-
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.
Informal straw poll to try and dispel lingering thoughts so I can get to sleep:
How interested would people be in a chapter on CW popular music trends in the latter half of the Sixities?
Having spent time away from the ‘plot’ over December, I’ve decided I want to revise my ideas for CW musical culture for the Sixties and beyond. With the end of Vol 1 in sight, however, I’m of a mind to push ahead with the political drama so we can hit 1969 soonish, and then revisit cultural stuff in Vol 2. Does anyone have a preference? Is there any demand for a look in at what the kids are listening to some time in the near future? Could be quite a fun way to chart the evolving state of public expression under Bevan… Suppose I’m mainly thinking about time management and plot pacing; what needs to be said now to set up Vol 2, what can be left until later.
I’ll write something on it at some point either way, but I suppose the question is whether people are interested generally in the deep-dive pop-cultural analysis stuff, or whether it’s more like nice set dressing.
I’m almost certainly overthinking it, if If anyone has any thoughts or feelings, please do voice them.
How interested would people be in a chapter on CW popular music trends in the latter half of the Sixities?
Having spent time away from the ‘plot’ over December, I’ve decided I want to revise my ideas for CW musical culture for the Sixties and beyond. With the end of Vol 1 in sight, however, I’m of a mind to push ahead with the political drama so we can hit 1969 soonish, and then revisit cultural stuff in Vol 2. Does anyone have a preference? Is there any demand for a look in at what the kids are listening to some time in the near future? Could be quite a fun way to chart the evolving state of public expression under Bevan… Suppose I’m mainly thinking about time management and plot pacing; what needs to be said now to set up Vol 2, what can be left until later.
I’ll write something on it at some point either way, but I suppose the question is whether people are interested generally in the deep-dive pop-cultural analysis stuff, or whether it’s more like nice set dressing.
I’m almost certainly overthinking it, if If anyone has any thoughts or feelings, please do voice them.
That does sound interesting, seeing what music Bevan permits to be made and which famous artists had 'tragic accidents' and were never seen again. I fully support a deep-dive pop-culture update(s?) being dropped in whenever you feel best, certainly they are much more than just nice set dressing.
As we are in November 1964 I've had a look at the actual Single Chart for that week in history to take a guess at what survived and what has changed;
1.
2. All Day and All of the Night - The Kinks. Allowed and used as a handy description of how long Bevan demands people work in order to somehow keep the economy from collapse
3. Little Red Rooster - The Rolling Stones. As if any other colour of rooster would be permitted?
4. He's In Town - Rockin' Berries. Seem inoffensive enough.
5. Um, Um, Um, Um, Um - Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders. Would be adopted word for word as the Party's industrial policy at the next 'election'.
- 2
I am very glad, thank you for the vote of confidence. As I mentioned some time in the past, I did write a pretty straight history of the alt-Beatles, but on the strength of an appetite for deep-dive I will press ahead with my existing plans to scrap it and do something more wide-ranging. Not in the least because as things stand I've done the Kinks a massive disservice by skipping over them completely, where actually I think in the Echoesverse they could well be the cream of the lot.
Asking the question was worth it for this round-up alone. Excellent as ever.
Hmm… Reading these lyrics I'm not fully convinced that this isn't crypto-mosleyite propaganda about the covert return of an anti-Bevanite poltical candidate.
He's In Town said:
--
I will also use this opportunity to draw attention to a correction to Redadder's Xmas Carol, which results from an omission I noticed earlier on. In pasting the text over to the forums, I had somehow managed to delete a joke about price controls. (The censorship alive and well, obviously.) The joke's absence I'm sure was keenly felt, and you will all be pleased to know that it has now been reinstated.
- 1
You may have a point. Or perhaps it is the Berries singing a warning about what will happen if certain candidates try to return and are not intercepted by the correct authorities?
It is one of the best jokes I've read about price controls (quite a crowded field) and so Redadder's last adventure, which was already excellent, is improved by it's addition.
- 1
Yes, that could work. Looks like these Berries have just saved themselves a lecture from Ken Loach on the proper exercise of socialist art.
It is one of the best jokes I've read about price controls (quite a crowded field) and so Redadder's last adventure, which was already excellent, is improved by it's addition.
Thank you very much. Like British-built aeroplanes, I'm always greatly relieved when Redadder jokes land.
Believe it or not, the long awaited return to action is finally upon us. KH will be here shortly to post news from Cuba.
Happy New Year one and all. Let's start off 2021 with the threat of nuclear war!
Happy New Year one and all. Let's start off 2021 with the threat of nuclear war!
