• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
479px-Emblem_of_South_Korea.svg.png

The Republic of Great Hán
Statement of Minister of National Defense Shin Sung-mo on 15th March, 1955​

The actions of the Communist dissidents in the North are appalling and vulgar in nature. Last year in autumn the Ministry of Foreign Affairs through the help of the Soviet Union sent a communique to the Ibun Provisional Government telling them of our demobilization in show of good faith with the realization of the Armistice Agreement between the United Nations Command and the rebels. In response we get several months of silence only to be broken by the shelling of our waters risking civilian lives trying to make ends meet. The Armed Forces of the Republic of Korea has been deployed to make sure no civilians will be harmed by the artillery fire.

The Armed Forces is also put on high alert and has dug in along the entire border as what seems to be heavy movement of troops along the northern side of the DMZ. We urge every citizen to remain calm while the government does its best to resolve the issue at hand and we will demand the immediate end of this act by the Ibun rebels. If the dissidents continue their hostilities and their silence against the Republic of Korea then the Government of Korea will take a similar stance in return and the necessary actions will be taken to secure the future of the Republic.
 
ORDERS TO ALL ROMANIAN ARMED FORCES:

TOP SECRET

Assist in all ways possible to help the restoration of order to Bulgaria, including allow various Soviet troops to move through Romania without hinderance.



900px-Flag_of_Romania_(1965-1989).svg.png

Internațională

A Statement on the Recent Events in Bulgaria from the General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party

Comrades, it is with great sadness that I now must speak to you bearing such bad news: In the last week, our comrades in Bulgaria have been overthrown by a fascist coup. I know this news may disturb you, as it disturbed me when I first received such news. The Bulgarian General Secretary; Todor Zhivkov, request asylum from the Fascists in our nation, with hesitation our politburo immediately and unanimously allowed him to do so. The situation came to be when the Bulgarian people embarked on a radical and revolutionary program of social reform which only intended to further the cause of socialism, however this great forward step was co-opted by a small fascist cliqué that existed in the Bulgarian communist party to create a reactionary authoritarian dictatorship in which industry and personal wealth are considered more important than the well-being of the people.

However, despite all this the people see through the deception of this new reactionary government, and still support the legitimate communist government, so much so that communist militias are requesting help from both Bucharest and Moscow; and their calls have been answered. Comrades from the USSR are restoring order and removing this fascist government as we speak, and that Secretary Zhivkov has already returned to Sofia, with jubilation from the people as crowds of people swarm him, welcoming his return to the nation. It is clear to see that the people did not support these criminals, and knew that they only sort to exploit them for their own profit.

It is after this kind of situation that we must reflect upon ourselves, and see where such flaws exist with-in our system, where such people could attempt to corrupt the socialist state into a means for their own profit, such flaws cannot be allowed to remain. The Romanian Communist Party will make sure of this.

~Comrade Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party; Gheorghiu-Dej. Dated 28th of March, 1955

This has been a message from the Romanian Communist Party​

150px-Coat_of_arms_of_PCR.svg.png
 
Last edited:
640px-Flag_of_Malta_%281943-1964%29.svg.png


[FONT= "Times New Roman"]Il-ħuta l-kbira tiekol iz-zghira: The Election of 1955 and the aftermath

After the fall of the Olivier Ministry, the election of 1955 was the most important election in the history of Malta. Appropriately it was also one of the few times when the majority of the island turned out to vote, with nearly the entire population of Malta going to the polls to vote for the future of their homeland. Needless to say however, in such an important vote things didn't go smoothly. Instances of reported voter intimidation were rampant, and violence broke out across Malta. It was only with difficulty that the Governor was convinced not to suspend elections and inadvertently spur on the chaos.

When the electoral results were published, the nation was shocked: they were tied. Twenty seats to the Nationalists and twenty to Labour, with the latter having a slight popular advantage of only a few hundred votes. Fighting for the position of Speaker of the House was savage both literally and figuratively and reports of MPs physically assaulting one another leaked to the press with alarming regularity. After hours of negotiations an anonymous Labourite backbencher named Fredu Alard was elected as Speaker of the House. A man of little will or party conviction, Fredu was a blank slate.

John_William_Brown.jpeg

Fredu Alard, Maltese Speaker of the House of Representatives and smarmy backbencher
Both Olivier and Mintoff commanded that their competing visions of Malta's future be tabled for a vote, nicknamed the Westminster and Mdina constitutions respectively. While the Westminster Constitution merely proclaimed the Dominion of Malta, passed the Westminster Statute, and asked the Queen to appoint a Governor-General in her new capacity as Queen of Malta, the Mdina Constitution was more radical. Declaring the "State of Malta, founded upon the principles of Catholic labour and self-determination" it unilaterally proclaimed independence and established the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta as 'Prince of Malta' with the standard powers of a constitutional monarch.

As expected, voting for each fell across strictly partisan lines and it fell to Speaker Alard to decide the ties. As in recognition of such an immense responsibility Parliament unanimously postponed the session until the following day. There was campaigning to do. Olivier and Mintoff both made a show out of hours-long private meetings with the Speaker and both sides held rallies in favour of their proposed constitution. When the session was reconvened in the morning, the entire nation held its breath.

Alard abstained from the Nationalists' bill and voted with his party. Labour had won.

paterno.jpg

Fra' Ernesto Paternò Castello di Carcaci, Lieutenant General of the Order of Malta and the new Maltese Head of State
With the passage of the Mdina Constitution, Labour now had a mandate to follow. Dom Mintoff assumed his post as Prime Minister and issued a declaration in tandem with the constitution officially announcing Malta's newfound sovereignty. The King's Own Malta Regiment was nationalised without a fuss from the soldiers, native Maltese all, and Governor Laycock was politely asked to vacate the Grandmaster's Palace. A new Malta had risen, ready to face the world.

320px-Unofficial_Flag_of_Malta_%28pre-1943%29.svg.png

The flag of the State of Malta
[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
Rf79bkG.jpg

Bloody Sunday in Bulgaria


While the New Economic Policy that had been championed by Todor Zhivkov and the Bulgarian Communist Party had been implemented perhaps overzealously, with moderate and radical reformers within the Government seizing what opportunities they could to mould the New Economic Policy into their own visions. As Zhivkov slowly attempted to draw the party away from the radical elements that were plaguing the party, a committee was formed from these elements that declared that the Communists, Zhivkov most importantly, were nothing more than puppets of Moscow, that Bulgaria would never be free until it could break away from the Communists.

