maybe the whole group and described his fear that, without his presence, the Beatles' unity would divide into four separate camps. His words would be prophetic, but he didn't imagine that his own death would be a catalyst in realizing those predictions. I was surprised as Epstein described a growing paranoia. He looked pained when he described an awareness of the boys talking behind his back. He assumed that they were laughing at him. I told him I had never heard or seen anything like that. I could imagine that happening, but I was hardly an expert on their private behavior and of course didn't make any guesses with him. I decided to shift the course of conversation, hoping to get him to lighten up. "Tell me about Liverpool," I asked. He described a decent childhood, work in the family store, and the exhilaration of seeing the Beatles perform for the first time. And then, much to my astonishment, he addressed a subject close to my heart - anti-Semitism. This scourge was commonplace in industrial Liverpool in the forties and fifties, he said, creating a cloud of resentment that he unmistakably felt, even around entertainers. "Are the Beatles anti-Semitic?" I inquired. "I don't think so," he said. "But it was always around them, so it may be in them." I never told him about the incident on the plane in 1964.

Ticket to Ride: Inside the Beatles’ 1964 Tour That Changed the World, Larry Kane (2003)

[eptodaytommorowforever]

Events In The History And Of The Life Of Elvis Presley Today On The 24th Of September In 1965.

Elvis Presley Looking Very Mature And Confident In A Red Shirt;

Very Rare Elvis Presley In A Beautiful Red Silk Shirt Sy Devore Designer From LA Who Designed A Lot Of Is Suits Shirts For The Movies And Casual Wear As Well Unseen Promo Publicity Candid Photo Till Now! Taken At The Samuel Goldwyn Studios In Hollywood.

[southeastasianists]

In the days since Hamas launched a deadly attack on southern Israel on 7 October, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations has not made a formal statement about the crisis. This is not surprising, given that each ASEAN member sees the conflict differently. The language adopted and positions taken by individual ASEAN members reflect the interplay of historical or domestic dynamics in their foreign policy. ASEAN is a grouping – but on this issue, not a bloc.

Let’s look at the diverse response from the ASEAN members – where at one end of the spectrum, Brunei, Malaysia and Indonesia have expressed unity with the Palestinians. None of them has diplomatic relations with Israel and all have remained steadfast in their criticism of Israel despite Western pressure. Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim spoke to Ismail Haniyeh, the political bureau chief of Hamas, and expressed support for an immediate ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

In each of Malaysia, Brunei and Indonesia, religion is significant in domestic politics. With Muslim majority populations, there is widespread public solidarity with the Palestinian struggles.

The significance of religion in Indonesian domestic politics was compelling enough for Ganjar Pranowo, one of the candidates for next year’s presidential election, to appear during an Islamic prayer call on a private TV station as part of his campaign. Furthermore, recent public demonstrations in Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur against Israel and the United States reflect sentiment on the street about the latest fighting, which governments cannot ignore.

Conversely, Singapore took a firm position against Hamas and strongly condemned the “terror attacks”. The small island-state has close defence relations with Israel, with Israeli military advisers assisting the Singapore Armed Forces since Singapore’s independence in 1965. Defence relations remain strong, as reflected in the joint development and production of surface-to-surface Blue Spear missiles.

Singapore’s strong stance against Hamas leaves it out of step with its larger Muslim-majority neighbours. Bilahari Kausikan, an influential former Singaporean diplomat, made clear the difference by frankly labelling as “bullshit” a view he attributed to a Malaysian ex-diplomat for the “root cause of the current violence” to be addressed, instead supporting a robust Israeli military response against Hamas.

Nevertheless, Singapore is concerned the crisis could lead to domestic division along religious lines as there is a sizable Muslim minority in the island-state. The government has banned events and public assemblies concerning the current Israel-Hamas conflict, citing rising tension as a reason. And to avoid a view that the Singapore position was one-sided, a government minister later said it was possible to be concerned regarding the Palestinian plights while condemning Hamas’ action. The Singaporean President and Prime Minister sent letters to Palestinian leaders, expressing condolences for the mounting casualties in the Gaza Strip, and pledging a $300,000 donation in humanitarian aid.  

Two other ASEAN members, the Philippines and Thailand, have large numbers of nationals working in Israel and have suffered casualties in the current crisis. Yet each responded differently. The Philippines condemned Hamas’ actions, while Thailand initially expressed neutrality, stating that “we do not know the truth about the political climate between the two nations [Palestine and Israel].” Manila’s response could be attributed to its experience battling militant groups in the southern Philippines over decades. As recently as 2017, militant groups professing alignment with the Islamic State seized control of Marawi, a city in the south of the Philippines, which led to a months-long campaign by the Philippines military with regional support to drive the militants out.

Across mainland Southeast Asia, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam issued softer statements, expressing concern about the crisis without assigning blame to any party. The military junta in Myanmar is more focused on regime survival, launching an air strike against domestic insurgents, killing 29 people a few days after the Hamas attack on Israel.

These historical and domestic dynamics inform the policy of individual ASEAN states and provide some perspective in their reading of and response to the current crisis in the Middle East. It demonstrates a lack of unity among the Southeast Asian grouping that some observers argue dilutes its relevance. Yet despite the diverse responses by individual ASEAN members, there has been no official criticism by one member against another. This is consistent with ASEAN’s norms of non-interference in each other’s affairs, which aims to ensure the stability of Southeast Asia, a region that is still experiencing the threat of terrorism, internal rebellions, and inter-state territorial disputes.

Perhaps the silent acceptance of diverse positions is a strategy for ASEAN to cope in the more volatile world that we live in today.

[septictankie]

The 1968 Prague Spring: Separating Fact from Fiction

Much of the below is translated or adapted from an article written by the Russian historian and political scientist Nikolay Platoshkin. The article can be found here. You can find an identical blog post with hyperlinks to sources here.

Victors write history, and the historical narratives concerning the events of the Cold War are no different. The “Prague Spring” of 1968 is often shrouded in myths that serve the political interests of the hegemonic capitalist countries. The prevailing narrative typically presents the events as follows: economic and political reforms in Czechoslovakia, sparked by the election of the intrepid Alexander Dubček as First Secretary of the Communist Party in January 1968, were brutally suppressed by the invasion of Warsaw Pact troops on August 20-21. Naturally, the sympathies of the “free world,” particularly the United States, are portrayed as being aligned with the brave Czechoslovak reformers. However, the reality is more complex.

Genuine political and economic reforms in Czechoslovakia began long before the “Prague Spring,” influenced by developments in the Soviet Union during the early 1960s. As the Soviet Union under Khrushchev embarked on a period of de-Stalinization, it sparked a wave of reformist thinking across its satellite states. Under the leadership of Antonín Novotný, who had been President of Czechoslovakia and General Secretary of the Communist Party since 1953, the country initiated the rehabilitation of victims arrested during the Stalinist period. (The future leader of Czechoslovakia in the 1970s and 1980s, Gustáv Husák, was one of these, arrested in 1950 and released in 1963, a committed communist throughout.) Censorship was eased significantly, and Czechoslovak cinema, particularly the “New Wave” movement, gained recognition across Europe, with directors like Miloš Forman emerging internationally, as seen with his film Black Peter. A pivotal moment in this period was the adoption of a new economic policy in 1965, directly inspired by the Soviet Union’s Kosygin reforms. This policy aimed to decentralize economic planning, granting enterprises greater autonomy within a framework of business accounting.