The Transatlantic Missile Crisis: "Exiles at outskirts of Havana", Dec 24 1964
After twelve hours of silence on the progress of the rebel approach, the Government radio in Havana broadcast early today a terse communique signed by Premier Castro only announcing that "our armed forces are continuing to fight the enemy heroically." This memorandum was thought by official sources to be an encouraging indication of the rebellion’s military progress. It was another blow to the loyalist government, following so closely on the defection of popular leader Che Guevara to the “Red Brigade'' of Spanish-born revolutionary, Abraham Guillén. The group has taken advantage of the power vacuum to establish mastery over the Sierra Maestra, though it is assumed they have lost control of Cienfuegos. Dr. Guillén continues to call for the overthrow of the Castro regime, the formation of a national “anti-imperialist” coalition, and the ejection of the “invaders” from the island.
The Soviet Union has wasted no time in charging that the United States was responsible for the landing in Cuba by what it described as "Americans and American hirelings." Izvestia, the Soviet Government newspaper, contended that plans for landing anti-Castro forces in Cuba had been worked out and inspired by "American imperialists intent on stealing our nuclear superiority." At his vacation retreat in Sochi on the Black Sea, Premier Khrushchev conferred on the Cuban crisis with Foreign Minister Andrei A. Gromkyo. A formal Government statement from Moscow is expected tomorrow. Some observers recalled a speech by Mr. Khrushchev on July 10 that "if need be, Soviet artillerymen can support the Cuban people with rocket fire, should the aggressive forces in the Pentagon dare to start intervention against Cuba." The Soviet leader also noted that the United States was no longer out of range of Soviet missiles.
- 1
Most of the commentariat on here will have seen by now I'm sure, but for the lurkers who may not have done: with the help of an excellent group of writers, I've revived the AARlander, AARland's historic community-run periodical, for a special edition issue looking back at what 2020 had in store for the community. It's the first publication of the sort since 2014, and there's a lot of really nice writing celebrating how AARland made the best of a very bad year. If you'd like to give it a read, click the image below.
--
In Echoes-specific news, I'm going to get the next bit of the ongoing won't-they/won't-they missile saga up later tonight. It's another Bertrand Russell piece, so heftier than the bulletins. This is very much the beginning of the end for the crisis, then we'll be back to regular programming until 1969.
Do keep your eyes peeled for it when it comes.
--
In Echoes-specific news, I'm going to get the next bit of the ongoing won't-they/won't-they missile saga up later tonight. It's another Bertrand Russell piece, so heftier than the bulletins. This is very much the beginning of the end for the crisis, then we'll be back to regular programming until 1969.
Do keep your eyes peeled for it when it comes.
- 1
The Transatlantic Missile Crisis: Mr Khrushchev's Christmas Speech, Dec 25 1964
“MR KHRUSHCHEV’S CHRISTMAS SPEECH”
FROM AUTOBIOGRAPHY
BERTRAND RUSSELL
1969
The men in Washington were well aware of the risks they took in backing an invasion of Fidel Castro’s Cuba in December 1964. Since that high point of optimism surrounding the nuclear question at the end of Summer, the Autumn had seen little except ‘back-sliding’; as tensions between the world powers increased over the issues of nuclear missile installations on both sides of the Atlantic, Mr. Khrushchev retreated into the ‘security’ of familiar, blustering invectives warning of the Soviets’ nuclear capabilities, and moreover of their readiness to retaliate by means of mass destruction in the event of an American attempt against their interests.
In this context, President Kennedy knew well what he was doing when his government sanctioned the landing of a force of Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs on December 17. Further, his willingness to furnish the Exiles with American marines and the support of aerial bombardment shows one of two things: the first possibility, that he so strongly disbelieved warnings from the Kremlin about the threat of nuclear war, or else he so strongly believed in the myth of American supremacy, that he was prepared to risk the annihilation of humanity for the removal of Castro from Havana; the second: that he was a fool.
The world will, perhaps, never know how close we came to nuclear war – so gallingly described by Kennedy as a “calculated risk” – in those last days of December. When dawn broke on Friday 18, the world population still intact, minus those lost to the landing at the Bay of Pigs, it came as an unquantifiable relief to so many, whose fears had been set that now there could have been no going back: that our leaders would not falter from their grave course towards armageddon; that we would all be dragged, with one great flash, into the void. Instead, our trial was to be one of stamina, and over the weekend following the invasion, while CIA B-26 bombers unleashed destruction upon Cuban airfields and military installations, the statesmen of the world met in Washington, Moscow and Lyon to decide how events were to proceed.
CIA-backed Exiles land at the Bay of Pigs, supported by the US Marines.