The coup, which was unable to capture Zhivkov; he had escaped into Romania with a cadre of his personal guard, was welcomed in Sofia to cheering crowds, many of them workers in American factories. There was a strong suspicion that the United States was helping those who overthrew the government, with radical new ideas such as freedom of speech, press, and even fully fledged Democracy being thrown around.

The news, of course, was not met with equal jubilation in Moscow. With the news of the coup reaching the Soviet Union only a few hours after it occurred on Friday, the command was sent out from Moscow to Army Group South, to restore order in Sofia, and to restore Zhivkov to his position. Reporting from the port of Varna, an American journalist was able to capture several pictures of the advancing Soviet Army, before being forced to leave with other Americans in the country escaping the wrath of the Soviets.

The 128th Rifle division was the first to reach Sofia, after no resistance in the rest of Bulgaria, where the fighting between the radicals and the main Soviet army took place. Hardly a popular uprising that it was made out to be, those Bulgarian soldiers who did defect surrendered to the Soviets, saying that they had feared for their life at the hands of the "Fascist" leaders of the coup. Only thirty-six people had been killed during the fighting, with several hundred civilians taken prisoner, mostly for looting, and tearing down the state of Stalin. Zhivkov was restored as the rightful leader of the country, and ordered an immediate purge of the Party, declaring that his reforms were intended to strength socialism, not to allow fascists from the west to topple the people's Revolution.

 
320px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg.png
320px-Flag_of_South_Korea.svg.png

Permanent Establishment of the KATCOM Project between the Republic of Korea and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland


ARTICLE I - Definitions
In this Agreement the expression:

(a). "KATCOM" refers to the Korean Attached Commonwealth Division that is defined in ARTICLE II and all of its personnel attached to it;

(b). "members of Her Majesty's armed forces" means the personnel on active duty in the territory of the Republic of Korea including the Korean armed forces participating in a KATCOM Division except for personnel attached to the United Kingdom Embassy;

(c). "civilian component" means the civilian persons of United Kingdom nationality who are in the employ of, serving with, or accompanying the Her Majesty's armed forces in the Republic of Korea, but excludes persons who are ordinarily resident in the Republic of Korea; for the purposes of this Agreement only, dual nationals, i.e., persons having the nationality of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea, who are brought into the Republic of Korea by the United Kingdom shall be considered United Kingdom nationals;
(d). "dependents" means
- (i) spouse and children under 21;
- (ii) parents, children over 21, or others relatives dependent for over half their support upon a member of the Her Majesty's armed forces or civilian component.

ARTICLE II - Division

1. A KATCOM Division can be created by a joint decision by the Government of Korea and Her Majesty's Government.

2. The composition of a KATCOM is to be as declared in the following:
(a). Divisional Troops Brigade supplied by both Armed forces of the Republic of Korea and Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
(b). 2 Korean Infantry Brigades consisting of 12 Infantry Regiments in total.
(c). 2 Commonwealth Infantry Brigades consisting of 12 Infantry Regiments in total.

3. Members of KATCOM are to perform their active duty in the territories of Korea. The Republic of Korea is responsible to provide necessary facilities, support and equipment to the Division to keep it in functioning condition throughout the duration of this Agreement.

4. It is agreed that the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom will share for the duration of this Agreement the cost of all expenditures that comes from maintenance of a KATCOM Division. The expenditures will be reviewed at a yearly basis.

5. British materiel is to be made available to a KATCOM Division, under no circumstances is this materiel allowed to leave the members of Her Majesty's armed forces. In the case of disbandment of a KATCOM Division this materiel is to immediately be returned.

6. Either Party may terminate a KATCOM Division one year after notice has been given to the other Party.

ARTICLE III - Entry and Exit

1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland may bring into the Republic of Korea persons who are members of the Her Majesty's armed forces, the civilian component, and their dependents, subject to the provisions of this Article. The Government of the Republic of Korea will be notified at regular intervals, in accordance with procedures to be agreed between the two Governments, of numbers and categories of persons entering and departing.

2. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland may procure into the Republic of Korea. This materiel is exclusive to the members of Her Majesty's armed forces.
(a) This Materiel is not to be tariffed or taxed by the Government of the Republic of Korea.
(b) This Materiel is not to be sold or transferred in any manner by the members of the Her Majesty's Armed forces within the Republic of Korea.
(c) This Materiel may be sold or transferred to the Armed Forces of the Republic of Korea upon consultation with Her Majesty's Government.

ARTICLE IV - Chain of Command

1. A KATCOM Division will adhere to the Republic of Korea Armed Forces chain of command as long as applicable by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea.

2. Upon demand by Her Majesty's Government the command of a KATCOM can be transferred to Her Majesty's Armed Forces if the Republic of Government has been given 3 months head notice. The transfer can be done earlier if deemed necessary and approved by the Republic of Korea's Government.

3. A KATCOM Division is not permitted to operate without notifying Her Majesty's Government.

4. In case of US involvement in a conflict the command of deployed KATCOM Divisions shall be handed over to the US Chain of Command if the United States utilize their rights to do so.

ARTICLE V - Sharing of Knowledge

1. To increase efficiency of the KATCOM Divisions both governments agree to share their military knowledge of these following fields.
(a). Field training
(b). Officer training
(c). Materiel expertise
(d). Field Strategy and Tactics

ARTICLE VI - Mutual Defence

1. Both Governments undertake to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations, or obligations assumed by any side toward the United Nations.

2. Both Governments will consult together whenever, in the opinion of either of them, the political independence or security of either of the States is threatened by external armed attack. Separately and jointly, by self help and mutual aid, the Governments will maintain and develop appropriate means to deter armed attack and will take suitable measures in consultation and agreement to implement this treaty.

3. The Republic of Korea grants the right to dispose Her Majesty's Armed Forces in and about the territory of the Republic of Korea as determined by mutual agreement.

4. The United Kingdom grants the right to dispose Republic of Korea Armed Forces in and about the territories of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as determined by mutual agreement.

ARTICLE VII - 1st KATCOM Division

1. The Republic of Korea shall take upon itself to organize the formation of the 1st KATCOM Division.

2. Camp Pyonghwa (TL: Camp Peace) shall be established near Jinhae naval base in the Jinhae district of Changwon near Busan.

3, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall take upon itself to provide the personnel necessary to support the terms in ARTICLE II.

4. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland shall take upon itself to provide military instructors from Her Majesty's Armed Forces to support the terms in ARTICLE V.

ARTICLE VIII - Entry into Force of Agreement

1. This Agreement shall enter into force three months after the date of a written notification from the Government of the Republic of Korea to the Government of the United Kingdom that it has approved the Agreement in accordance with its legal procedures.

2. Either Government may at any time request the revision of any Article of this Agreement, in which case the two Governments shall enter into negotiations through appropriate channels.

3. This Treaty shall remain in force indefinitely. Either Party may terminate it one year after notice has been given to the other Party.

In witness whereof the undersigned, being duly authorized by their respective Governments, have signed this Agreement. Done in duplicate, in the English and Korean languages. Both texts shall have equal authenticity, but in case of divergence the English text shall prevail. Done at Seoul this 4th day of April in 1955.

For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
[x] Andrew Charles Stewart, Ambassador of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Republic of Korea

For the Republic of Korea
[X] I Seungman, President of The Republic of Korea
302px-Syngman_Rhee_Signature.svg.png
 
320px-Unofficial_Flag_of_Malta_%28pre-1943%29.svg.png

[FONT= "Times New Roman"]Ministeru tal-Affarijiet Barranin
The State of Malta hereby announces her withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, to which she acceded as an individual party dated 1949. While the Maltese government recognises the positive nature of NATO's mission, the State of Malta recognises an imperative, stemming from its popular mandate, to forge a fresh and non-aligned course in international affairs with charity towards all and malice towards none.

With regards,

320px-Signature_of_Guido_de_Marco.png


Guido de Marco,
Minister of Foreign Affairs
[/FONT]
 
TASS Report

29 March 1956

The first meeting of the newly elected Supreme Soviet was held today and delegates elected two weeks ago have officially begun their work. More than 126 million Soviet citizens voted in the elections for the highest government body of the Soviet Union. Candidates for the election were nominated by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and by public organizations. In the Soviet of the Union 564 CPSU members were elected alongside 159 independents. In the Soviet of Nationalities there are 485 CPSU members and 155 independents.

In joint session the Supreme Soviet elected its Presidium as well as the new Council of Ministers of the USSR. Comrade Nikolai Bulganin, Hero of Socialist Labor and the recipient of two Orders of Lenin has been elected as the new Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. Comrade Georgy Malenkov who has led the Council of Ministers since the death of Joseph Stalin has again been entrusted with that position. Comrade Marshal Radion Malinovsky, Hero of the Soviet Union who played a key role in the great Soviet victory at Stalingrad is the new Minister of Defense of the USSR. Comrade Alexei Kosygin is once again Minister of Finance of the Soviet Union, a position he previously held in 1948. Comrade Anastas Mikoyan, Hero of Socialist Labor, is the new Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The Council of Ministers in its new composition is expected to meet for the first time tomorrow to begin important work for the betterment of the Soviet Union.
 
Visa application

To: American Embassy Moscow

I, Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan, born, to the best of my knowledge, on 13 November 1895, request a visa to enter the United States of America sometime in the next twelve months, at your convenience, for a fortnight's holiday to visit my friend Mikhail Menshikov. Required documents are attached, including the requisite exit visa which I have granted myself.

A.I. Mikoyan
 
Visa application

To: American Embassy Moscow

I, Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan, born, to the best of my knowledge, on 13 November 1895, request a visa to enter the United States of America sometime in the next twelve months, at your convenience, for a fortnight's holiday to visit my friend Mikhail Menshikov. Required documents are attached, including the requisite exit visa which I have granted myself.

A.I. Mikoyan

Mr. Mikoyan,

Your visa request has been approved and granted.

With regards,

Charles E. Bohlen, US Ambassador to the USSR.
 
900px-Flag_of_Romania_%281965-1989%29.svg.png

Internațională

A Statement on various world events from the General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party

Greetings citizens, it is on a sad note that I begin the address on the global cause of communism; the greatest enemy of socialism has reappeared: The Fascist Hydra has once again returned! And at the hands of the Capitalists none-the-less! I had expressed my concerns of a coup threat in Italy, and at the firth meeting of various Leftist parties in March, such fears were proven to be grounded as a failed bomb plot was discovered. It should be noted that the CPSU has subsequently warned the Italian and other Communist Parties of "Increased activity of American agents in Italy"; This is proof that the west must of somehow been involved in these events, be it either implicitly or through direct action. The Rise of Fascism poses a threat not only to the communist ideal, but to the safety of the world; It was Imperialism and Fascism that started the last two global conflicts, letting it fester is only going to start a third. This is why, my comrades, we must show solidarity with the Italian Socialist and Communist Parties against the Blackshirts who once again try to subvert democracy through the use of thuggish violence and oppression.

In other news, the cause of socialism seems to have spread to the government of Brazil; who are not only endorsed by the country's communist party, but who are embarking of a scheme to help the workers of their nation/ This is an admirable goal, and I hope that as the nation of Brazil shows that communism can work in Latin America, so that others will see the glory of Socialism in the region. This was also year in which the forces of Imperialism attempted to beat down upon the already down-trodden peoples of Africa, as the Algerian FLN and the Kenyan Mau Mau both fought for their independence from Imperialist aggressors for many years now. The Communist Party of Romania stands with these liberation forces, for all those who oppose imperialists and fascists are friends of the cause. The Guerrillas in Malaysia also have our respect, for keeping up their fight despite ruthless oppression from the British forces. May their fight continue and gain the support of the common Malay people against the the oppressive British Empire.

From the CoMECon members comes news of great amounts of economic growth! With Romania being no exception! This is clear proof of the supremacy that he communist model brings to an economy. The central planning committees of these countries report up to 9.7% GDP Growth: such a figure is unheard of in the west. And due to the nature of our socialist system, these results directly help the people, as wages all over Romania and in other nations are on the increase; a sign of the growing prosperity of our system. Collectivisation is at an all-time high in CoMECon nations, Romania itself had completed its program over 3 years ago, however for some nations, such as Czechoslovakia, the fascist occupiers had left them too damaged to organise it effectively, until now; where agricultural yields are up by a large amount, and their system is managing to balance the perfect ratio between Urban Factories and Rural Farms, they are truly an example to us all.

