# data[].attributes.body
Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in 1917 and instituted the first Communist government. After a Civil War, the Bolsheviks (renamed Communists) assumed complete control of Russia (renamed the USSR or Soviet Union).

Lenin’s rule saw:

The end of democracy when he dissolved the elected Constituent Assembly

The takeover of the economy by the State with first War Communism and then a less authoritarian policy called the New Economic Policy (NEP)

The use of terror through the CHEKA (secret police ) to crush opposition and the victory of Communist forces in a Civil War.

Lenin died in 1924 leaving no obvious successor. Stalin emerged as leader after defeating his rivals, including Trotsky, and by 1928 he was the head of the Communist Party and dictator of the Soviet Union.

# data[].attributes.body
-Bitter social division in Europe
-Widespread poverty and unemployment
-Suppression of working class unrest
-Police attacks of hunger marches led by demobilised soldiers
-Rich and middle class turned to fascism in fear of communism
-The Bolsheviks abolished all other political parties to hold onto power
-Communism found supporters in capitalist countries where workers were exploited and oppressed
-This inspired fear and hatred of working class revolt by those who hold power

# data[].attributes.body
This was a post-war treaty that was made by France, the UK, and the USA.
France was decimated by the war, having experienced large human and economic losses, they wanted revenge on Germany without compromise.
The UK also suffered large losses, they wanted to punish Germany without giving up trade.
The USA only entered World War 1 in 1917, and wanted to create a way to prevent conflict in the future - the League of Nations, which Germany could not join - as well as wanting countries to determine their own national identity.
Germany lost 13% of it's territory, had to pay 6.6 billion pounds in reparations, had it's army limited to 100000 men, unable to conscript people into the army, limited to 150000 sailors, 6 battleships, no planes, no tanks, no submarines, and no soilders could occupy the Rhineland. Signing this treaty meant they would accept all blame for starting the war, as outlined in Article 231 or "the War Guilt Clause".

# data[].attributes.body
The League of Nations originally consisted of 42 nations, although some came and left
The aims of the League was to, according to the covenant
Stop war
Improve people's lives
Disarmament
Enforce the Treaty of Versailles
They had the power to morally condemn, use arbitration, and apply sanctions.

# data[].attributes.body
A dispute over the Aaland Islands between Finland and Swedan, solved by the League of Nations

# data[].attributes.body
The town of Vilna in Lithuania was occupied by Polish forces. The League asked them to withdraw but they refused and were awarded the town by the Council of Ambassadors

# data[].attributes.body
The League of Nations organised a successful plebiscite - a vote on which country Upper Silesia wanted to be apart of

# data[].attributes.headline
1922 - Mussolini's fascists seize control in Italy

# data[].attributes.subject
1922 - Mussolini's fascists seize control in Italy

# data[].attributes.body
Italy was the first country where fascists gained power due to economic crisis and resentment at their lack of gain from post-war peace treaties
The black shirts and their leader, Mussolini, were supported by the middle class and above for being anti communist and socialist, since support for fascism as a whole grew due to fear of communist revolt stemming from the Great Depression
Mussolini became the Prime Minister of Italy, he banned all other political parties and suspended elections, becoming a dictator
Workers rights were destroyed and employers rights were protected
He controlled mass media and education in order to indoctrinate Italy

# data[].attributes.body
Seeing the horrors of war and the beginnings of communism in Russia, as well as fascism in Italy and many European immigrants fleeing their countries, America felt the need to become self sufficient. They put high import taxes (tariffs) on non-US items, and rejected joining the LON despite it being President Wilson's idea due to both isolationism and Wilson's failure to negotiate about amendments to the LONs structure. They also did not, as the "New World", want to be mixed up in "Old World" (European) problems)

# data[].attributes.body
A dispute over mapping the Greek-Albanian border. Italians were shot and Mussolini demanded compensation from Greece, when they refused he occupied the Greek island of Corfu. Britain and France acquiesced to Mussolini's aggression so as not to upset a larger power

# data[].attributes.body
Both Greece and Bulgaria accepted the findings of the League of Nations and stopped fighting

# data[].attributes.body
Collectivisation was a policy that involves the merging of small, inefficient farms into a large, state run farm. The larger farms, in theory, would be able to use the machinery more effectively and therefore increase productivity.

# data[].attributes.body
1st Five Year Plan (Oct. 1928 – Dec. 1932)

A set of targets for production rather than a plan of how to produce things

This caused exaggerated figures of goods produced from local officials in order to meet targets

Which in turn caused raised targets from Stalin!

High production figures were also useful as a propaganda exercise

But

There was also a huge idealism from workers for building the revolution

Historians Alexander Nove and Sheila Fitzpatrick talked of ‘Homo Sovieticus’; the creation of  ‘Soviet man’, a cultural revolution

The slogan ‘There is no fortress the Bolsheviks cannot storm’ became the cry of the workers

It was a collective rather than an individual effort. Workers were building communism and not working for personal gain.

A  sacrifice was being made in the face of the ‘enemy’ (capitalist nations)

Show trials for saboteurs and wreckers were used to explain any failures or shortcomings (Shakhty trial of 1928) because the ‘Plan’ could not be wrong

Quantity not quality of production became the yardstick of success

All resources went into modernizing Russia which led to a large shortage in consumer goods (things to buy in shops). Stalin saw necessities for everyday life, like bread, soap, clothing etc. as not important compared to the effort to industrialize.

Shop shelves were empty for the majority of the time and people were unable to buy the things they needed for everyday life. However, Stalin made sure that those who did right by him were looked after with everything they needed regardless of cost and scarcity.

# data[].attributes.body
Gigantomania’ (building huge factories)

Large projects, such as Magnitogorsk (a metal production facility), suited the need for propaganda and the nature of the large unskilled workforce

There was no real national strategy on how to achieve the targets so central targets had to be interpreted by local officials and managers. This lead to fraud from below and recriminations from above as the plan could not be wrong or be allowed to fail

# data[].attributes.body
Stalin introduced the policy in 1928 largely as a response the procurement crisis (a failure to get food to the cities).

Stalin identified a class of ‘kulaks’ as rich peasants who were hoarding grain and holding back the revolution.

This idea has been shown to be a myth by historians.

However, this ‘class war’ proved to be beneficial.

The communist party cared little for the peasantry and Stalin needed labour from the countryside to fuel industrialization.

Initially poorer peasants were encouraged to turn on ‘kulaks’; seizing land and attacking them

OGPU (secret police) requisitioning squads were then sent into the countryside

The use of terror suited the purposes of the regime as it spread fear in the population

From 1929, Stalin had armed units search every town and every house in the USSR room-by-room. Stalin ordered the liquidation of the Kulak class and millions of Kulaks and peasants were dispossessed of their land, sent to the Gulags or killed.