The Soviet Union acted as the primary catalyst for reforms in Czechoslovakia, particularly after the new Soviet leadership under Leonid Brezhnev came to power in October 1964, which further accelerated reforms in Moscow and Prague. However, by late 1967, internal conflict within the Czechoslovak Communist Party intensified. Students from the Strahov dormitories in Prague launched a sizable protest over power outages, prompting Novotný to cease reforms and ban liberal journals and films. The widespread unpopularity of these moves led members of the party’s Central Committee to oust Novotný. This coalition of strange bedfellows included noted liberal reformers like Husák, Čestmír Císař, and Jozef Lenárt joining forces with conservatives like Vasil Biľak, Drahomír Kolder, and Jiří Hendrych. When Novotný sought a lifeline from Brezhnev in December 1967, Brezhnev refused, partly because he viewed Novotný as an ally of his Soviet rival, Alexei Kosygin.

During heated debates within the Czechoslovak Communist Party’s Central Committee, which began in October 1967, Novotný suggested Alexander Dubček as a compromise candidate for First Secretary, a proposal that Brezhnev accepted. Dubček, who had lived in the USSR from 1925 to 1938 (where he was a classmate of Brezhnev) and was seen as a reliable ally, was considered a weak political figure, making him acceptable to both liberal and conservative factions within the party. He was also of Slovak descent, which would appease Slovak nationalists who opposed the unitary state. On January 5, 1968, Dubček was narrowly elected First Secretary by just one vote. Brezhnev’s unexpected visit to Prague in December 1967 was interpreted by the U.S. as a reluctant intervention in the party’s internal struggles, given the lack of a clear alternative to Novotný. Far from the enterprising reformer portrayed in Western media, Dubček was initially meant to hold the party line, something that he promised to do, part of a pattern of deception and careerism.

In February 1968, the U.S. State Department agreed with the U.S. Embassy in Prague’s recommendation to refrain from showing goodwill toward Dubček’s regime, viewing it as an unstable coalition of right and left forces. The U.S. chose not to act despite holding significant leverage at the time, stemming from the U.S. Army’s seizure of Czechoslovakia’s gold reserves during the liberation of western Czechoslovakia in 1945. The gold had been taken by the Germans after their 1939 occupation. Despite repeated requests from the Czechoslovak government, the U.S. avoided returning the gold, citing various pretexts. In 1961, the U.S. agreed to return the gold in exchange for settling claims of American citizens affected by post-1948 nationalization in Czechoslovakia. Both sides initially agreed on a sum of around $10 million, but the U.S. later quadrupled the demand due to Washington’s displeasure over Czechoslovakia’s arms supplies to Vietnam. Additionally, the U.S. delayed granting Czechoslovakia most-favored-nation trade status, linking it to the unresolved gold issue. At the onset of the “Prague Spring,” U.S. policy was frosty toward Dubček.

On March 22, 1968, Antonín Novotný resigned as President, and General Ludvík Svoboda, a former commander of Czechoslovak forces on the Soviet-German front, succeeded him. The day before, Czechoslovak Ambassador to Washington, Karel Duda, told U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Walter J. Stoessel, that the new leadership would likely seek better relations with the U.S. He dismissed the possibility of foreign interference in Czechoslovakia’s internal affairs, which the Americans interpreted as a reference to Moscow, but warned that internal conflict could escalate if it led to violence. This affirmed the view that Dubček’s regime was meant to stabilize Czechoslovakia, at least for the time being, not usher in a wave of reforms that would destabilize the country.

On February 25, Major General Jan Šejna, a Novotný supporter who led the Defense Ministry’s party organization, defected to the U.S. with his young mistress. Czechoslovakia demanded his extradition, accusing him of corruption and plotting a military coup for Novotný, but the U.S. refused. Despite being deemed a criminal by the Dubček government and once considered a hardliner, Šejna became a key CIA informant on Czechoslovakia and received political asylum. Given the choice between sheltering an individual it once considered a “Stalinist” for a military advantage or diplomatic measures meant to thaw relations with a Cold War adversary, the U.S. government eagerly pursued the former option.

The U.S. Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, Jacob Beam, held a low opinion of the new Dubček regime, viewing any push for liberalization as secondary to ousting Novotný, after which the government would likely seek stability. Nonetheless, Beam believed that the unfolding events in Czechoslovakia aligned with U.S. interests. On April 26, he recommended to Under Secretary of State for European Affairs, Charles E. Bohlen, a more flexible stance on the issue of Czechoslovakia’s gold reserves as a diplomatic gesture toward the new Prague leadership. Beam suggested returning “Nazi gold” to Czechoslovakia in exchange for an initial payment to compensate individuals whose wealth was expropriated during communist nationalization, with additional payments to follow. He also proposed using most-favored-nation trade status as a potential incentive, which would mean low tariffs or high import quotas for Czechoslovakia. Beam believed these steps could enhance U.S. influence within the communist world. However, Beam’s modest proposal was not supported. The State Department agreed only to express approval of Czechoslovakia’s liberalization. Due to Czechoslovakia’s role as the third-largest arms supplier to North Vietnam, direct financial or economic aid from the U.S. was deemed impossible.

During this period, a significant debate unfolded in Washington between “hawks” and “doves” in the U.S. leadership. President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had decided not to seek re-election in October 1968, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk prioritized détente with the USSR. They believed this thaw in relations could help end the Vietnam War with Soviet assistance. Johnson even planned a potential visit to Moscow in October 1968, becoming the first U.S. President to do so. Johnson was concerned that excessive liberalization in Czechoslovakia might jeopardize the improving U.S.-Soviet relations.

In contrast, the “hawk” faction, led by Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs Walt Rostow, saw an opportunity to weaken the USSR globally by attempting to pull Czechoslovakia out of the Warsaw Pact. Rostow believed this could distract the Soviets from Vietnam and possibly allow the U.S. to end the war on more favorable terms. Rostow is remembered as one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Vietnam War, claiming that strategic bombing of North Vietnam alone would be sufficient to win the war. This was based on Rostow’s belief that there was no genuine support for communism in South Vietnam and that ending the war was as simple as destroying North Vietnam’s infrastructure.

On May 10, 1968, Rostow sent Rusk a memorandum titled “Soviet Threats to Czechoslovakia,” interpreting Warsaw Pact maneuvers in Poland as a sign of Soviet hesitation and urging Johnson to summon the Soviet Ambassador to demand an explanation. Rostow also proposed creating a special high-level NATO group to monitor the situation in Czechoslovakia and prepare a response plan. However, both Rusk and Johnson rejected Rostow’s alarmist stance.

The U.S. Embassy in West Germany shared a cautious view for different reasons. Unlike the 1956 Hungarian crisis, the Embassy noted in a telegram on May 10 that moving American troops closer to or across the Czech border to counter a Soviet attack was conceivable due to the shared border between Czechoslovakia and West Germany. However, the West German government, including the Social Democrats, strongly opposed any U.S. military action from West German territory. The West German Deputy Foreign Minister even urged the U.S. Ambassador to moderate anti-Czechoslovak propaganda from Radio Free Europe in Munich and RIAS in West Berlin, leading the U.S. Ambassador to West Germany, George McGhee, to consider joint actions with West Germany against Czechoslovakia unrealistic.

On May 11, Secretary of State Dean Rusk initiated a continuous exchange of opinions between NATO countries concerning the situation in Czechoslovakia. However, in a telegram to the U.S. mission to NATO, he recommended holding off on actions that might be perceived as NATO showing “unusual concern” about Czechoslovakia.