It is on that pleasant note that I leave you, I wish you happiness and prosperity under our socialism system, my you truly reap the fruits of your labour.

~Comrade Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party; Gheorghiu-Dej. Dated 1st of January, 1956

This has been a message from the Romanian Communist Party​

150px-Coat_of_arms_of_PCR.svg.png
 
Last edited:
496px-Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_(HM_Government).svg.png


The Macmillan Ministry


Bolstered by the support of the public, the new Prime Minister Harold Macmillan quickly got to work in appointing the members of his cabinet mere days after winning the 1955 election. He respected the wishes of his contenders for Conservative leadership and appeased them; David Maxwell Fyfe was granted the position of Lord Chancellor, and Rab Butler was granted the position of Foreign Secretary.

With his potential challengers now placated in their new roles, he was able to begin what he saw as a revitalisation of cabinet. Peter Thorneycroft was initially considered for Chancellor, but his rejection of the Keynesian economics which Macmillan personally favoured would not lend himself any favours. Instead, Derick Heathcoat-Amory was given the role. As the former Minister of Agriculture he had already shown economic aptitude, and his beliefs were far more in line with Macmillan's wish to retain what had became known as the post-war consensus. Thorneycroft himself was pacified by being given a junior ministerial role within the Board of Trade, alongside his like-minded allies Nigel Birch and Enoch Powell. The last Great Office of State to be filled, the Home Secretary, was given to Gwilym Lloyd George, the younger son of the Welsh Wizard.

Macmillan turned his attention towards the rest of the cabinet. When it came to Colonial Secretary, the liberal minded Iain Macleod was appointed and would prove to be an agreeable ally for both Macmillan and Butler. The Commonwealth Secretary was given to Selwyn Lloyd, formerly the second-highest ranking man in the Foreign Office - a position attained by Churchill finding his complete lack of foreign understanding to be 'positive advantages'. Since then he had grown in experience, and found the Commonwealth far preferable partners to either the Europeans or Americans. Furthermore, the Ministry of Education was merged with Science and was promptly given to vigorous political writer, Lord Hailsham (who would soon become responsible for the passing of the Education Act 1955), while John Maclay was given responsibility for Scotland.

The rest of the cabinet positions lower down within the order of precedence were duly handed out to loyal allies. With Macmillan's power base secure and his cabinet ready, the Conservative Party could now brace itself for a new term.

Prime Minister
First Lord of the Treasury
Harold Macmillan
Chancellor of the ExchequerDerick Heathcoat-Amory
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
Leader of the House of Commons
Lord Privy Seal
R.A. Butler
Secretary of State for the Home Department
Lord President of the Council
Gwilym Lloyd George
Lord ChancellorLord Kilmuir
Secretary of State for the ColoniesIain Macleod
Secretary of State for Commonwealth RelationsSelwyn Lloyd
Secretary of State for Education and ScienceLord Hailsham
Secretary of State for ScotlandJohn Maclay
Chief MouserPeter III
 
440px-US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg.png


Selected excerpts from White House Press Briefings, 1955 and 1956



James C. Hagerty: Before proceeding to the Q&A session, I would like to announce that the United States intends to take the Kashmir Issue to the United Nations in the hopes of attaining a permanent solution...

Journalist: After the recent election of the communists Italy there have been attacks on various democratic and right wing personalities in Italy. Some have said that the attacks had no direct cause, and it was instigated by American forces. Is there any truth to that claim?

JHC: No, there is not. That's the shortest answer I can give.

J: Could you elaborate on your answer? What do you believe are reasons for these attacks?

JCH: In Italy, the leader of the largest elected party has the right to become Prime Minister of the country. However, he loses this right when a bloc in parliament forms that has a larger share of the vote than his party. Negotiations to form such a bloc were underway, and a conference to reach that was the target of an attempted bombing. This provides a good enough motive to these people, the so-called "Red Squad", to violently quell these meetings.

J: Does the White House also completely deny American involvement, more specifically as a CIA operation?

JCH: Firstly, the source of that theory was a report by the Communist and Socialist parties of Italy. These groups have a vested interest in keeping their image as clean as possible, and I don't think I need to explain that being linked to a terrorist attack is toxic for one's image. So, it is only natural that they would push the blame on someone else.

Secondly, this theory has been perpetuated solely by communist organs, whether they are behind the Iron Curtain or not. To put it bluntly, the United States serves as their bogeyman. Whenever they need to blame something on someone, we are that someone. This case is no different. Accusations like these should be regarded as malarkey by any respectable press organ.


J: Thank you.



J: The Italian elections have returned a large group of fascists not only to the parliament, but to the government. Will this change American policy towards Italy?

JCH: The United States shall continue to support Italy as it has before. While it is true that there are anti-democratic elements in the Italian government, we still consider Italy a democratic country and we will work to promote democracy not only in Italy, but in the rest of Europe and the world.



J: During the last year, there were a number of high-profile visits to Washington from the Middle East and South Asia. President Eisenhower had the honour to host the Shahinshah of Iran and the Prime Minister of India, and spoke highly of his guests. What does this hold for American foreign policy in that region of the world?

JCH: The United States is very interested in building fruitful ties in that region of the world. We have recently strengthened ties with Pakistan through an arms deal, but this does not mean that we will not aim to strengthen ties with India. While President Eisenhower's discussions with Prime Minister Nehru were not concrete, it did help to strengthen ties between our countries. On other occasions we have expressed our intent to supply more aid to India and aim to develop its economy, its industries, and agricultural sector. But again, nothing concrete has been decided quite yet.

J: And what of the Shahinshah's visit?

JCH: As with India, it did not change the intentions of the United States towards that country. We desire to build strong and mutually beneficial relationships not only with Iran, but also with Israel, and strengthen already positive ties with various Arab nations.

J: Who are these various Arab nations?

JCH: The countries of the Persian Gulf in addition to Libya, which we are already actively aiding. I believe Pakistan deserves a mention here as well.



J: We have in recent months seen an escalation in violence in Algeria. The United States has remained silent on the issue, even praising French efforts to placate the Algerian population. I must ask, what is the American policy towards Algeria?