Stalin was leading a virtual ’civil war’ against the countryside and was determined to find every grain hidden throughout the USSR to add to the surpluses to sell internationally. The searches and passing through villages of Stalin’s men became known as the “red broom”

From December 1929 to March 1930 nearly half the countryside was collectivized

The sheer disruption this caused led to the policy’s brief suspension by Stalin who blamed local officials for the chaos saying they were ‘dizzy with success’

Despite this slowing down, by the end of the decade virtually all of Russia had been collectivized

# data[].attributes.body
Due to people trusting that the stock market was safe, this crash affected all the worlds economy due to more money existing than actual physical currency - and the rush to withdrawal it all during the crash.
This caused unemployment, "Hoovervilles" (Shanty Towns made of anything one could find), ex-servicement marching for their promised bonuses, and the Dustbowl (overfarming making the dirt dry) making farmers hit the hardest.
Hoover was accused of being a "do nothing" president, however he did help the economy by urging business leaders to find solutions, making the Hoover Dam - which helped create jobs, lowering the mortgage rates in the Home Loan Act, and gave big businesses bonus funds.

# data[].attributes.body
Stalin’s bid to seize all available grain led to colossal food shortages and the greatest man-made famine in history. This, coupled with poor harvests throughout 1930-32 led to horrific and unimaginable conditions for peasants in the USSR

The peasants were staggered by the policy and would not or could not cooperate with the destruction of their way of life

They resisted by slaughtering their animals and eating their seed crops.

This induced famine across large areas

The Ukraine and Kazakhstan were particularly hard hit

Peasants died of starvation outside massive silos of grain being guarded by officials. Truckloads of grain were extracted from peasant communities while people died in the streets

A national famine also pushed millions into the cities

Millions of others were used as slave labourers

# data[].attributes.body
On 19 September 1931, the LON was made aware of an incident provoked by anti-Japanese activists at the Japanese-owned South Manchurian railway line in China. China immediately appealed to the world's powers for intervention, and they tried to negotiate a peaceful solution, however, neither the Council nor the Assembly were able to agree on the imposition of sanctions of any kind.
Four months later, the Council dispatched an Inquiry Commission to China under the leadership of the British diplomat, the Earl of Lytton. By the time the Lytton Commission arrived, the Japanese Army had already installed the Manchurian State of Manchukuo. On the advice of the Lytton Report (September 1932), the LON refused to recognise Manchukuo as a genuine state and proposed a series of measures to reestablish the status quo. Japan did not accept this and so withdrew from the LON

# data[].attributes.headline
American President - Franklin D. Roosevelt

# data[].attributes.subject
American President - Franklin D. Roosevelt

# data[].attributes.headline
THE FIRST 100 DAYS OF THE FDR PRESIDANCY

# data[].attributes.subject
THE FIRST 100 DAYS OF THE FDR PRESIDANCY

# data[].attributes.body
1932/3 – More than 20% of the party are expelled. This was a non-violent and common form of re-organization.

# data[].attributes.headline
1932 - The Geneva Protocol and the Disarmament Conference - LON

# data[].attributes.subject
1932 - The Geneva Protocol and the Disarmament Conference - LON

# data[].attributes.body
Disarmament was one of the most important questions to be considered by the LON. This condition, however, was that Germany would agree to the ToV and would be the first country to reduce it's arms in accordance with the Treaty. The Advisory Commission and the Temporary Mixed Commission were bodies trusted with making plans for disarmament, which were discussed in many secret meetings, but in the end all efforts failed.
One of the main obstacles was the belief of the Main Powers that their security depended on maintaining a level of armaments equal or above their neighbours, and that these needs were ones that they should determine. Another problem was that the Soviet Union and the United States, not being members of the League, did not take part in these processes until 1932.
A general conference was held in 1932 and lasted, with a short interruption, for 2.5 years. Despite numerous petitions and public demand for disarmament, the countries were not ready to sacrifice their security, and so the conference was a failure.

# data[].attributes.headline
November 1932 - Absenteeism - USSR Prisons

# data[].attributes.subject
November 1932 - Absenteeism - USSR Prisons

# data[].attributes.body
Absenteeism (missing a day’s work), without excuse meant the loss of your job, your food ration, and even your house

# data[].attributes.headline
December 1932 - Internal Passports - USSR Prisons

# data[].attributes.subject
December 1932 - Internal Passports - USSR Prisons

# data[].attributes.body
Internal passports were re-introduced to control the movement of workers around the country to prevent workers seeking better conditions in different areas

# data[].attributes.body
Working conditions

Stalin’s enemies were put into prison camps and forced to work until they died. Stalin had a virtual ‘slave labour’ work force that rose from 30,000 in 1929 to 8 million by 1938.

Slave labourers received food rations but were punished by having them withdrawn which only weakened them further

There was no check on the hardships workers faced.

Strict labour rules were enforced

Labour discipline codes were severe – You could go to prison if you were 20 minutes late

Prices also rose due to the failure of collectivization (agricultural changes)

Quality of food fell; queues for food emerged

Overcrowding was common in new industrial cities as millions of workers moved

1928 – 1933 was particularly bad but there followed some improvement

# data[].attributes.body
2nd Five Year Plan (Jan. 1933 – Dec. 1937)

The uncoordinated nature of the plan lead to huge local differences in production

Some areas over produced whilst some fell short

This lead to competition and the hoarding of raw materials as they became scarce and thus further inefficiency

Poor standards of production became the norm and as no one was willing to criticize the plan and so errors were left unchecked

The plan also coincided with the political purges so charges of sabotage were all pervading

The lack of qualified personnel and exerts became devastating

Media control meant that increasingly poor working conditions went unreported

# data[].attributes.body
In 1933, the Fascist government of Benito Mussolini planned it's attack on Abyssinia with the intention of expanding the colonial territory of Italy, despite the fact hat in 1928 it had signed the Italo-Ethiopian Treaty of Friendship. Conciliation, and Arbitration. In December of 1934, a clash occurred between the armed forces, which Mussolini declared as an act of self-defence an thus was not subject to arbitration. Compensation was demanded along with recognising the area as Italian.
Abyssinia, as a member of the LON, bought this case before the Council, however Mussolini ignored all LON proposals to continue to mobilise his military forces in the north. Rounds of talk in Geneva proved futile, a clear indication that the Council was unable to protect a small Member State from the interests of a larger and more influential one, and as a result no oil sanctions were imposed - which would have halted Mussolini's expansion.
With this extra firepower, Italy launched an attack on Abyssinia in 1935, and Addis Ababa fell in 1936. They once again went to the LON, but this was futile as most countries recognised the conquest

# data[].attributes.headline
1933 - Hitler and the Nazi's take power in Germany

# data[].attributes.subject
1933 - Hitler and the Nazi's take power in Germany

# data[].attributes.body
This is when Hitler began secretly rearming despite being unable to due to the Treaty
His foreign policy aims were to
-Abolish the ToV
-Expand Germany territory
-Grosse Deutschland
-Lebensraum in the East
-Destroy Communism

# data[].attributes.headline
1934 - Kirov's Assassination - Great Terror

# data[].attributes.subject
1934 - Kirov's Assassination - Great Terror

# data[].attributes.body
Kirov was murdered in December 1934 by Leonid Nikolayev

Robert Conquest describes this as a great turning point in Soviet history

Stalin used the murder as a pretext to begin the purges

# data[].attributes.body
1934/6 – Show trials of all the prominent Bolsheviks. Mass executions of Party members.

# data[].attributes.body
A region that had been run by the LON since 1919. In 1935 the LON organised a plebiscite to decide if the land should return to Germany. 90% voted it should return to German control, this was a morale and propaganda boost for Hitler and encouraged him to take further action.