Despite this, the U.S. remained unwilling to address the pressing bilateral issues with Czechoslovakia. On May 28, Jiří Hájek, the new Czechoslovak Foreign Minister and a reformer, expressed frustration to the U.S. ambassador that bilateral relations had not improved since 1962 and had even regressed in some respects. Hájek reiterated demands for the return of Czechoslovakia’s gold reserves, pointing out that the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia had occurred with the West’s, including the U.S.’s, acquiescence. Ambassador Beam was unable to provide a concrete response but reported to the State Department that Prague was likely using the gold issue to bolster its authority within the communist bloc and to curb any growing pro-American sentiments within the country.

On June 13, the CIA provided a memorandum titled “Czechoslovakia: Dubcek’s Pause” to the top U.S. leadership. The memo assessed that the crisis in Czechoslovakia, both internal and external, had lost its immediacy, leading to a “pause.” The Soviet Union had been reassured by Dubček’s firm commitment to keeping the reform process under Communist Party control. In return, the Czechs were granted some autonomy in domestic matters by the USSR. The CIA noted that the Soviets were keen to avoid military intervention in Czechoslovakia, due to concerns that the country might leave the Warsaw Pact, given that Czechoslovakia had the largest army per capita within the Pact, totaling 230,000 soldiers.

Despite Moscow’s objections to the anti-Soviet rhetoric in the Czechoslovak media, the CIA reported that this rhetoric had “reached astonishing proportions” in recent weeks. The media blamed the USSR not only for the Stalinist repression of the early 1950s but also for the current economic difficulties in Czechoslovakia. However, it was precisely cheap raw materials from the USSR that were able to provide Czechoslovakia with high rates of economic growth and an improvement in the standard of living of the population. For all its embrace of market reforms, the Czechoslovak economy did not grow out of its moribund status, as goods produced in the country simply were not competitive enough. Inflation soon followed, leading to cuts to social services, which only led to greater public dissent.

The CIA concluded that due to the compromise between Prague and Moscow, “Moscow decided not to use force, at least for the time being.” Interestingly, the CIA noted that Dubček himself might benefit from this situation, as his perceived indecisiveness in implementing reforms could be attributed to Soviet pressure. U.S. intelligence, citing Czech sources, also reported growing disagreements within the Soviet leadership over Czechoslovakia. Leonid Brezhnev, who had placed Dubček in power, was under pressure as Dubček’s policies were increasingly seen as anti-Soviet. This situation could potentially be exploited by Brezhnev’s opponents within the Soviet leadership, including Kosygin.

U.S. intelligence, correctly assessing the situation, believed that Dubček was merely stalling by agreeing to Brezhnev’s terms and promising to maintain socialism in Czechoslovakia. They anticipated that at the upcoming Communist Party congress in September 1968, reformist views would be formally adopted as the party’s official program, revealing to the Soviets that they had been misled. The CIA also assessed that Dubček lacked firm convictions of his own and was influenced by the reformers Oldřich Černík and Zdeněk Mlynář, who were expected to play a crucial role after the congress. The CIA concluded that there was a significant likelihood of renewed tension between Prague and Moscow. Although Soviet leaders, or at least most of them, preferred to avoid sharp and costly military action, they might resort to threatening Czech borders if Dubček’s control appeared to be collapsing or if Czech policies became “counterrevolutionary” from Moscow’s perspective.

By this time, the CIA was heavily influenced by its primary “expert” on Czechoslovakia, General Šejna, who was pursuing his own agenda to discredit Dubček. On July 24, the CIA reported that the crisis in Czechoslovakia had subsided, according to Šejna, who believed that the Czechoslovaks would likely capitulate to Soviet demands and reverse the reforms. Šejna also suggested that such a rollback would not provoke significant public protests, as neither workers nor Slovaks were actively engaged in the liberalization process. The CIA noted that the “Prague Spring” was largely driven by intellectuals and parts of the party apparatus without improving the material conditions of the general population. Furthermore, anti-Soviet sentiment in the Czech press did not resonate with Slovakia. The CIA’s internal notes reflected concerns that Šejna might be underestimating the national factor, noting that military and police forces, being “conservative and pro-Soviet,” could quickly suppress any potential demonstrations against the rollback of reforms.

The CIA memo highlighted that the Soviets were facing substantial pressure from conservative forces within Czechoslovakia, as well as from the leaders of Poland and East Germany, who demanded more stringent control over the situation in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Šejna believed that while the Soviets favored using political influence, they were prepared to use military force if necessary, which would likely involve a rapid advance of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia. The CIA accurately assessed that Moscow was becoming aware that Dubček and the “liberals” were not fulfilling their promises to keep Czechoslovakia within the Soviet sphere of influence, specifically the Warsaw Pact.

By July 1968, the State Department was already considering raising the Czechoslovak issue at the United Nations, potentially as a protest against the slow withdrawal of Soviet troops following the end of the Warsaw Pact “Šumava” maneuvers on June 30. However, the U.S. was reluctant to take direct action at the U.N., preferring instead that the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, or potentially Romania and Yugoslavia, initiate the discussion.

On July 14-15, the leaders of the Soviet Union, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Bulgaria met in Warsaw to discuss the events taking place in Czechoslovakia. On the heels of the publication of liberal manifesto “The Two Thousand Words,” the Warsaw Pact leaders feared that anti-communist forces were exploiting the liberalization to promote disorder. Although they stated their common desire not to interfere in Czechoslovak affairs, they shared anxieties that reactionary forces were preparing for counterrevolution:

The reactionary forces were given the opportunity, in public, to publish their political platform under the title “Two Thousand Words,” which contains an open call for a struggle against the communist party and against the constitutional system, as well as a call for strikes and chaos. This appeal is a serious threat to the party, the National Front, and the socialist state. It is an attempt to foment anarchy. The declaration is, in its essence, the organizational-political platform of counterrevolution.

On July 20, 1968, Rostow issued another memorandum to the Secretary of State, pressing for active measures to deter the USSR from acting against Czechoslovakia. Rostow acknowledged that Czechoslovakia was within the Soviet sphere of influence and that its departure from Moscow’s control would severely undermine Soviet positions globally, including in Vietnam and the Middle East. The memorandum proposed establishing a special NATO group to develop a unified response plan for potential crises involving the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, suggesting that this move would reinvigorate the alliance itself. Rostow, also serving as special assistant to the president, requested from the US military leadership, via the Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, information on NATO forces available for a possible intervention in Czechoslovakia. On July 23, the response indicated that a potential intervention could involve one US brigade, two French divisions, and two German divisions. The Joint Chiefs of Staff limited the U.S. contribution to one brigade due to the lengthy mobilization time required for a larger force.

Thus, the US was seriously contemplating a NATO intervention in Czechoslovakia a month before the Warsaw Pact troops entered the country. On July 22, the Soviet Ambassador to the US, Anatoly Dobrynin, was summoned to the State Department, where Secretary of State Rusk lodged a de facto protest against Soviet media claims of NATO, Pentagon, and CIA subversive activities against Czechoslovakia. By July 24, President Johnson convened a meeting with the entire US political and military leadership, including the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Director of the CIA. At this meeting, Rostow revised his earlier position, expressing doubts that the Soviets would take military action against Czechoslovakia. Rusk also declared that the “Czech crisis” had passed.