JCH: While we appreciate the intentions of the French Government to improve the lives of its Algerian citizens, we cannot remain supportive of France if they oppress the population at large. The problem with supporting either side is that we currently can not dependably verify whether or not the majority of Algerian muslims support France or independence. Until it becomes apparent to us which side is the majority, we can only urge Paris to enact a liberal policy that is as peaceful as possible and aimed at containing and minimising violence from both sides..

J: We see similar conflict happening in Kenya and Malaya, where the British forces are fighting to keep control of their overseas possessions. Is American policy towards that different?

JCH: You must understand that we face the same issue in Kenya as we do in Algeria. It is difficult, very difficult to determine which side the population is on. Considering the lack of open opposition against the Protected Village program, we do not think the Kenyan insurgents carry wide popular support. This, together with discussions with Prime Minister MacMillan indicating his commitment to decolonisation, makes it so that we will not actively oppose British action to subdue this rebellion. We will, however, condemn the atrocities in Kenya, which are apparently being committed by both sides, and urge a halt to the fighting. The United States will not relent in its opposition to colonial government, but we do find that a transition to independence in any part of the world must happen in a stable, secure, and peaceful environment. It is a conviction we share with the British Government and will thus, again, not pressure them into decolonisation.



J: Yesterday there has been a heavy-handed purge in Bulgaria in which the Soviet army crushed the expression of a government with a popular mandate in the country. What is the response of the United States to this?

JHC: The United States condemns the excessive use of force by the Soviet army in restoring its chronies in Bulgaria. It only shows that the Russian 'Sphere of Influence' is a collection of Soviet puppets where freedom and anti-Soviet sentiments are suppressed and the Russian government has to be kept in by threat of force.



J: According to experts, the armies of Japan, Austria, and Italy are considered incapable of defending their own territories. Especially seeing as the latter two nations are NATO members, does the United States intend to strengthen the armies of these nations as it has done with West Germany?

JHC: Correct, we do intend to improve the capabilities of these countries to defend their own territories against whatever threat to their sovereignty may arise, and we intend to do so on the short term. This is to be achieved through arming these forces, but also through training and advising their forces. This is especially true in the case of Austria, where we have to build an army from scratch.



J: As you may have heard, the British territory of Malta has recently declared independence from the Great Britain, becoming the second country in history to do so. What is Washington's stance towards this?

JHC: The United States currently withholds recognition of Malta, pending official British reaction.


 
Excerpt from: The history of modern Germany (1871-2015)
Chapter IV: Wirtschaftswunder
The politics, ideologies, and economics of the Bonn Republic's' economic miracle. (1948-1955)


With the Western Allies becoming increasingly concerned about the deteriorating economic conditions in their "Trizone," the American-led Marshall Plan of economic development was extended to Western Germany in 1948. The three preceding years had been a period of terrible virulence for the German people; industrial, intellectual, and property assumption by both the Comintern and the Western Allies further aggravated the vitiated German nation. In early October 1945 the UK government privately acknowledged in a cabinet meeting that German civilian adult death rates had risen to 4 times the pre-war levels and death rates amongst the German children had risen by 10 times the pre-war levels. To intensify difficulties, the German Red Cross was dissolved, and the International Red Cross was prevented from aiding Germans through strict controls on supplies and air travels. As food situations worsened during the winter of 1946, general casualties on both sides of the Iron Curtain spiked to unsustainable levels. These unambiguous obstacles, coupled with rampant inflation and a poor financial environment, replicated the antebellum German atmosphere. After overcoming their sentimental ire, the Allied Powers finally agreed to take action and provide the West Germans with a Marshall Plan extension and a currency reform. The reform, passed through the ministrations of the Bizonal Economic Council, introduced the Deutsche Mark and halted rampant inflation. Although the Marshall Plan played an instrumental role in the psychological West German recovery, the Allied nations still charged the Germans for their occupation ($2.4 billion), and the aid largely spilled into compensation expenditure. It is more likely that the economic procedures of Erhard's economic policies provided more of a monetary boon to the West German economy. This was the birth of Ordoliberalism.

Ordoliberalism was born and developed in times of severe economic and socio-political crises. Its conceptual foundation was constructed around political prerequisites, namely, Germany's obsession with the social question since the 19th century and increasing criticism towards traditional liberal-capitalism. As pronounced anti-totalitarianism and anti-collectivism surged in the wake of Nazi and Soviet interactions, the ideas of the a social market economy began to flourish. With a general desire to embrace a moderate path, ordoliberalism was perceived as a viable alternative to the extremes of laissez-faire capitalism and the collectivist planned economy - not as a compromise, but as a combination of seemingly conflicting objectives under the guise of state provision for social security and the preservation of individual freedom. After the collaspe of the Third Reich and its statist, corporatist economic policy, German economists and academics at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau advocated a neo-liberal socio-economic order. Two schools of economic thought emerged from Freiburg. The first, known as "the Freiburg School," advocated a self-regulating market force and limited to indirect state interference. This new ideology, led by Walter Eucken, Franz Böhm, and Constantin von Dietze, was labeled ordoliberalism by Eucken. They believed that it was the responsibility of the state to create a proper legal enviornment for the economy and maintain a sustainable level of competition through measures that subscribed to traditional market principles. Therefore, the idealistic means by which economic policy can positively impact the market economy is by improving the overall framework or the "ordo."

U4VRev4.jpg

Alfred Müller-Armack, creator of the Social Market Economy.

This new economic theory quickly attracted both critics and supporters. The competitive ordoliberal order was further devoloped by the Cologne School, based around the economist, Alfred Müller-Armack, who coined the term ‘Soziale Marktwirtschaft’ (Social Market Economy) in a publication in December 1946. Altough its roots were firmly embedded in ordoliberalism, this concept was not identical with the conception of Eucken's Freiburg School. In contrast, Armack emphasied the state's responsibility to actively improve the market condition and pursue a more egalitarian social balance. Amarck sought to put social policy on a level ground with economic policy, emphasizing socio-political aims, rather than a purely ordoliberal focus. However, the Social Market Economy as an extension of neo-liberal thought was deliberately not a defined economic order, but an adjustable holistic conception pursuing a complete humanistic societal order as a synthesis of seemingly conflicting objectives, namely economic freedom and social security. Armack's thoughts were often viewed as a mix of socio-political ideas rather than a defined ideological order, but the particular vagueness were a political dream. Armack's concept soon interacted with the Chairman of the Special Buereau for Money and Credit, a sub-division under the Administration of Finance. The Chairman, Ludwig Erhard, was a vocal supporter of Eucken's ordoliberal market order, but was nonetheless impressed by Armack's variations. Erhard was determined to translate these new ideas into economic practice with several political tactics.

rRAnvwD.jpg

Ludwig Erhard, the Director of the Administration for Economics in the Bizonal Economic Council.