# data[].attributes.body
The Stakhanovite movement then emerged

A propaganda ploy that merged idealism with an essentially ‘capitalist’ reward system

Andrei Stakhanov was a miner who produced 7 times his quota in one shift. He dug 102 tonnes of coal instead of 14.

In reality, resources from other coalfields were used to help Stakhanov and coal production on the night of his record was actually lower across the region because of this.

But other feats were soon reported and workers began to enjoy rewards such as higher wages and new apartments

However, this coexisted with a huge number of slave labourers working in the economy and an overall lack of care given to living standards.

# data[].attributes.headline
1936 - Re militarisation of the Rhineland

# data[].attributes.subject
1936 - Re militarisation of the Rhineland

# data[].attributes.body
Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland and broke the Versailles and Locarno Treaties. Hitler gambled that he would get away with his actions because he didn't believe France, Britain, and the LON would risk war over the issue

# data[].attributes.body
Mass terror form 1937/38 when thousands of citizens were murdered or exiled to Gulags

# data[].attributes.body
Anschluss was the plan to join Germany with Austria, as Hitler wanted to unite all german-speaking people. Britain and France, again, did nothing and a plebiscite won with 99.73% wanting to reunite.

# data[].attributes.body
This was an area of Czechoslovakia that Hitler decided he wanted to invade next. There was 3M ethnic Germans there and large mutilations factories. Europe was expecting war but Hitler met Chamberlain at Munich and signed the Munich agreement, which gave Hitler Sudentenland despite the Czechs not agreeing. Hitler now believed that Britain and France would not stop his plans

# data[].attributes.headline
March 1939 - Breaking the Munich Agreement

# data[].attributes.subject
March 1939 - Breaking the Munich Agreement

# data[].attributes.body
In March 1939 Hitler broke his promise made at Munich and invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. Britain realised he could not be trusted and vowed to declare war if Hitler invaded Poland

# data[].attributes.body
In August 1939 Hitler signed the Nazi-Soviet pact which agreed to split Poland between Russia and Germany.

# data[].attributes.body
Hitler invaded Poland in September 1 1939, and this time Britain responded. War was declared on the 3rd of that month

# data[].attributes.body
Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill had a post WW2 organisation, they discussed
-Germany being split into "zones"
-The establishment of the United Nations
-De-nazification of Germany
-Reparations from Germany
The free elections  in Eastern Europe promised by Stalin did not eventuate. US and Britain looked to appease Stalin and allow this in order to finish the war in Europe and keep him on side to fight Japan

# data[].attributes.body
New US President Truman and British PM Attle were anti-communist and distrusted Stalin respectively. Stalin had more experience and so had an advantage, however relations were clouded by mistrust, suspicion, and rivalry
Agree
-Division of Germany
-Japanese Govt. called on for unconditional surrender
-Nazi war criminals prosecuted swiftly
-The "humane and orderly" transfer of all ethnic German populations living in Eastern Europe to Germany. 10M forcefully moved, it is believed 500K died of starvation, hypothermia, and violence
Disagree
-Poland and democratic elections
-German reparations
-The US and the atomic bomb

# data[].attributes.body
"Iron Curtain" refers to the actions of the Soviet government in 1945
Recognised 5 March 1946, used by Churchill in speech "Sinews of Peace"
Intention was to warn the Western world of the threat Stalin posed and to urge the USA to remain accountable
He wanted to prevent US isolationism from reoccurring, reminding the audience of the consequences of inaction during the threat of Nazi invasion
Churchill encouraged unity among nations of the Western world to quell the spread of communism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
March 5, 1946

March 5, 1946

Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri
Listen to the full speech from the BBC Archives
This speech may be regarded as the most important Churchill delivered as Leader of the Opposition (1945-1951). It contains certain phrases- "the special relationship," "the sinews of peace " - which at once entered into general use, and which have survived. But it is the passage on "the iron curtain" which attracted immediate international attention, and had incalculable impact upon public opinion in the United States and in Western Europe. Russian historians date the beginning of the Cold War from this speech. In its phraseology, in its intricate drawing together of several themes to an electrifying climax- this speech may be regarded as a technical classic. -Robert Rhodes James

I am glad to come to Westminster College this afternoon, and am complimented that you should give me a degree. The name "Westminster" is somehow familiar to me.

I seem to have heard of it before. Indeed, it was at Westminster that I received a very large part of my education in politics, dialectic, rhetoric, and one or two other things. In fact we have both been educated at the same, or similar, or, at any rate, kindred establishments.

It is also an honour, perhaps almost unique, for a private visitor to be introduced to an academic audience by the President of the United States. Amid his heavy burdens, duties, and responsibilities-unsought but not recoiled from-the President has travelled a thousand miles to dignify and magnify our meeting here to-day and to give me an opportunity of addressing this kindred nation, as well as my own countrymen across the ocean, and perhaps some other countries too. The President has told you that it is his wish, as I am sure it is yours, that I should have full liberty to give my true and faithful counsel in these anxious and baffling times. I shall certainly avail myself of this freedom, and feel the more right to do so because any private ambitions I may have cherished in my younger days have been satisfied beyond my wildest dreams. Let me, however, make it clear that I have no official mission or status of any kind, and that I speak only for myself. There is nothing here but what you see.

I can therefore allow my mind, with the experience of a lifetime, to play over the problems which beset us on the morrow of our absolute victory in arms, and to try to make sure with what strength I have that what has been gained with so much sacrifice and suffering shall be preserved for the future glory and safety of mankind.

The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American Democracy. For with primacy in power is also joined an awe inspiring accountability to the future. If you look around you, you must feel not only the sense of duty done but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall below the level of achievement. Opportunity is here now, clear and shining for both our countries. To reject it or ignore it or fritter it away will bring upon us all the long reproaches of the after-time. It is necessary that constancy of mind, persistency of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision shall guide and rule the conduct of the English-speaking peoples in peace as they did in war. We must, and I believe we shall, prove ourselves equal to this severe requirement.