From July 25 to August 1, the top leadership of the USSR and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic convened in Čierna nad Tisou in southeastern Slovakia—a historic meeting, as it marked the only occasion when the entire Soviet leadership traveled abroad simultaneously. During these discussions, a compromise appeared to be reached. Dubček, in the presence of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, agreed to halt anti-Soviet rhetoric in the Czechoslovak media, bolster the Ministry of Internal Affairs’ leadership, and remove several anti-Soviet figures from key government positions, including the head of Czechoslovak television, Jiří Pelikán. In return, Brezhnev promised to end the Soviet media’s critiques of Czechoslovak policies.

In the meantime, a group of conservative communist politicians, including Vasil Biľak and Drahomír Kolder who had supported Dubček’s rise to power, authored a “letter of invitation” to Brezhnev and the Soviet government to intervene in Czechoslovakia. They saw the writing on the wall: the Dubček government was neither trustworthy nor competent, and if the situation was allowed to continue, Czechoslovakia was likely to degenerate into chaos, with ordinary people suffering the most. The capitalist West would not help the people but only exploit the situation according to their political interests. The only viable choice was to ask the Soviet Union to restore order and remove the Dubček government. Brezhnev would later cite this letter as a major justification for the later Warsaw Pact invasion.

The US Embassy in Prague, in a dispatch dated August 4, reported that while the meeting in Čierna might have temporarily eased tensions, Dubček would likely struggle to honor his commitments without undermining his domestic support. The embassy suggested that the State Department publicly commend the Čierna meeting’s results for resolving the immediate political crisis in Czechoslovakia. However, despite the agreement, anti-Soviet articles continued to appear in Czechoslovak newspapers post-Čierna, and Dubček did not fully meet his promises. Instead of the bold reformist hero, Dubček should be seen as an opportunist who told others what they wanted to hear at the time so long as it helped him stay in power. Instead of confrontation, he nominally chose compromise at Čierna.

On August 10, during a meeting with President Johnson and Republican presidential candidate Nixon, CIA Director Helms remarked that while the immediate severity of the Czechoslovak crisis had diminished, it was not fully resolved. He noted that the Czechoslovaks were increasingly seeking to reduce their participation in the Warsaw Pact. The Soviets wanted to avoid this at all costs, but had no honest leader to deal with.

On August 13, Brezhnev had an extensive telephone conversation with Dubček, which likely prompted the decision to introduce Warsaw Pact troops into the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. During this call, Brezhnev implored Dubček to fulfill the commitments made at Čierna or at least specify when these would be met. In typical fashion, Dubček avoided providing a clear answer and revealed his intention to resign from his top party position at the upcoming Communist Party Congress in September. Moscow feared that the Czechoslovak party leadership might disintegrate imminently, prompting the decision to deploy troops to support Dubček and mitigate pressure from the liberals. Had Moscow simply wished to remove Dubček, it could have waited for the September Congress.

On August 19, Rostow conveyed to Dobrynin over dinner that the United States viewed the Soviet decisions at Čierna as “wise.” The Americans aimed to avoid exacerbating the situation in Czechoslovakia and were hopeful that the situation would stabilize following Čierna. On August 20, Dobrynin met with President Johnson. The President, in good spirits, discussed various topics, including Kosygin’s health and his own lack of a haircut, before addressing the main issue. Dobrynin informed Johnson of the Soviet leadership’s decision to deploy troops into Czechoslovakia, citing a threat to European peace and stating that the intervention was at the Czechoslovak government’s request. The message emphasized that the action was not intended to undermine American interests and assured the continuation of détente in Soviet-American relations. Johnson thanked Dobrynin and promised a response after consulting with Secretary of State Rusk. The conversation concluded amicably, with no condemnation of the Soviet action from the American side. Dobrynin was surprised by Johnson’s lack of immediate reaction, noting that the President seemed to underappreciate the gravity of the situation.

On August 20, Soviet forces were ordered to commence Operation Danube, marking the beginning of the troop deployment into Czechoslovakia. By approximately 11 p.m., Warsaw Pact troops from the USSR, Poland, Hungary, and Bulgaria began crossing the Czechoslovak border. Soviet airborne units landed at Prague’s Ruzyne Airport at 2:00 a.m. on August 21. The general directive for Soviet units in the event of encountering NATO forces was to halt and refrain from engaging.

Slovaks widely welcomed Soviet troops, joyfully hoping for a return of social guarantees and urban development, saying that “the Slovaks are not with Prague.” This sentiment reflected a deep-seated dissatisfaction with the central government’s policies, which many Slovaks saw as favoring Prague and the Czechs. The arrival of Soviet forces was seen by some as a chance to regain the social stability and economic progress that had been characteristic of earlier communist rule. Many Slovaks believed that aligning with the Soviet Union could secure better living standards, greater investment in infrastructure, and a reassertion of traditional socialist values that they felt were being eroded by the reformist agenda.

On August 20, President Johnson convened an emergency meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) in Washington. Both Secretary of State Rusk and Defense Secretary Clark Clifford expressed significant surprise at the Soviet decision to deploy troops. CIA Director Helms correctly identified the motivation behind the Soviet actions: Dubček’s failure to meet the commitments made in Čierna. Helms noted, “They (i.e., the USSR) wanted the Czechs to quiet the press. The Czechs did not do that.” Johnson labeled the troop deployment as aggression and inquired about possible responses from the United States. Rusk suggested that the U.S. could support Czechoslovakia at the United Nations if the Czechoslovaks raised the issue of the Soviet invasion there. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler, stated that the United States lacked the strength for any forceful retaliation: “We do not have the forces to do it.” Vice President Hubert Humphrey concluded the discussion by emphasizing the need for restraint, noting, “All you can do is snort and talk.”

By August 26 most high-ranking Czechoslovak officials, including Dubček, signed the “Moscow Protocols” that required they pledge themselves to Marxism-Leninism, proletarian internationalism, and renew the struggle against bourgeois ideology. Notably, the Soviets did not simply install pro-Moscow conservatives as their puppets, unlike the U.S. and CIA, who regularly overthrew governments around the world during the Cold War to install dictators loyal to Washington. Instead, the new government included reformers like Gustáv Husák and Jozef Lenárt who favored not suppression but “normalization,” the peaceful return to the pre-Dubček period. Although Czechoslovakia was not permitted to go down the road to chaos or counterrevolution, many of the same individuals who held power before the Soviet intervention remained in power afterwards, unlike in cases of U.S. military interventions.

It is also worth stressing the degree to which the Soviet leadership went to negotiate with Czechoslovak leaders, first with Brezhnev’s personal intervention in late 1967, the Čierna meetings in late July 1968, and the negotiations over the subsequent Moscow Protocols. Clearly, the Soviet Union was willing to go to great diplomatic lengths to keep the country inside the Warsaw Pact. Compare this to the 2000s, when Czech protests over U.S. missiles and radar stations due to NATO membership prompted only shrugs from Washington. Moreover, the U.S. used a large number of Czech troops to shore up its illegal war in Iraq, something the Soviet Union never did during its bloody occupation of Afghanistan.