Erhard succeeded Johannes Semmler as Director of the Administration for Economics in the Bizonal Economic Council on 2 March 1948, the Social Market Economy entered the political sphere. The Bizonal Economic Council, as the post-war legislature, recieved Erhard's information regarding a new economic policy constructed around Armack's views. Both liberal democrats and conservatives welcomed the transition to a more market-oriented economy after years of excessive intervention or none at all. Konrade Adenaeur, the Chairman of the Christlich-Demokratische Union (Christian Democratic Union) (CDU) in the British zone of occupation, invited Erhard to inform the CDU part members abous his socio-economic theories at a party convention in Recklinghausen on 28 August 1948. Erhard, in an uplifting speech entitled Marktwirtschaft im Streit der Meinungen (Market Economy in Dispute), defended his position on the Social Market Economy, while alluding to the dualism between a controlled economy and a market economy. With all eyes on the approaching elections, Adenauer, originally a skeptic, was so impressed by the polarizing solgan and Erhard's efficacy, that he formed a political alliance with Erhard. As politics turned into policy, West Germany prepared for an economic restructuring. After the CSU expressed its dedication to the market economy with social balance, Hanns Seidel, the Bavarian Minister for Economic Affairs, publicly advocated Erhard's model at the CSU party convention in Straubing in May 1949. These principals were adopted as part of the party platform as a political device for the Federal elections - and were attached into the manifesto at the CDU's conference in Düsseldorf during the summer. This manifesto attachment was in stark contrast to the previously endorsed Ahlener Program suggesting an anti-matirealist Gemeinwirtschaft (social economy.) The so called ‘Düsseldorfer Leitsätze’ not only provided a concrete, pragmatic and materialist economic programme, but also an attractive slogan to reach consensus within the party and the public.

DRLTY6g.jpg
CDU leader, Konrade Adenauer, and future Chancellor of Germany.
Although the union of the two newest political parties, the CDU and CSU, campaigned with a coherent economic program for the public, Germany's most advanced party, the the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) campaigned on a platform of economic planning and extensive socialization. This endorsement put the SPD and its leader, Kurt Schumacher, on a path towards popular discontent - the SDP was radical and nationalistic, loudly demanding for German unification at the expense of concessions to the Soviets. And while those specific exampls may have not polarized the people, their economic policies contradicted a general desire for a "return to normalcy." At the same time, the government, following Erhard's advise, cut taxes sharply on incomes within the moderate bracket. Additionally, individual income tax rates were cut drastically. Prior to the tax cuts, the rate on any income over 6,000 Deutschmark had been 95 percent. After tax reform, this 95 percent rate applied only to annual incomes above 250,000 Deutschmark. For the German with an annual income of about 2,400 Deutschmark in 1950, the marginal tax rate fell from 85 percent to 18 percent.

As the elections approached in August 1949, the CDU and the Christian Social Union aligned their party platforms, policies, and manifestos in alignment with the Social Market Economy. Erhard especially campaigned with notable vehemence, who declared that he would " ‘go into the upcoming political party clashes with particular energy for the CDU," Having realized the potential of suble and systematic marketing to transform the concept from an economic theory, even a very abstract one, into the political propaganda and party image, Erchard scored wide appeal for the CSU. On August 14, 1949, about 31 million Germans were called to caste a vote to the first German Bundestag to decide between the Social Market Economy and the controlled economy advocated by the SPD. Of those eligible to vote, 25 million or 78.5 percent, actually went to the ballot boxes and showed a clear commitment to the emerging post-war democracy.

8MFGDE0.jpg
rMHJ0OX.jpg

Theodor Heuss, leader of the FDP (left), and Kurt Schumacher (right), leader of the SDP.

Although the SPD, with 29.12 percent of the vote, exited as the most successful single party, the CDU/CSU coalition attracted a larger electorate at 31 percent. The coalition scored 139 seats, seven more than their rivals, the Social Democrats. However, both "popular parties (Volksparteien) suffered large percentile drops over the previous elections. The Coalition and the SPD alike were unable to capture a comparable share of an increasingly large electorate. Stunning most observers, the liberal Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP) led by chairman Theodor Heuss, scored over a million extra votes and received 11.9% of the total electorate. The FDP proved itself as the only party consistently gaining an electorate; as a politically progressive and financially conservative party, the FDP proved itself capable of widespread popularity. While these results affirmed the pro-market trend in public opinion, the electorate made its decision on the satisfaction of its practical, every-day needs, rather than on any particular economic order. The coalition's victory was grounded in the popular conception that the CDU and CSU were quasi-governing across the Bizone and thus were identified with the economic recovery and currency stabilization. The the implementation of the Social Market Economy benefited from other crucial factors – including the east-west conflict and a faviorable socio-political climate within West Germany and abroad, the stabilizing alliance between the conservative and liberal parties, the pro-market makeup of the EC and even the Federal Republic's Basic Law code, which emphasized personal freedom, human dignity, and the subsidiarity of societal cohesion. The effort to modernize political communication with the cooperative and cooperative industries as its model led to the implementation electoral validation of the ordoliberal economy.