When American military men approach some serious situation they are wont to write at the head of their directive the words "over-all strategic concept." There is wisdom in this, as it leads to clarity of thought. What then is the over-all strategic concept which we should inscribe today? It is nothing less than the safety and welfare, the freedom and progress, of all the homes and families of all the men and women in all the lands. And here I speak particularly of the myriad cottage or apartment homes where the wage-earner strives amid the accidents and difficulties of life to guard his wife and children from privation and bring the family up in the fear of the Lord, or upon ethical conceptions which often play their potent part.

To give security to these countless homes, they must be shielded from the two giant marauders, war and tyranny. We all know the frightful disturbances in which the ordinary family is plunged when the curse of war swoops down upon the bread-winner and those for whom he works and contrives. The awful ruin of Europe, with all its vanished glories, and of large parts of Asia glares us in the eyes. When the designs of wicked men or the aggressive urge of mighty States dissolve over large areas the frame of civilised society, humble folk are confronted with difficulties with which they cannot cope. For them all is distorted, all is broken, even ground to pulp.

When I stand here this quiet afternoon I shudder to visualise what is actually happening to millions now and what is going to happen in this period when famine stalks the earth. None can compute what has been called "the unestimated sum of human pain." Our supreme task and duty is to guard the homes of the common people from the horrors and miseries of another war. We are all agreed on that.

Our American military colleagues, after having proclaimed their "over-all strategic concept" and computed available resources, always proceed to the next step-namely, the method. Here again there is widespread agreement. A world organisation has already been erected for the prime purpose of preventing war, UNO, the successor of the League of Nations, with the decisive addition of the United States and all that that means, is already at work. We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon the rock. Anyone can see with his eyes open that our path will be difficult and also long, but if we persevere together as we did in the two world wars-though not, alas, in the interval between them-I cannot doubt that we shall achieve our common purpose in the end.

I have, however, a definite and practical proposal to make for action. Courts and magistrates may be set up but they cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations Organisation must immediately begin to be equipped with an international armed force. In such a matter we can only go step by step, but we must begin now. I propose that each of the Powers and States should be invited to delegate a certain number of air squadrons to the service of the world organisation. These squadrons would be trained and prepared in their own countries, but would move around in rotation from one country to another. They would wear the uniform of their own countries but with different badges. They would not be required to act against their own nation, but in other respects they would be directed by the world organisation. This might be started on a modest scale and would grow as confidence grew. I wished to see this done after the First World War, and I devoutly trust it may be done forthwith.

It would nevertheless be wrong and imprudent to entrust the secret knowledge or experience of the atomic bomb, which the United States, Great Britain, and Canada now share, to the world organisation, while it is still in its infancy. It would be criminal madness to cast it adrift in this still agitated and un-united world. No one in any country has slept less well in their beds because this knowledge and the method and the raw materials to apply it, are at present largely retained in American hands. I do not believe we should all have slept so soundly had the positions been reversed and if some Communist or neo-Fascist State monopolised for the time being these dread agencies. The fear of them alone might easily have been used to enforce totalitarian systems upon the free democratic world, with consequences appalling to human imagination. God has willed that this shall not be and we have at least a breathing space to set our house in order before this peril has to be encountered: and even then, if no effort is spared, we should still possess So formidable a superiority as to impose effective deterrents upon its employment, or threat of employment, by others. Ultimately, when the essential brotherhood of man is truly embodied and expressed in a world organisation with all the necessary practical safeguards to make it effective, these powers would naturally be confided to that world organisation.

Now I come to the second danger of these two marauders which threatens the cottage, the home, and the ordinary people-namely, tyranny. We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful. In these States control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing police governments. The power of the State is exercised without restraint, either by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police. It is not our duty at this time when difficulties are so numerous to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries which we have not conquered in war. But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.

All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practise - let us practise what we preach.

I have now stated the two great dangers which menace the homes of the people: War and Tyranny. I have not yet spoken of poverty and privation which are in many cases the prevailing anxiety. But if the dangers of war and tyranny are removed, there is no doubt that science and co-operation can bring in the next few years to the world, certainly in the next few decades newly taught in the sharpening school of war, an expansion of material well-being beyond anything that has yet occurred in human experience. Now, at this sad and breathless moment, we are plunged in the hunger and distress which are the aftermath of our stupendous struggle; but this will pass and may pass quickly, and there is no reason except human folly or sub-human crime which should deny to all the nations the inauguration and enjoyment of an age of plenty. I have often used words which I learned fifty years ago from a great Irish-American orator, a friend of mine, Mr. Bourke Cockran. "There is enough for all. The earth is a generous mother; she will provide in plentiful abundance food for all her children if they will but cultivate her soil in justice and in peace." So far I feel that we are in full agreement.

Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to Say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. This is no time for generalities, and I will venture to be precise. Fraternal association requires not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred Systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relationship between our military advisers, leading to common study of potential dangers, the similarity of weapons and manuals of instructions, and to the interchange of officers and cadets at technical colleges. It should carry with it the continuance of the present facilities for mutual security by the joint use of all Naval and Air Force bases in the possession of either country all over the world. This would perhaps double the mobility of the American Navy and Air Force. It would greatly expand that of the British Empire Forces and it might well lead, if and as the world calms down, to important financial savings. Already we use together a large number of islands; more may well be entrusted to our joint care in the near future.

The United States has already a Permanent Defence Agreement with the Do-minion of Canada, which is so devotedly attached to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This Agreement is more effective than many of those which have often been made under formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all British Commonwealths with full reciprocity. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come-I feel eventually there will come-the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.

There is however an important question we must ask ourselves. Would a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth be inconsistent with our over-riding loyalties to the World Organisation? I reply that, on the contrary, it is probably the only means by which that organisation will achieve its full stature and strength. There are already the special United States relations with Canada which I have just mentioned, and there are the special relations between the United States and the South American Republics. We British have our twenty years Treaty of Collaboration and Mutual Assistance with Soviet Russia. I agree with Mr. Bevin, the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, that it might well be a fifty years Treaty so far as we are concerned. We aim at nothing but mutual assistance and collaboration. The British have an alliance with Portugal unbroken since 1384, and which produced fruitful results at critical moments in the late war. None of these clash with the general interest of a world agreement, or a world organisation; on the contrary they help it. "In my father's house are many mansions." Special associations between members of the United Nations which have no aggressive point against any other country, which harbour no design incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, far from being harmful, are beneficial and, as I believe, indispensable.