As we have seen, the U.S. government viewed the Dubček regime with caution, not optimism, considering it a loose coalition of various political forces and a transitional phenomenon. The “Prague Spring” lacked support from both the working class and the Slovak region of Czechoslovakia. Instead of using diplomacy, the United States contemplated the possibility of military intervention in Czechoslovakia by several NATO divisions. The USSR’s approach to Czechoslovakia was deemed prudent by the United States, and the compromise reached in Čierna was regarded as a “wise decision.” The CIA (correctly) assessed the introduction of Warsaw Pact troops on August 20-21, 1968, as a response to Dubček’s failure to keep his word and implement the Čierna agreements.

[didierleclair]

JAMES BALDWIN

I came across a conversation between the African-American writer James Baldwin and the host of a Radio-Canada show, Fernand Seguin. The interview took place in September 1967, about a month before I was born. I mention it because the subject of the interview has not aged a bit.

I want to say that Fernand Seguin is a good TV Host, and the following is not a criticism of his work.

I was pleasantly surprised by James Baldwin's French. He manages to get his message across with passion and his host has no difficulty understanding. From time to time, he says a word in English.

There are strong moments in this conversation, and I would like to focus on them to illustrate the relevance of the debate on the racial question in the United States and in the West in general.

The journalist's first words reveal the state of mind of Canada and Quebec in 1967. They do not pay much attention to what is happening to their neighbor. Fernand Seguin tries to wake them up, to make his compatriots aware of the importance of the struggles for civil rights.

“We can no longer speak of riots angered by the summer heat,” declared Fernand Seguin. The year is 1967. There had already been the 1963 riots in Alabama over segregation in schools. Malcom X was no longer, assassinated in 1965. Riots exploded in Cleveland in 1966 and in Detroit in 1967. Fernand Seguin tries to inform Québec that it is about time to take these events seriously.

The journalist's first question does not achieve its goal. He wants the writer to tell him about the events from his childhood that made him understand that he was experiencing racism. But James Baldwin replied that a child cannot know what racism means. When Fernand Seguin persists, the writer talks about the attitude of his father who clumsily tried to protect him from racism. For him, there was no hatred when he was growing up. There were unwritten prohibitions. Black people knew the limits not to be crossed. For example, he said, interracial marriages were prohibited.

The journalist asks the writer the reason for the racial violence in his country. As in his books, James Baldwin is direct and reminds us that his country is in total denial of its slavery past.

I found it ironic that James Baldwin denounced the false Christianity of white Americans. The show was called “Salt of the Week”. The biblical symbolism of salt is indicative of a Quebec era close to Catholicism. Certainly, Prime Minister Jean Lesage had already carried out important reforms in Quebec until 1966, but this title remains an indicator of a Christian influence which refused to disappear completely.

Fernand Seguin will speak of “the hypocrisy of white Christians” and the writer will correct him. It wasn't about hypocrisy. “Do you have a worse word than that?” asks the journalist. James Baldwin points out that white people believe their lies about black people. So, they are not hypocrites, it is worse. We are beyond hypocrisy. James Baldwin makes it clear that these white people suffer from a form of denial, from intentional blindness.

This blindness is still present today. When Donald Trump maintains that Democratic candidate Kamala Harris is not really Black and this is accepted among his supporters, it is a denial. Mrs. Harris has a black father. This is an accepted lie that Trump imposes, and many Americans share it. However, Ms. Harris is like Barack Obama who is considered Black.

Another intense moment is when the author explains to the journalist that the Civil War (1861-1865) had nothing to do with the liberation of slaves. It was a war between two capitalist systems. “The black man was a pawn,” says the author. This is a truth that is difficult to assert even today.

Donald Trump was born in New York. He is therefore from the North and hearing him question the black origins of Kamala Harris shows that Northerners are no less inclined to denigrate minorities than Southerners.

Prophetic as usual, James Baldwin corrects the words of the journalist who speaks of hope about the liberation of South Africa. “It is not a matter of hope, that’s absolutely certain.” Today we can see that the writer was right.

In this show, we witness the meeting of a black-American preacher and a descendant of French settlers who was raised Catholic.

“My own father sold me like cattle, killed me like cattle”. The journalist responds “morally”. James Baldwin replies “No, currently’.  The African-American gives as an example a black nanny whose son was killed by the white child, she had taken care of, once he became adult.

Fernand Seguin believed that the writer was talking about moral cruelty. But it’s a preacher’s speaking style. The writer uses the present indicative even for a past act and he can speak of another's father as if he were his own. It’s a way of showing that he feels the nanny’s pain as if it were his own. The Quebec journalist did not understand this rhetoric because he was not raised in this type of environment or because he had not read many books by James Baldwin.

We arrive at the crux of the interview. The journalist talks about Malcolm X and says he was an extremist and preached violence. Baldwin corrects once again. “He was not an extremist.” So, Fernand Seguin feels obliged to declare “I speak like a white man” to justify the way he characterized Malcolm X.

The host of “Salt of the Week” seems to make it clear that he plays the role of conservative, that he is not necessarily. We have the impression that there are two discourses. The real one and the other which is to “speak like a white man”. I find this line fascinating. I am not criticizing Fernand Seguin. I note that in 1967, you still had to play a role on television.

James Baldwin responds that Malcolm X was a revolutionary. Then he drives the point home by bringing out the “N” word to say how America calls revolutionaries like Malcolm X. He’s going to say it twice.

From that moment on, Fernand Seguin lost Baldwin's trust. The writer understood that the journalist plays the role of devil’s advocate. The host calls Stokley Carmichael (Kwame Ture) a black leader. The author will tell him that he is not a leader.  “It’s a phenomenon.”

At the end, Baldwin reminds the reporter that black despair is not organized. Indeed, Fernand Seguin speaks of organized revolution. The author concludes that “If it were organized, it would not be the ghetto that would be in flames, but the city.”

The show ends with Baldwin's voice and the credits rolling as a trumpet plays jazz.

Didier Leclair, writer Pic: All Rights Reserved

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Mike Luckovich

* * * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

August 10, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

“Good Lord, Who Among Us Hasn’t Paid For A Clarence Thomas Vacation?” David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo asked this morning. Kurtz was reacting to a new piece by Brett Murphy and Alex Mierjeski in ProPublica detailing Justice Thomas’s leisure activities and the benefactors who underwrote them. 

Those activities include “[a]t least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.” The authors add that this “is almost certainly an undercount.”

Thomas did not disclose these gifts, as ethics specialists say he should have done. House Democrats Ted Lieu (D-CA), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Gerry Connolly (D-VA), and Hank Johnson (D-GA) have said Thomas must resign. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who has led the effort to extricate the Supreme Court from very wealthy interests for years, commented: “I said it would get worse; it will keep getting worse.”

Thomas’s benefactors, Murphy and Mierjeski noted, “share the ideology that drives his jurisprudence.” That ideology made Trump lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who has been in the news for the release of his December 6, 2020, memo outlining how to steal the 2020 presidential election, speculate that Thomas was the Supreme Court justice the plotters could count on to back their coup. “Realistically,” Chesebro wrote to lawyer John Eastman, “our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6, which might hold up the Georgia count in Congress, is from Thomas—do you agree, Prof. Eastman?” 

Last Saturday, Republican leaders in Alabama illustrated that their ideology means they reject democracy. After the Supreme Court agreed that the congressional districting map lawmakers put in place after the 2020 census probably violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a lower court ruling that required a new map went into effect. But Alabama Republican lawmakers simply refused. 