F8zRPbM.png


Communist Party of Germany (KPD)
Social Democratic Party (SPD)
Christian Democratic Union (CDU)
Free Democratic Party (FDP)
Christian Social Union (CSU)
Bavaria Party (BP)
German Party (DP)
Centre Party (DZP)
Economic Reconstruction League (WAV)
German Conservative Party – German Right Party (DKP-DRP)
South Schleswig Voter Federation (SSW)
Independents

The primary cause for West Germany's quick economic recovery was a series of labor and financial requisites that were focused and improved by the ordoliberal growth model. West Germany maintained a skilled workforce from the war and a high technolocial infastrure, but its capital stock was depleted during and after the war. The small amount of available capital as well as the costly movement from military good production to civilian good production, dragged Germany into an usually low economic output during the first post-war years. These issues were not aided by monetary and regulatory conflicts within the Bizone council. Erhard's massive tax cuts provided a much needed return of capital to a wide-swath of income tax brackets. West Germany proceeded quickly after the cuts to rebuild its capital stock and thus rebooted economic output at sustainable rates. Thanks to the very high capital investment rates from low good consumption and a small demand for replacement capital (due to a still small capital stock), recovery unexpectedly launched into the 1950s. Living standards rose steadily, while the purchasing power of wages increased in astonishing increments per year. The German economy grew profoundly between 1949 to 1953, with a brief slowdown from '54 to '55. By the end of 1955, German GDP growth was around 6.9%, spurred by Adenauer's towering electoral victory in the 1953 election. But perhaps most encouraging for the German economy was its signature of consent to the European Economic Community - a profound advancement for fiscal cooperation and market sustainability. Modeled after many ordoliberal theories, the ECC created an international financial community unlike any other. With regulations relaxed and personal liberties reaffirmed by the Treaty of Strasbourg, the German nation prepared itself for the long journey towards fiscal responsibility and firm market stability.


 
Last edited:
JzRhh5X.png


The Gaitskell-Bevan Axis


After six years at the helm of leadership in the United Kingdom, Clement Attlee finally saw Labour’s loss to the Conservatives in the 1951 election. It was a result which owed itself primarily due to the beginning of a feud within the Labour Party, sparked off by the introduction of prescription charges to the NHS by the Chancellor, Hugh Gaitskell, in light of a slowing economy. Such a policy saw the resignation of the Health Minister, Anuerin ‘Nye’ Bevan, alongside his allies Harold Wilson and John Freeman. Overnight, underlying tensions had bubbled to the surface and Labour stood divided between the Bevanites, inspired by revolutionary socialism, and the Gaitskellites, inspired by reformist socialism.

The growing split within Labour would once again result in its defeat in the 1955 elections, and with it came the news of Attlee’s resignation. Although MPs had been calling for his resignation since the defeat in 1951, Attlee had opted to stay leader primarily to prevent the reins of power from being handed to Herbert Morrison, whom he personally disliked. Attlee himself had once favoured Bevan as his natural successor, but in light of Bevan’s resignation nearly tearing the Labour party apart, he could no longer give Bevan his approval.

Attlee did however state what he expected the future leadership of the party to be guided by, stating upon his resignation "Labour has nothing to gain by dwelling in the past. Nor do I think we can impress the nation by adopting a futile left-wingism. I regard myself as Left of Centre which is where a Party Leader ought to be. It is no use asking, 'What would Keir Hardie have done?' We must have at the top men brought up in the present age, not, as I was, in the Victorian Age."

In contrast to the Conservative Party, which had no means of transferring leadership outwith backroom politics, Labour had established a system of leadership elections since the 1920s, and gave the opportunity for each and every MP to put forth their choice. With the announcement of the elections to be held in the December of 1955, the three men most widely expected to put their hats forward did just that. Nye Bevan, Hugh Gaitskell and Herbert Morrison all began to immediately court MPs from across the nation in their attempt to seize power. The tense rivalry between the former two was noted in particular as it was one that was fuelled by tribalism as much as actual politics, with the socialist intellectual Richard Crossman going as far as to claim that Gaitskell had compared Bevan to Herr Hitler.

With the results of the poll ready on the 14th December, Attlee's successor was decided. Owing to his youthful charisma and a tacit approval from Attlee, Hugh Gaitskell had managed to poll an immense victory of 147 votes. This was a blow to Bevan, who had managed to attain only 70 votes. Although he was a spellbinding man in his own right, Bevan was a strong-minded individual, and as such became infamous for his poor team-playing skills. As for Morrison, the man once tipped to become Labour leader had suffered a humiliating result of merely 40 votes – less than a fifth of all those cast.

The results of the leadership election did not lead to an inflammation of the rift in the Labour party, but rather the opposite. Due to his secure position, Gaitskell was able to afford a comfortable existence in comparison to the Bevanites, and furthermore he was now guided by the aim of uniting the party together. Bevan, for his part, accepted his defeat with the realisation that a divided left would never be able to overcome the Conservative Party, which he had once described as ‘lower than vermin’. As such, Gaitskell made the strategic move of immediately offering overtures to the Bevanites. Bevan was granted the role of Shadow Foreign Secretary, and Wilson the role of Shadow Chancellor. It was a move which Gaitskell calculated would be able to minimise the rebellious tendencies of the Bevanites by securing the loyalty of their top men, thereby managing to consolidate the unity of the party. In a matter of only a few months, Gaitskell’s ploy had begun to reap its rewards. Intellectuals in the left had began to write of the ‘Gaitskell-Bevan Axis’, and the Labour party could now look towards a brighter future.

Hugh_Gaitskell.jpg

Hugh Gaitskell, Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition
 
627px-Imperial_Coat_of_Arms_of_Iran.svg.png


IMPERIAL STATE OF IRAN
Marā dād farmūd-o khod dāvar ast



THE SHAH IN AMERICA
The Miami Visit



Amidst the sandy beaches and palm trees, the Shah felt quite at home, yet H.I.M Mohammad Reza was a considerable distance from his native Persia, visiting the Sunshine State. Accompanied by his wife, the Shah began his tour with the unexpected decision to drive a car. It was far from conventional for any head of state, let alone a monarch from the Middle-East, to travel without a chauffeur. Yet the Shah dispensed with the stuffy old customs of yesteryear, gaining from the outset of his visit the curiosity of the American public.


3649825719_a67d313b33_z.jpg

H.I.M the Shah of Iran, Driving in Miami


What began as curiosity turned swiftly into endearment as news of the Shah’s pro-Western policies and Queen Soraya’s progressive educational initiatives for young girls circulated in the American Press. Whereas the Shah’s visit only marginally improved the already robust involvement of American corporations in Iran’s petroleum sector – the official purpose of the trip being to promote investment - if success were measured in column inches, the full-length news spreads and the cover of Time magazine testified to the resounding triumph of the Shah’s visit in capturing first the interest and soon after the hearts of the American people.