I spoke earlier of the Temple of Peace. Workmen from all countries must build that temple. If two of the workmen know each other particularly well and are old friends, if their families are inter-mingled, and if they have "faith in each other's purpose, hope in each other's future and charity towards each other's shortcomings"-to quote some good words I read here the other day-why cannot they work together at the common task as friends and partners? Why cannot they share their tools and thus increase each other's working powers? Indeed they must do so or else the temple may not be built, or, being built, it may collapse, and we shall all be proved again unteachable and have to go and try to learn again for a third time in a school of war, incomparably more rigorous than that from which we have just been released. The dark ages may return, the Stone Age may return on the gleaming wings of science, and what might now shower immeasurable material blessings upon mankind, may even bring about its total destruction. Beware, I say; time may be short. Do not let us take the course of allowing events to drift along until it is too late. If there is to be a fraternal association of the kind I have described, with all the extra strength and security which both our countries can derive from it, let us make sure that that great fact is known to the world, and that it plays its part in steadying and stabilising the foundations of peace. There is the path of wisdom. Prevention is better than cure.

A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organisation intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytising tendencies. I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin. There is deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain-and I doubt not here also-towards the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing lasting friendships. We understand the Russian need to be secure on her western frontiers by the removal of all possibility of German aggression. We welcome Russia to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world. We welcome her flag upon the seas. Above all, we welcome constant, frequent and growing contacts between the Russian people and our own people on both sides of the Atlantic. It is my duty however, for I am sure you would wish me to state the facts as I see them to you, to place before you certain facts about the present position in Europe.

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow. Athens alone-Greece with its immortal glories-is free to decide its future at an election under British, American and French observation. The Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed-of are now taking place. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy.

Turkey and Persia are both profoundly alarmed and disturbed at the claims which are being made upon them and at the pressure being exerted by the Moscow Government. An attempt is being made by the Russians in Berlin to build up a quasi-Communist party in their zone of Occupied Germany by showing special favours to groups of left-wing German leaders. At the end of the fighting last June, the American and British Armies withdrew westwards, in accordance with an earlier agreement, to a depth at some points of 150 miles upon a front of nearly four hundred miles, in order to allow our Russian allies to occupy this vast expanse of territory which the Western Democracies had conquered.

If now the Soviet Government tries, by separate action, to build up a pro-Communist Germany in their areas, this will cause new serious difficulties in the British and American zones, and will give the defeated Germans the power of putting themselves up to auction between the Soviets and the Western Democracies. Whatever conclusions may be drawn from these facts-and facts they are-this is certainly not the Liberated Europe we fought to build up. Nor is it one which contains the essentials of permanent peace.

The safety of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast. It is from the quarrels of the strong parent races in Europe that the world wars we have witnessed, or which occurred in former times, have sprung. Twice in our own lifetime we have seen the United States, against their wishes and their traditions, against arguments, the force of which it is impossible not to comprehend, drawn by irresistible forces, into these wars in time to secure the victory of the good cause, but only after frightful slaughter and devastation had occurred. Twice the United States has had to send several millions of its young men across the Atlantic to find the war; but now war can find any nation, wherever it may dwell between dusk and dawn. Surely we should work with conscious purpose for a grand pacification of Europe, within the structure of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. That I feel is an open cause of policy of very great importance.

In front of the iron curtain which lies across Europe are other causes for anxiety. In Italy the Communist Party is seriously hampered by having to Support the Communist-trained Marshal Tito's claims to former Italian territory at the head of the Adriatic. Nevertheless the future of Italy hangs in the balance. Again one cannot imagine a regenerated Europe without a strong France. All my public life I have worked for a Strong France and I never lost faith in her destiny, even in the darkest hours. I will not lose faith now. However, in a great number of countries, far from the Russian frontiers and throughout the world, Communist fifth columns are established and work in complete unity and absolute obedience to the directions they receive from the Communist centre. Except in the British Commonwealth and in the United States where Communism is in its infancy, the Communist parties or fifth columns constitute a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilisation. These are sombre facts for anyone to have to recite on the morrow of a victory gained by so much splendid comradeship in arms and in the cause of freedom and democracy; but we should be most unwise not to face them squarely while time remains.

The outlook is also anxious in the Far East and especially in Manchuria. The Agreement which was made at Yalta, to which I was a party, was extremely favourable to Soviet Russia, but it was made at a time when no one could say that the German war might not extend all through the summer and autumn of 1945 and when the Japanese war was expected to last for a further 18 months from the end of the German war. In this country you are all so well-informed about the Far East, and such devoted friends of China, that I do not need to expatiate on the situation there.

I have felt bound to portray the shadow which, alike in the west and in the east, falls upon the world. I was a high minister at the time of the Versailles Treaty and a close friend of Mr. Lloyd-George, who was the head of the British delegation at Versailles. I did not myself agree with many things that were done, but I have a very Strong impression in my mind of that situation, and I find it painful to contrast it with that which prevails now. In those days there were high hopes and unbounded confidence that the wars were over, and that the League of Nations would become all-powerful. I do not see or feel that same confidence or even the same hopes in the haggard world at the present time.

On the other hand I repulse the idea that a new war is inevitable; still more that it is imminent. It is because I am sure that our fortunes are still in our own hands and that we hold the power to save the future, that I feel the duty to speak out now that I have the occasion and the opportunity to do so. I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here to-day while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; nor will they be removed by a policy of appeasement. What is needed is a settlement, and the longer this is delayed, the more difficult it will be and the greater our dangers will become.

From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness. For that reason the old doctrine of a balance of power is unsound. We cannot afford, if we can help it, to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial of strength. If the Western Democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, their influence for furthering those principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If however they become divided or falter in their duty and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all.
Last time I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honoured to-day; but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again. This can only be achieved by reaching now, in 1946, a good understanding on all points with Russia under the general authority of the United Nations Organisation and by the maintenance of that good understanding through many peaceful years, by the world instrument, supported by the whole strength of the English-speaking world and all its connections. There is the solution which I respectfully offer to you in this Address to which I have given the title "The Sinews of Peace."

Let no man underrate the abiding power of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Because you see the 46 millions in our island harassed about their food supply, of which they only grow one half, even in war-time, or because we have difficulty in restarting our industries and export trade after six years of passionate war effort, do not suppose that we shall not come through these dark years of privation as we have come through the glorious years of agony, or that half a century from now, you will not see 70 or 80 millions of Britons spread about the world and united in defence of our traditions, our way of life, and of the world causes which you and we espouse. If the population of the English-speaking Commonwealths be added to that of the United States with all that such co-operation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe and in science and in industry, and in moral force, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure. On the contrary, there will be an overwhelming assurance of security. If we adhere faithfully to the Charter of the United Nations and walk forward in sedate and sober strength seeking no one's land or treasure, seeking to lay no arbitrary control upon the thoughts of men; if all British moral and material forces and convictions are joined with your own in fraternal association, the high-roads of the future will be clear, not only for us but for all, not only for our time, but for a century to come.