Alexander Willis of the Alabama Daily News reported that at a meeting of the Alabama state Republican Party on Saturday, the party’s legal counsel David Bowsher applauded the lawmakers, saying, “House Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy doesn’t have that big a margin, that costs him one seat right there. I can’t tell you we’re going to win in this fight; we’ve got a Supreme Court that surprised the living daylights out of me when they handed down this decision, but I can guarantee you, if the Legislature hadn’t done that, we lose.”

Paul Reynolds, the national committeeman of the party, went on: “Let me scare you a little bit more; Texas has between five and ten congressmen that are Republicans that could shift the other way,” he continued. “How could we win the House back ever again if we’re talking about losing two in Louisiana, and losing five to ten in Texas? The answer’s simple: It’s never.”

Alabama attorney general Steve Marshall added: “Let’s make it clear, we elect a Legislature to reflect the values of the people that they represent, and I don’t think anybody in this room wanted this Legislature to adopt two districts that were going to guarantee that two Democrats would be elected…. What we believe fully is that we just live in a red state with conservative people, and that’s who the candidates of Alabama want to be able to elect going forward.”

The determination of Republican officials to hold onto power even though they appear to know they are in a minority is part of what drove even Republican voters in Ohio to reject their proposal to require 60% of voters, rather than a simple majority, to approve changes in the state constitution. 

Meanwhile, today’s July consumer price index report showed that annual inflation has fallen by about two thirds since last summer, a better-than-expected number suggesting that measures to cool the economy are working without hurting the economy. Real wages have outpaced inflation for the last five months, and unemployment is at a low the U.S. hasn’t seen since 1969. 

At the same time, the country is ending one of the last pieces of the social safety net put in place during Covid: the rule that people on Medicaid could remain covered without renewing their coverage each year. That rule ended in April, and states are purging their Medicaid rolls of those who they say no longer qualify. In the last three months, 4 million people have lost their Medicaid coverage, mostly because of paperwork problems. (Texas dropped an eye-popping 52% of beneficiaries due for renewal in May.) 

Biden officials have tried to pressure states quietly to fix the errors—including long waits to get phone calls answered and slow processing of applications, as well as paperwork errors—but yesterday released letters it had sent to individual states to warn them they might be violating federal law. Thirty-six states did not meet federal requirements.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 8.21 (after 1900)

1901 – Six hundred American school teachers, Thomasites, arrived in Manila on the USAT Thomas. 1911 – The Mona Lisa is stolen by Vincenzo Peruggia, a Louvre employee. 1914 – World War I: The Battle of Charleroi, a successful German attack across the River Sambre that pre-empted a French offensive in the same area. 1918 – World War I: The Second Battle of the Somme begins. 1942 – World War II: The Guadalcanal Campaign: American forces defeat an attack by Imperial Japanese Army soldiers in the Battle of the Tenaru. 1944 – Dumbarton Oaks Conference, prelude to the United Nations, begins. 1944 – World War II: Canadian and Polish units capture the strategically important town of Falaise, Calvados, France. 1945 – Physicist Harry Daghlian is fatally irradiated in a criticality accident during an experiment with the Demon core at Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1957 – The Soviet Union successfully conducts a long-range test flight of the R-7 Semyorka, the first intercontinental ballistic missile. 1959 – United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower signs an executive order proclaiming Hawaii the 50th state of the union. Hawaii's admission is currently commemorated by Hawaii Admission Day. 1963 – Xá Lợi Pagoda raids: The Army of the Republic of Vietnam Special Forces loyal to Ngô Đình Nhu, brother of President Ngo Dinh Diem, vandalizes Buddhist pagodas across the country, arresting thousands and leaving an estimated hundreds dead. 1965 – The Socialist Republic of Romania is proclaimed, following the adoption of a new constitution. 1968 – Cold War: Nicolae Ceaușescu, leader of the Socialist Republic of Romania, publicly condemns the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, encouraging the Romanian population to arm itself against possible Soviet reprisals. 1968 – James Anderson Jr. posthumously receives the first Medal of Honor to be awarded to an African American U.S. Marine. 1971 – A bomb exploded in the Liberal Party campaign rally in Plaza Miranda, Manila, Philippines with several anti-Marcos political candidates injured. 1982 – Lebanese Civil War: The first troops of a multinational force lands in Beirut to oversee the Palestine Liberation Organization's withdrawal from Lebanon. 1983 – Philippine opposition leader Benigno Aquino Jr. is assassinated at Manila International Airport (now renamed Ninoy Aquino International Airport in his honor). 1986 – Carbon dioxide gas erupts from volcanic Lake Nyos in Cameroon, killing up to 1,800 people within a 20-kilometre (12 mi) range. 1988 – The 6.9 Mw  Nepal earthquake shakes the Nepal–India border with a maximum Mercalli intensity of VIII (Severe), leaving 709–1,450 people killed and thousands injured. 1991 – Latvia declares renewal of its full independence after its occupation by the Soviet Union since 1940. 1991 – Coup attempt against Mikhail Gorbachev collapses. 1993 – NASA loses contact with the Mars Observer spacecraft. 1994 – Royal Air Maroc Flight 630 crashes in Douar Izounine, Morocco, killing all 44 people on board. 1995 – Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 529, an Embraer EMB 120 Brasilia, attempts to divert to West Georgia Regional Airport after the left engine fails, but the aircraft crashes in Carroll County near Carrollton, Georgia, killing nine of the 29 people on board. 2000 – American golfer Tiger Woods wins the 82nd PGA Championship and becomes the first golfer since Ben Hogan in 1953 to win three majors in a calendar year. 2013 – Hundreds of people are reported killed by chemical attacks in the Ghouta region of Syria. 2017 – A solar eclipse traverses the continental United States.

[brn1029]

This date in rock music history…

August 17th

2009 - Pink Floyd

A thief in New Zealand took the unusual step of leaving his contact details at the site of his crime. The man reserved a copy of Pink Floyd's The Wall at a record shop in Christchurch, leaving his name and phone number, before robbing the till. He was a regular customer at the shop and already had several records on order.

2008 - Jackson Browne

Jackson Browne was suing US Republican presidential candidate John McCain for using one of his songs without permission. Browne claimed the use of his song Running on Empty in an advert was an infringement of copyright and would lead people to conclude he endorses McCain. Browne was seeking more than $75,000 (£40,000) in damages.

1999 - Led Zeppelin

Led Zeppelin topped a chart of Britain's most bootlegged musicians, compiled by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI), after identifying 384 bootleg titles featuring Led Zeppelin performances. The bootleg chart was complied from the BPI's archive of some 10,000 recordings seized over the past 25 years. The Beatles came in second with 320 entries, other acts listed included The Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and Pink Floyd.

1979 - Anita Pallenberg

The New York Post reported that Anita Pallenberg (the wife of Keith Richards) was linked to a witches coven in South Salem, New York where Richards owned a house. A policeman claimed he was attacked by a flock of black-hooded, caped people and a local youth claimed he had been invited by Pallenburg to take part in ‘pot smoking sex orgies’. Locals also claimed they found ‘ritualistic stakes’ and small animals that had been ‘sacrificed’ near the house.

1974 - Eric Clapton

Eric Clapton started a four-week run at No.1 on the US album chart with 461 Ocean Boulevard, a No.3 hit in the UK. The house featured on the album cover is 461 Ocean Boulevard in the town of Golden Beach, Florida (near Miami) where Clapton lived while making the album.

1973 - Paul Williams

Former Temptations singer Paul Williams was found dead in his car, after shooting himself. He owed $80000 in taxes and his celebrity boutique business had failed.