3649824789_a45519b46a_z.jpg

Shah and Queen of Iran taking a stroll


The Shah seemed in-tune with the American way-of-life, embodying that care-free confidence which served as the hallmark of the United States. The unfailing charm of Mohammad Reza once again stood him in good stead with the American media. “Our man in Iran,” read the endearing headline of the New York Times, “Iran’s Enlightened Monarch,” read the Washington Post. The glamour of a Persian Prince had no doubt seized the imagination of the American public. Yet, hidden from public view, the unofficial story had less of that fairy-tale magic and more of a hard dose of reality. The happy couple, the Shah and his beloved Queen, had been unable to have a child. Far from the prying eyes of the media, the Shah and Soraya visited leading gynaecologists in the hope of curing or confirm what the loving couple feared: Queen Soraya was barren. A secret over-night visit [to evade the press] to Dr. William Masters in Missouri to seek fertility treatment remained the couple’s last remaining hope, yet this too proved inconclusive.


6198402494_46b4329573_z.jpg

The Imperial Couple of Iran, Miami Beach


H.I.M Mohammad Reza had not shied away from defying ancient prejudices and challenging time-honoured injustices, but even the reformist Shah could not escape the age-old source of vexation for all monarchies: the question of succession. Without a son, the Pahlavi Dynasty’s tenure as Iran’s Imperial Family would be brief. Notwithstanding the great reforms being brought about in Persia, particularly with respect to women and society, the attitudes of the Iranian people were such that they would not accept a Queen Regnant. Thus, not only the legacy of the Pahlavi Line, but Iran’s progressive course and the broader stability of the Middle-East, rested in no small measure on the birth of a son.


3649816691_214ba8c280_z.jpg

H.I.M. the Shah and H.M. Queen Soraya at the Marina with Floridians


The whirlwind pace of the Shah’s tour of Florida – flitting from Miami to Key West, strolling down the boardwalk one moment and boarding a yacht the next – kept journalists and photographers on their toes. It seemed that the Imperial Couple, deeply in love, basking in the glow of public affection, were living the American dream. Yet, concealed from the media, the growing worry surrounding the Queen’s infertility brought with it new troubles. Although the Shah and his Queen put on a brave face for the American people, those close to the Imperial Couple knew well that, along the tree-lined boulevards and sun-kissed beaches, all was not well in Paradise.


3660664584_3ba5e34c6f_z.jpg

 
500px-Flag_of_Germany.svg.png

The German Democratic Republic
Die Deutsche Demokratische Republik
Auferstanden Aus Ruinen

----

A Statement from General Secretary Ulbricht
On the Events in Bulgaria and the Effects of Capitalist Rhetoric


As the whole world has heard by this time, the recent and startling events that took place in Bulgaria have revealed the true nature of capitalism: it sneaks its way, like a serpent, into the minds of the people, and when enough people have been infiltrated, these capitalists -- and their fascist allies -- seek to destroy the socialist state and once again oppress the worker under the thumb of the oligarchic bourgeoisie. The principles of capitalism are like a malignant tumor, a cancerous disease that rots away at the pillars that support the dreams and vision of a single, harmonious socialist utopia. Even the smallest, loneliest cell can, with not too much effort at all, endanger all the other cells of the body, and the disease can develop to such a state that the body falls gravely ill and ceases to function.

Thus is how the Bulgarian state nearly fell in the face of the threat of fascism and capitalism, which had presumably been lurking under the surface of Bulgarian politics and society since the fall of the illegitimate government of the Tsars. An organized minority, certainly supported by capitalist benefactors outside of the country, seized power through force in the capital of Sofia. The authority of the coup barely reached to any other place in the country; indeed, it barely controlled all of the city. However, the soldiers of the Soviet Union, our greatest ally and the leader of the socialist nations of the world, stepped in to restore authority to Sofia, put the workers' government back in power, and to ensure that the country was free of every cell of capitalist influence. This they did nearly bloodlessly and effortlessly, and the government of the people was quickly restored to its rightful place.

It is for these reasons that the German people must always be alert. We cannot fall into a trance of malaise or any sort of stupor; for it is then that the disease will strike, and surely our socialist nation shall fall. Once more we would be tools of the capitalists, who as we speak are oppressing the worker in their own countries. A flower cannot thrive in shadow, nor can it survive when trampled; it must be protected from all danger, and be carefully nurtured, and kept in the light and away from the darkness. When socialism is defended with every last ounce of energy by every single one of the people, then -- and only then -- shall the glorious worker maintain control of his own destiny.


235px-Coat_of_arms_of_East_Germany.svg.png

Issued by the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany
on 13 June, 1956
 
350px-US_flag_48_stars.svg.png
260px-Flag_of_Brazil.svg.png

United States-Brazil Agreement of 1956
United States-Brazil Agreement of 1956

Article 1.
The Government of Brazil pledges that, in its overtures to balance the budget and improve the rights and conditions of labour, it shall not dispossess American property in its country.

Article 2.
The High Contracting Parties shall strive to relax legislation concerning the flow of capital between their countries.

Article 3.
The High Contracting Parties shall lower tarriffs on eachothers goods to no higher than 12.5%

Article 4.
The United States shall loan to Brazil the sum of 92,000,000* (ninety two million) United States Dollars at 2.5% interest, to be paid back over the course of 25 (twenty-five) years.

Article 5.
The High Contracting Parties pledge that for the sake of good relations between them, as well as peace and stability throughout the Western Hemisphere, they shall committ to building a positive, productive, and mutually benefitial relationship.

[X] Brazilian Representative
[X] J.C. Dunn, US Ambassador Plenipotentiary to Brazil

*500,507,462.69 in 1994
 
[X] J.C. Dunn, US Ambassador Plenipotentiary to Brazil
 
2TuyW51.png


Internal Memorandum from Korean People’s Army Head Quarters to Korean People’s Navy regarding use of submarine warfare

Highly Secret

Following recent developments and experience gained during Tests F and E conducted May and June 1955 respectively, with respect of the note from the Foreign Ministry regarding naval co-operation and equipment, it has been decided unanimously to conduct primary tests of potential waging of war on US and Fascist commerce and shipping.

Testing is to consist of the probing of occupied Korean Waters and of accurate charting of merchant shipping and tonnage. Use of small vessels with loyal crews is of the highest importance, all tests must remain secret. Equip crews with cyanide pills in case of capture.

Training in facilities is to be undertaken, with potential for real-life training in borrowed vessels. Simulations are to determine how many tons of shipping could be sank a month, and for how long the crews could stay in the sea. Also consider simulations of waging war against Japanese shipping.

The army is ready to assist the navy in case resources, funds or manpower needed for simulations.