© Chartwell Trust, Reprinted by kind permission of Curtis Brown, London.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Sinews of Peace ('Iron Curtain Speech')

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
March 5, 1946 Westminster College, Fulton, Missouri Listen to the full speech from the BBC Archives This speech may be regarded as the most important Churchill delivered as Leader of [...]

# data[].attributes.body
The US response to Stalin's expansionist policy in Eastern Europe
Designed to combat spread of communism, Truman hoped by providing aid to poor countries with unstable economies that were at risk of invasion they'd be less appealing
Truman decided a policy of containment was vital once Greece and Turkey became targets. In 1947, Britain declared that they could not support the pair financially or militarily. Both were weak economically and politically
Truman considered it US duty to continue to support them to prevent communism from spreading to the Middle East
Address US congress with radio broadcast. Asked congress for 400M to assist. Reiterated living in free society compared to "totalitarian regimes"
Created us versus them, good versus bad mentality in American culture and worldwide

# data[].attributes.body
Post WW2 industrial and agricultural output of most European countries had been severely disrupted, population on the brink of famine
In 1947, Truman Doctrine expanded to more Western European countries, Marshall appointed as Secretary of State to come up with aid plan
Mid 1947, Truman announced "European Recovery Plan" which aimed to rebuild economies of Europe, ensure future political stability
16 Nations received $13B USD in aid
-Soviet tightened hold on East Europe through comminform (co-ordinates communist parties) and comecom (economic assistance)
Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan aided Soviet response, made division more entrenched

# data[].attributes.body
As the West made a new currency, Deutchmark, which was more successful than the East's Mark and improved the economy in the Western Sectors.
By 1949 the Soviet's enacted a blockade and closed all railways, roads, and canals to West Berlin, this cut off all fuel and food, the people of the city now face starvation
In response, the Western sectors airdropped supplies every 30 minutes, dubbed the "Berlin Airlift"

# data[].attributes.body
The "Berlin Airdrops" lasted a year, until Stalin lifted the blockade, allowing the West access to West Berlin once more.

# data[].attributes.body
the US, French, and British parts of Germany decided to make their territories into one united country, West Germany, and in response to that Stalin made his territory into East Germany

# data[].attributes.body
The US was forced to think about how they should deal with future disagreement with the Soviet's. Formed alliance with 9 other countries called the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to protect each other from attack
The Soviet's responded with the Warsaw pact, made up of their satellite states across Eastern Europe

# data[].attributes.headline
American President - Dwight D. Eisenhower

# data[].attributes.subject
American President - Dwight D. Eisenhower

# data[].attributes.headline
1954 - Geneva Conference about rules in Vietnam post French rule

# data[].attributes.subject
1954 - Geneva Conference about rules in Vietnam post French rule

# data[].attributes.body
The principal provisions were for a cease-fire line along the 17th parallel (effectively dividing Vietnam in two); 300 days for each side to withdraw its troops to its side of the line; and communist troops and guerrillas to evacuate Laos and Cambodia, where free elections would be held in 1955 and where French troops could be stationed if the Laotian or Cambodian governments should so request. It was stipulated explicitly that the partition line “should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary.” Execution of the agreements was to be supervised by a commission of representatives from India, Poland, and Canada. A provision that was known as the Final Declaration stipulated that all-Vietnamese elections were to be held under the supervision of the committee before July 1956 to reunify the country. This was a matter of great importance in inducing the Viet Minh to accept the temporary regrouping of its forces in the northern half of the country, because on the eve of the conference it controlled three-quarters of Vietnam.

Most of the nine participating countries pledged themselves to guarantee the agreements, but the United States made it clear that it was not bound by them. The South Vietnamese also withheld approval, and the Final Declaration was left unsigned by all parties. The U.S. government undertook to build a separate anticommunist state in South Vietnam and in 1956 supported South Vietnam’s refusal to hold nationwide elections in consultation with North Vietnam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Geneva Accords, collection of documents relating to Indochina and issuing from the Geneva Conference of April 26-July 21, 1954, attended by representatives of Cambodia, the People's Republic of China, France, Laos, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union, the Viet Minh ( i.e., the North Vietnamese), and the State of Vietnam ( i.e., the South Vietnamese). The 10 documents-none of which were treaties binding the participants-consisted of 3 military agreements, 6 unilateral declarations, and a Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference (July 21, 1954).

Following intensive negotiations, beginning on May 8, 1954, the day after the fall of the French garrison at Dien Bien Phu, agreements were finally signed on July 21 between the French and Vietnamese, Laotian, and Cambodian representatives. The principal provisions were for a cease-fire line along the 17th parallel (effectively dividing Vietnam in two); 300 days for each side to withdraw its troops to its side of the line; and communist troops and guerrillas to evacuate Laos and Cambodia, where free elections would be held in 1955 and where French troops could be stationed if the Laotian or Cambodian governments should so request. It was stipulated explicitly that the partition line "should not in any way be interpreted as constituting a political or territorial boundary." Execution of the agreements was to be supervised by a commission of representatives from India, Poland, and Canada. A provision that was known as the Final Declaration stipulated that all-Vietnamese elections were to be held under the supervision of the committee before July 1956 to reunify the country. This was a matter of great importance in inducing the Viet Minh to accept the temporary regrouping of its forces in the northern half of the country, because on the eve of the conference it controlled three-quarters of Vietnam.

Most of the nine participating countries pledged themselves to guarantee the agreements, but the United States made it clear that it was not bound by them. The South Vietnamese also withheld approval, and the Final Declaration was left unsigned by all parties. The U.S. government undertook to build a separate anticommunist state in South Vietnam and in 1956 supported South Vietnam's refusal to hold nationwide elections in consultation with North Vietnam.

Learn More in these related Britannica articles:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Geneva Accords, collection of documents relating to Indochina and issuing from the Geneva Conference of April 26-July 21, 1954, attended by representatives of Cambodia, the People's Republic of China, France, Laos, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union, the Viet Minh (i.e., the

# data[].attributes.body
The case started as Brown v Topeka: a girl named Linda Brown was barred from attending her local school (which only allowed white people in) on the basis of her skin colour, and instead she had to go to a further away black people school. In response, her parents sued the school board with the help of an attorney from NAACP, the case was lost due to the "separate but equal" clause. The case was then taken to the supreme court in conjunction with 4 others, and it was unanimously agreed that the seperation was unconstituional, as, in the words of Chief Justice Warren the seperated schools caused "a sense of inferiority that may affect [black children's] hearts and minds for the rest of their lives".