1969 - Woodstock Festival

The final day of the 3 day Woodstock Festival took place at Max Yasgur's farm in Bethel, New York. Acts who appeared included Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Ten Years After, John Sebastian, Sha Na Na, Joe Cocker, Country Joe and the Fish, The Band, Ten Years After, Johnny Winter and Paul Butterfield Blues Band. Over 186,000 tickets had been sold but on the first day, the flimsy fences and ticket barriers had come down. Organizers announced the concert would be a free event, prompting thousands more to head for the concert.

1968 - Doors

The Doors started a four-week run at No.1 on the US album chart with Waiting For The Sun. The group's third album spawned their second US No.1 single, 'Hello, I Love You'.

1968 - Young Rascals

The Rascals (formerly the Young Rascals), started a five week run at No.1 on the US singles chart with 'People Got To Be Free'. The group had thirteen US top 40 hits.

1965 - The Byrds

The Byrds were forced to cancel a concert during their UK tour at The Guildhall, Portsmouth when only 250 of the 4,000 tickets had been sold.

1964 - The Beatles

Glasgow council in Scotland announced that all boys and men with Beatle styled haircuts would have to wear bathing caps after a committee was told that hair from 'Beatle-cuts' was clogging the pools filters.

[gardenwalrus]

Epstein was candid about his feelings for the Beatles, especially for Lennon, who he described as a “genius with genius problems.” He was especially concerned that John’s growing political activism might divert attention from the main event - the men and their music. [...] As the conversation progressed, I realised that I was serving as a depository for some pent-up, constrained feelings. I listened intently as he expressed concern that he was losing his grip on John, and maybe the whole group and described his fear that, without his presence, the Beatles’ unity would divide into four separate camps. [...] I was surprised as Epstein described a growing paranoia. He looked pained when he described an awareness of the boys talking behind his back. He assumed that they were laughing at him. I told him I had never heard or seen anything like that. I could imagine that happening, but I was hardly an expert on their private behaviour and of course I didn’t make any guesses with him.

- Larry Kane on a private conversation he had with Brian Epstein during the Beatles' 1965 American tour. Within Larry Kane, Ticket to Ride (2003)

[tina-aumont]

Circa November/December 1965 - Laughing Tina and Christian Marquand are looking to some photographs (perhaps a contact sheet?) with an unidentifyed man.

Photo by Reporters Associés.

Very special thanks to @74paris for letting me know about this jewel that comes from amazon.

[whitesinhistory]

On August 2, 1900, North Carolina approved a constitutional amendment that required residents to pass a literacy test in order to register to vote. Under the provision, illiterate registrants with a relative who had voted in an election prior to the year 1867 were exempt from the requirement.

These provisions effectively disenfranchised most of the state’s African American voting population. At the same time, the rules preserved the voting rights of most of the state’s poor and uneducated white residents—who were much more likely to have a relative eligible to vote in 1867, before the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment. To the drafters and supporters of the amendment, this outcome was by design.

In the days and months leading up to the special election to vote on the literacy test proposal, campaign events throughout the state encouraged white citizens to cast their votes in favor of the policy that would achieve Black disenfranchisement. On the eve of the election, judicial candidate and former Confederate officer William A. Guthrie proclaimed to a crowd of over 12,000:

“The people of the east and west are coming together. The amendment will pass and the negro curbed in every part of the state. Good government will be restored everywhere. Then our ladies can walk the streets of our towns in safety, day or night. White women will not be afraid to go about alone in the country. We will teach the colored race that our people must be respected. We have restrained and conquered other races. They obeyed our demands or were exterminated with the sword. We are at a crisis. Let us rise to the occasion. Come together!”

The campaign was also marked by widespread attempts to suppress African Americans' participation in the election. “No negro must vote. All white men must vote," insisted one prominent politician. "We’ll try to bring this about by law. If that don’t go—well, we can try another tack. The white man must and will rule in North Carolina, no matter what methods are necessary to give him authority.”

The effect of racially discriminatory voting laws in North Carolina and throughout the South would persist for generations, effectively disenfranchising Black people throughout the region with little federal intervention until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

[eptodaytommorowforever]

Events In The History And Of The Life Of Elvis Presley Today On August The 27th In 1965.

Elvis Presley Meets the Beatles In August The 27th, In 1965.

Elvis Presley Meets The Beatles

... no one was ever greater, than Elvis Presley for either John Lennon and Paul McCartney that Was the greatest respect they the Beatles had for Elvis Presley, who'd already cut the soundtrack of their youth. Elvis Presley was God, it was as simple as that. John and Paul listened to his records in the only way besotted fans do, catching and trying to analyze all the little inexplicable sounds, like the laugh he couldn't stifle at the end of Baby Let's Play House and the muttered asides at the end of Hound Dog.

Paul McCartney | To hear Heartbreak Hotel I had to go into a record shop in Liverpool and listen to it through headphones in one of those booths. It was a magical moment, the beginning of an era.

It was a great evening. I've heard people have said it was real weird and he was all drugged out and so were we, and it was crazy. It really wasn't. It was a very straight evening. We were major fans of Elvis, particularly his work before he joined the Army. We had a great evening. He was really brilliant. He was the first guy we knew who had a remote control on his television. That's how long ago it was.

Elvis played 'Mohair Sam' all evening on the jukebox, 'cause he was well into that. Priscilla was wheeled in about half-past ten for about five minutes as if she was a doll, which she looked like. It was great. We were totally in awe of him. He was learning to play bass so I kind of taught him a little bit of stuff. A really nice guy, really regular person, what we saw of him.

I doubt very much if the Beatles would have happened if it was not for Elvis. God bless you Elvis. I still love him, particularly in his early period. He was very influential on me.

John Lennon first heard Heartbreak Hotel via Radio Luxemburg probably early April 1956: 'When I first heard Heartbreak Hotel .. it just broke me up. I mean that was the end. My whole life changed from then on, I was completely shaken by it .. I thought 'this is it!'

Ringo Starr | I couldn't believe it when Elvis Presley came out. Just this lad with sideboards and shakin' his pelvis and being absolutely naughty.

George Harrison | 'I was riding my bicycle and heard Heartbreak Hotel coming out of somebody's house. It was one of them things I will never forget: what a sound, what a record! It changed the course of my life'. See how much respect the Beatles had for Elvis Presley here. rare candid photo's of the Beatles arriving in a black stretch limousine and Elvis Presley waiting to meet and greet them all as they arrive at Elvis Presley's Beverly Hills House Residence In CA

[dankusner]

Biden calls for Supreme Court reforms to protect Civil Rights Act’s legacy at LBJ museo

AUSTIN – Saying an “extreme” U.S. Supreme Court has undermined long-established protections for civil rights, President Joe Biden on Monday called for major reforms, including a constitutional amendment to counter a recent ruling that expanded presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

Appearing at his first public event since dropping out of the presidential race July 21, Biden used his speech commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act to proclaim that the fight to protect civil rights was far from over and should focus next on the Supreme Court.

“We can and must protect and expand our civil rights in America,” Biden said at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin.

“We can and must prevent abuse of presidential power and restore faith in the Supreme Court. We can and must strengthen the guardrails of democracy.”

The Civil Rights Act, considered the most sweeping civil rights legislation since the end of slavery, banned racial discrimination in public places, schools and places of employment.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 expanded those protections to the ballot box and the ability to buy a home.

To guard those freedoms from an increasingly intense attack from the right, Biden said, the U.S. Supreme Court — with its 6-3 conservative majority — must be checked.