# data[].attributes.body
On 1 December, Civil Rights Activist Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat for a white man in a time where black people and white people by law had to sit in different areas of the bus and was arrested for it, this sparked a grassroots movement of protest against the Montgomery busses, led by Martin Luther King Jr., who advocated for non-violence using Ghandi's teachings alongside his Baptist preaching, making him the best choice for the head of the movement. King and 100 of his followers were arrested for being spokespeople of the movement, their arrest was on the grounds of a 1921 law were boycotts couldn't occur if they did not have a "just cause". As many black people used the bus system due to often living in poorer areas, this greatly damaged the income of the bus system.

# data[].attributes.headline
1956 - Signing of the "Southern Manifesto"

# data[].attributes.subject
1956 - Signing of the "Southern Manifesto"

# data[].attributes.body
Due to Brown v Board of Educations verdict as well as the disagreement of said verdict by President Eisenhower, the Southern Manifesto was signed by many southern senators to stop racial integration by any means necessary

# data[].attributes.headline
1957 - Desegregation of Little Rock High School

# data[].attributes.subject
1957 - Desegregation of Little Rock High School

# data[].attributes.body
As a test run of the new desegregation laws, 9 high achieving black high school students were sent to Little Rock High School. They were met by an angry mob and the national guard (on orders from the Arkansas governor, Orval Faubus), who turned them away from the school. Eventually, President Eisenhower, despite his disagreement with the segregation of the school but acknowledgement of the legality of it, he used the 101st Airborne Division of the US Army to protect the students when attending the school, however this could not stop the students being ignored by teachers and getting threatening letters and phone calls.

# data[].attributes.body
The boycott was intended to last 1 day, due to overwhelming support it lasted 13 months. The NAACP helped the case go to court, and on 13 November in the Supreme Court it was ruled that the busses could no longer be segregated.

# data[].attributes.headline
1957 - The Soviet Union launches Sputnik

# data[].attributes.subject
1957 - The Soviet Union launches Sputnik

# data[].attributes.body
The Freedom Riders, initiated by the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), were a group of people, both black and white, who rode on busses in "Jim Crow" areas of Southern States (very racist). They sought to test the 1960 Boynton v Virginia ruling that segregation of interstate transportation facilities was unconstitutional. The original group consisted of 7 African American people, including future member of the House of Representatives John Lewis, and 6 white people. The group used "white areas" as black people and "coloured areas" as white people, and travelled without segregating themselves on the bus.
The group experienced much backlash, including arrests, attacks with bombs, physical violence with weapons, and more. The attacks came to a point where Attorney General and brother of the president, Robert F. Kennedy, attempted to get protection for the protesters and, when that did not work, declared martial law and got military protection for them. He eventually called a cooling-off period.
The NAACP helped reverse the unlawful convictions of the protesters - the judge looked away during their defence rather than being a neutral person - by bringing them to the Supreme Court

# data[].attributes.body
It was finally confirmed that nuclear weapons were being set up
Kennedy regarded nuclear weapons in Cuba as totally unacceptable because it put virtually all US cities under direct threat of a nuclear attack
It was at attempt by the Soviet Union to achieve nuclear parity because S missiles in Turkey were capable of hitting most cities in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union
Kennedy would not tolerate such an alteration to the balance of power...

# data[].attributes.body
Kenedy summoned a meeting of his top officials known as the Executive Committee of the National Security Council (ExComm)
They discussed 3 possible courses of attack on the missile sites:
An air strike on the missile sites
An invasion of Cuba
A blockade around Cuba to stop more missiles being brought to the island
The placing of missiles in Cuba challenged the Monroe Doctrine of the 1820s. If America did not take a strong stance against the Soviet’s. America’s allies might doubt their willingness to stand up to the Soviet Union. Moreover, if the Soviet’s doubted America’s resolved to fight, they might be encouraged to challenge the US elsewhere around the world
Despite bullish attempts by Kennedy’s military advisors to go for a surprise air invasion or some kind of military attack, Kennedy, under immense pressure, chose to move ahead with the blockade. Kennedy’s decisiveness, in hindsight, saved the world from nuclear war. US Intelligence at the time believed there were 10000 Soviet troops and 10000 Cuban troops in Cuba
Air strikes were planned to weaken their defenses, which would have been followed by an invading force of 180000 US soldiers. In reality, the Soviets had 40000 troops and there were 270000 Cuban troops. The US invasion would have been disastrous. Similarly, the Soviets possessed a number of short range nuclear missiles that were intended for battlefield use. Incredibly, the local commanders had been given authorization to use them without obtaining permission from Moscow and would have done so in the face of a US Invasion.

# data[].attributes.body
Kennedy went on television to tell the American people of the missiles and what he intended to do.
He told viewers that he’s ordered the armed forces to be ready for “any eventuality” and had US nuclear bombers and missiles placed on “DefCon 2” - the only time in the Cold War that this ever happened. Off the Florida coast, the largest sea-borne invasion since WWII was also gathering for an Invasion of Cuba.
Kenedy decided to “quarantine” all Soviet ships on their way to Cuba. It was a carefully chosen word because a “blockade” was regarded in International law as an act of war. The quarantine came into effect at 10:00 am on 24 Oct.

# data[].attributes.body
The quarantine zone was set
If any Russian ships entered the quarantine zone after 10am on Oct 24, the US would perceive that as an act of war and proceed accordingly - 150 Intercontinental missiles were armed and pointed at the Soviet Union, 54 bombers each with 4 nuclear warheads on board were on standby and nuclear Polaris submarines were put to sea. Meanwhile the Soviet ships laden with supplies were approaching the quarantine zone
At 10:25 am some Soviet ships stopped short of the quarantine line and turned around. For the time being, conflict had been avoided. A relieved Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, claimed, “we were just eyeball to eyeball and I think the other fellow just blinked”
Khrushchev had ordered all ships with “sensitive” cargo to turn around, while those carrying ordinary supplies were allowed to continue to Cuba.
The first phase of the Cuban Missile Crisis had passed peacefully, but the USSR still had missiles in Cuba that were being hastily constructed and were predicted to be operational within weeks.
Khrushchev on his Generals’ reactions after stopping at the blockade: “They looked at me as if I was out of my mind, or worse, a traitor. The biggest tragedy, as they saw it, was not that our country might be destroyed, but that the Chinese or Albanians would accuse us of weakness”
Kennedy realised that an invasion would probably escalate into a nuclear war, one that would destroy nuclear cities within minutes if missiles were successfully launched from Cuba, so he decided to seek a diplomatic solution.

# data[].attributes.body
Kennedy received a secret message from Krushchev
Krushchev sent a long rambling setting agreeing to remove the missiles from Cuba if the US agreed to never invade Cuba

# data[].attributes.body
Kennedy received a second secret message from Cuba
The next day a much stronger message, this time demanding that the US remove their missiles from Turkey, was received
Then an American U-2 plane was shot down over Cuba and the pilot killed. The shot fired was not authorized by Moscow, they did not know it had occurred. The crisis now reached a new level; the world was now on a knife-edge and the brink of nuclear Armageddon
ExComm met again and with great restraint decided not to retaliate - not yet. On the advice from his brother, the Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, John F Kennedy publicly accepted the first message and ignored the second
Bobby Kennedy then secretly informed the Soviets of their answer to the second letter stating that the missiles would be withdrawn from Turkey, but it had to remain secret.

# data[].attributes.body
Khrushchev responds
Unaware of the secret communications, both sides’ militaries were baying for blood. After receiving Bobby Kennedy’s secret message. Khrushchev needed to respond with an answer very soon or there would be war. An answer was given over Radio Moscow publically - the fastest way to get a message across the world in that era.
The world and all but a few in Kennedy and Khrushchev’s closest circle had no idea that any secret communications were taking place. All the world knew was what the Radio Moscow message stated; that the USSR was packing up their missiles and taking them out of Cuba. It looked like a complete victory for Kennedy and the US.

# data[].attributes.body
Birmingham was targeted for these protests due to it having the worst race relations in the South. A peaceful protest was started, and police chief Bull Connor ordered the police to use fire hoses and police dogs on protesters who did not disperse. As this protest was televised, many people were shocked at the disparity between the protest and the police response, including President Kennedy who demanded that Birmingham stop segregating and put forward the Civil Rights bill, which would help all American's visit all businesses, as well as secure voting rights.

# data[].attributes.body
The March on Washington was a peaceful protest to ensure the Civil Rights bill passes. This was when Martin Luther King Jr. made his famous "I had a dream" speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Monday marks Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Below is a transcript of his celebrated "I Have a Dream" speech, delivered on Aug. 28, 1963, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. NPR's Talk of the Nation aired the speech in 2010 - listen to that broadcast at the audio link above.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.: Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

But 100 years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself in exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition. In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check.

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men - yes, Black men as well as white men - would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds.

But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt.

We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.

We have also come to his hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.

Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. 1963 is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual.

There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.

But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny.

And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.

There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, when will you be satisfied? We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities.

We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their selfhood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: for whites only.

We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote.

No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our Northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends.

So even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day down in Alabama with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, one day right down in Alabama little Black boys and Black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.

This is our hope. This is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with new meaning: My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrims' pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that, let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, Black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: Free at last. Free at last. Thank God almighty, we are free at last.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Read Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech in its entirety

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Americans across the U.S. are celebrating King's legacy this weekend. One way to reflect on his life and message is by revisiting his celebrated 1963 speech delivered at the Lincoln Memorial.

# data[].attributes.body
In June 1963, President John Kennedy asked Congress for a comprehensive civil rights bill, induced by massive resistance to desegregation and the murder of Medgar Evers. After Kennedy's assassination in November, President Lyndon Johnson pressed hard, with the support of Roy Wilkins and Clarence Mitchell, to secure the bill's passage the following year. In 1964, Congress passed Public Law 88-352 (78 Stat. 241). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs. It also strengthened the enforcement of voting rights and the desegregation of schools.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legal Highlight: The Civil Rights Act of 1964

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the 1960s, Americans who knew only the potential of “equal protection of the laws” expected the president, the Congress, and the courts to fulfill the promise of the 14th Amendment. In response, all three branches of the federal government--as well as the public at large--debated a fundamental co…

# data[].attributes.body
Gulf of Tonkin incident, complex naval event in the Gulf of Tonkin, off the coast of Vietnam, that was presented to the U.S. Congress on August 5, 1964, as two unprovoked attacks by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on the destroyers Maddox and Turner Joy of the U.S. Seventh Fleet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gulf of Tonkin incident | Definition, Date, Summary, Significance, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gulf of Tonkin incident, complex naval event in the Gulf of Tonkin, off the coast of Vietnam, that was presented to the U.S. Congress on August 5, 1964, as two unprovoked attacks by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on the destroyers Maddox and Turner Joy and that led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

# data[].attributes.body
“Take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the US and to prevent further aggression"
Not a declaration of war, but when Congress approved the resolution it allowed Johnson broad military power in Vietnam
Johnson did not tell Congress or the people that the US has been leading secret raids against N. Vietnam
By June, 500000 US soldiers were battling Viet Cong: the Vietnam War had become Americanised

# data[].attributes.body
This act was signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon Johnson. It outlawed the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War, including literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The primary source documents on this page highlight pivotal moments in the course of American history or government. They are some of the most-viewed and sought-out documents in the holdings of the National Archives.

Revolution and the New Nation

Expansion and Reform

Civil War and Reconstruction

The Development of the Industrial United States

The Emergence of Modern America

The Great Depression and World War II

Postwar United States

A note about the documents included on this page: These documents were originally selected for the project Our Documents: 100 Milestone Documents from the National Archives, a national initiative on American history, civics, and service. They were identified to "help us think, talk and teach about the rights and responsibilities of citizens in our democracy...These documents reflect our diversity and our unity, our past and our future, and mostly our commitment as a nation to continue to strive to 'form a more perfect union.'" The original list included only documents created prior to 1965. In the future, this page will be updated with additional documents created after 1965. The original list also included several documents from the Library of Congress (Federalist Paper No. 10, Federalist Paper No. 51, Gettysburg Address, Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address) and the New York Public Library (George Washington's Farewell Address)."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The primary source documents on this page highlight pivotal moments in the course of American history or government. They are some of the most-viewed and sought-out documents in the holdings of the National Archives.

# data[].attributes.headline
1968 - Martin Luther King Jr assassination

# data[].attributes.subject
1968 - Martin Luther King Jr assassination

# data[].attributes.body
Tet is the Lunar New Year, and was declared a holiday truce
This entire offensive was streamed on TV, and caused disapproval for the war due to the war seemingly never ending
During this time, the Viet Cong invaded many towns, cities, slums, embassies, and military bases
“What the hell is going on? I thought we were winning this war” - Walter Cronkite (the man narrating the video)
“If I’ve lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost Mr Average Citizen” - President Johnson, he said this as Walter was highly trusted as a news source at the time
58000 Viet Cong soilders and commanders died, especially due to the suicide bombing tactics used, compared to 1500 American casualities, it took the Viet Cong 4 years to recover the losses of Tet

# data[].attributes.body
Bombing of Cambodia began as the US attempted to destroy VC based and the Ho Chi Minh trail

# data[].attributes.body
the Nixon administration indicated to the Soviet Union that “the madman was loose” when the US military was ordered full global war readiness alert and bombers armed with nuclear weapons flew near the Soviet border for three consecutive days. The administration employed the madman strategy to force the North Vietnamese government to negotiate an end to the Vietnam war