Justices should have 18-year term limits and operate under a mandatory code of conduct, Biden said, pointing to Justice Clarence Thomas, who accepted luxury trips from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, a North Texas real estate magnate and son of legendary late Dallas real estate developer Trammell Crow.

Biden also said presidents should not be granted immunity for crimes they may commit while in office.

“I share our founders’ belief that a president must answer to the law,” Biden said.

“We’re a nation of laws, not kings and dictators.”

Biden, who had unveiled his proposals earlier Monday, said the suggested reforms would guard the nation from an “extreme court” that has been “weaponized by those seeking to carry out an extreme agenda for decades to come.”

“I’ve overseen more Supreme Court nominations as senator, vice president and president … than anyone alive today,” Biden said to applause from the crowd of invited guests.

“I have great respect for our institutions and the separation of powers laid out in our Constitution. What’s happening now is not consistent with that doctrine of separation of powers.”

Monday’s celebration of the Civil Rights Act had been postponed after Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was the target of an assassination attempt at a Pennsylvania rally July 13.

Biden’s visit to the library — named for President Lyndon B. Johnson, who signed the Civil Rights Act into law July 2, 1964 — featured tribute performances by a concert choir from the historically Black Huston-Tillotson University in Austin and local musical artist Ruthie Foster.

It also included a reading by actor Bryan Cranston of Johnson’s speech on the day he signed the Civil Rights Act.

Former United Nations Ambassador Andrew Young gave the introduction before Biden spoke at 4 p.m.

A short video tribute replayed the words of past presidents who praised Johnson’s vision for a more equal society.

Four other presidents in addition to Johnson and Biden have spoken at the LBJ Library to recognize advancements and challenges in civil rights.

“Every generation of Americans will look back at the Civil Rights Act and say. ‘This is what the presidency is for,’” former President George W. Bush said in the video.

Several members of Congress, including U.S. Rep Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, traveled to Austin with Biden.

He was also joined by the Rev. Al Sharpton; Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League; and Cecile Richards, former president of Planned Parenthood and daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards.

After his speech, Biden traveled to Houston to pay respects to U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who died July 19 at age 74 after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.

Jackson Lee will lie in state at Houston City Hall on Monday to begin a week of remembrance events.

Vice President Kamala Harris is scheduled to attend a celebration of life service Thursday in Houston.

Biden spoke from the same stage where Johnson stood in late 1972 to give his final public remarks during a civil rights symposium at the library.

Johnson died a month later at his ranch near Stonewall.

Biden’s U.S. Supreme Court reform proposal, which has been in the works since Biden created a commission to study the issue early in his term, was endorsed by Harris but is considered unlikely to pass the deeply divided Congress with less than 100 days before the election.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Biden’s proposal amounted to taking a “torch” to the “crown jewel of our system of government.”

“President Biden and his leftist allies don’t like the current composition of the court so they want to shred the Constitution to change it,” McConnell said.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson called the proposal a “dangerous gambit” that would be “dead on arrival in the House.”

“I was informed by the press on Air Force One that the Republican speaker of the House said ‘whatever he proposes is dead on arrival,’” Biden told the Austin audience.

“I just think his thinking is dead on arrival.”

The crowd cheered.

Biden devoted most of his 25-minute speech to the proposal, saying recent actions by the ruling conservatives on the court had harmed the ideals and freedoms that defined America:

In 2013, the court declared a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 to be unconstitutional, allowing states to enact voting requirements that Biden said hurt access to the vote, particularly for communities of color.

In 2022, the court overturned constitutional protections for abortion, allowing states to make their own laws.

Last year, in a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ended colleges’ ability to consider race in the admissions process, overturning decades of legal precedent supporting the practice.

“So many other civil rights that Americans take for granted,” Biden said, “are likely to come before the court in the years to come.”

Biden’s message resonated with some of those in attendance, including Nisha Randle, who works for commissioner Rodney Ellis in Houston, a Democrat and former state senator.

“A larger majority of people are actually listening to what’s actually happening at the Supreme Court,” Randle said.

“So I do think the president’s suggested reforms are really important, timely and hopefully more people will get behind them.”

Amy Davis, an event program coordinator at UT Austin, wished Biden had focused more on actual civil rights and the need to protect them.

Davis would have liked for Biden to instead more forcefully address other endangered rights such as gay marriage.

“If Roe vs. Wade can go away then anything can go away,” Davis said.

Near the end of his speech, Biden pointed to the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in two years.

“July 4, 2026, will be a moment not only about our past, but about our future.” Biden said. “Imagine that moment and ask yourself, what do we want to be?”

[casbooks]

Book 12 of 2024 (★★★★)

Title: LBJ's Hired Gun Authors: John J. Gebhart

Series: 1 of Gebhart in Vietnam ISBN: 9781935149651 Tags: Aviation, Helicopter, US USMC United States Marine Corps, VMO-2, VMO-6, VNM Vietnam Rating: ★★★★ Subject: Books.Military.20th-21st Century.Asia.Vietnam War.Aviation.USMC.Helos

Description: Many Vietnam memoirs have appeared in recent years, but not a single one has the humor, pathos, poignancy, and often sheer hilarity of John J. Gebhart's riveting LBJ'S Hired Gun. As Gebhart tells it, he was a "smart-mouthed college boy" who joined the Marines to see the world and "dust a few black pajamas for Uncle Sam." Two grueling tours of duty later (1965-1967) he returned home as a sergeant after surviving 240 combat missions (12 air medals) and being shot down twice. On his chest was the Navy Commendation Award (with the combat V).

LBJ's Hired Gun launches with Gebhart's grim recollection of the intense old-school brutality that was Marine Corps training on Parris Island before transitioning to his difficult journey for Southeast Asia aboard a troop transport with 2,000 other nameless grunts. These hardships offered but a glimpse of the suffering he and his comrades were about to endure. PARA His candid account of life and death in Vietnam is written with a lively, infectious flair. But be forewarned: no attempt has been made to sanitize this memoir with politically-correct language. Gebhart tells his story exactly as he and his comrades spoke in the 1960s. The result is a gripping, no-holds-barred memoir of his "misadventures in-country." He spares no detail and no one in his effort to convey exactly what he and his comrades experienced in Vietnam.

Here is how the author describes Vietnam: "What was not to like about Vietnam? It was a tropical paradise filled with lush green forests and mountains, endless rice paddies, and beautiful beaches with clear green water. You get all the free ammunition you want, endless cold beer to drink, and boom-boom girls to party with. Who could ask for more? Of course, there were some minor problems like all the VCs and NVAs who wanted to kill us. Everyone counted the days they had left before rotating back to the land of the big PX. I was having such a great vacation I signed up for another 12-month tour. I spent twenty-four action-filled months dusting VCs and NVAs, rescuing reconnaissance teams, flying LZ prep missions, delivering mail to bases where you came in shooting and flew out the same way. Somewhere along the line they decided I should be decorated for killing the enemy."

This is not just another book about Vietnam written by an officer. LBJ's Hired Gun is the story of an enlisted man who lived on a dead-end street in West Philadelphia, intent on lifting your spirits and putting a smile on your face as you journey with him across the world and meet the people, explore the places, and relive the events that shaped Marine Corps history in Vietnam from September 1965 to September 1967.

There are many outstanding Vietnam memoirs. LBJ's Hired Gun stands heads and shoulders above them all.