In Washington and in Moscow, there was little ambiguity: the Americans were not going to back down without the removal of Castro and his regime, and the Soviets renewed almost daily their grave pronouncements on the dire consequences of the lack of an American withdrawal. Meanwhile, the Syndicalists found themselves in a bind of their own devising, for after the amicable efforts made jointly against nuclear testing that Summer, the Eurosyn was now unable to distance itself too greatly from the Soviet position. In Lyon, Chairman Faure and the national leaders recognised that cordial relations with the Kremlin ‘held the key’ (to offer a reversal of Mr. Fulbright’s assertions of 1961) to unlocking the puzzle of American interference in Europe. Thus, neither power – Eurosyn nor the USSR – could afford for Cuba to drive a wedge between them.
Even if Moscow at this time reverted into its old patterns of behaviour, withdrawing from world affairs except to raise the hackles of the bourgeoisie, very quickly on the Syndicalist initiative there emerged an unspoken doctrine, one strikingly in its moralism. This doctrine held the Americans to be primarily at fault for the crisis – that is to say, for escalating the Cold War to its tensest moment, first by the installation of missiles in Germany, and secondly by the invasion of Cuba; at the same time, the Eurosyn was unwilling to concede the notion that the Soviets were themselves blameless, so long as they stoked the fire further by rising to the American provocation with rash threats of their own. It was, to be sure, an imperfect position, and deeply flawed; on Monday 20, when Chairman Faure issued his first offer of mediation to Washington and Moscow, it was already in the knowledge that the Syndicalists were in no position to effect active change in the course of events. While agents claiming Syndicalist sympathies did their bit to bring down Castro under the leadership of Abraham Guillén and his “Red Brigade”, this was in many ways a quirk of localism in a conflict which so quickly assumed global significance. In any case, the exploits of the Red Brigade was far from the peace-keeping mission proposed by Faure, which never materialised so long as the situation remained ‘hot’.
After one week of fighting, with the Exiles knocking at the gates of Havana, the crisis entered its most obscure phase; the movements on the ground had – thankfully – failed to produce similarly seismic repercussions at the world level, and by Christmas it was possible, very tentatively, to ask the question, with reference to the nuclear threat: If not already, when? The New York Times editorial, wary of complacency, recalled in their Christmas Eve edition a speech given by Khrushchev on July 10, in the course of which he had noted that the United States was well within range of Soviet rockets, and that “Soviet artillerymen can support the Cuban people with rocket fire, should the aggressive forces in the Pentagon dare to start intervention against Cuba.” Had the Soviet nuclear threat been exposed as a ‘paper tiger’? Entertaining such ideas is unwise; in different circumstances, but for a hint more foolhardiness in the Kremlin, or a degree stronger the resolve of the regime in Havana, the world could very easily have burned for Kennedy’s fears over Communism in Latin America. We are fortunate, as a species, that included alongside our irrationality is fickleness. No other characteristic, viewed in the significant benefit of hindsight, was so widely in play to scupper the progress of nuclear annihilation.
Viewed from Washington at the end of 1964, President Kennedy's Cuban gamble appeared to have succeeded beyond all expectations.
In the first instance, one must consider the slowness of the Soviet response, which aside from its immediate implications for world peace had profound repercussions in Havana. Khrushchev, whose form in the years prior to the crisis had been wildly inconsistent, veering from full-throated enthusiasm for the defence of Soviet interests by nuclear means on the one hand, to scepticism over the merits of the entire nuclear programme on the other, preferred to hedge the question when asked. He continued to rail against American imperialism in public, but so far as Cuba was concerned, if he was not prepared to countenance the nuclear option, he was powerless to act. Wavering, the Soviet leader directed the Kremlin in a Eurocentric strategy, seeking to keep pressure upon Germany, which after all was where the initial spark of conflict had occurred. Willingly disguised by a world media transfixed on the threat of nuclear war erupting at any moment, the Soviets fell back on the same strategy which had worked so well for them in 1956, threatening the German border in East Prussia by moving large numbers of troops through the territories of the friendly Baltic states. Since the formation of the European Common Defence Agreement (EUCODA) at the start of December, bringing the militaries of the Washington-aligned states of Mitteleuropa more closely under the control of the United States, Europe faced the possibility of a land war between its major powers for the first time in half a century, when the first guns sounded at the start of the Great War. With all of the attention that the situation in Cuba, rightly, receives, both in hindsight and in contemporary material, the casual observer would be forgiven for overlooking the bipolar character of the confrontation, whose gravity at the end of 1964 was so strongly weighted towards the global West. Nevertheless, the increase of tensions between the Soviet Union, and Germany and her allies, both at their frontiers and in the Baltic Sea, is important to bear in mind when considering the longer-term implications of the events of the crisis prior to the New Year of 1965.
But that was all still to come. In Cuba, the tide was already turned well against the Muscovite position. Khrushchev’s ‘failure’ to respond to the American invasion with nuclear weapons had split the Castro government, enraging Che Guevara and turning him against the Soviet–Cuban alliance which he himself had driven into force. It was Guevara who had pushed through the installation of Soviet missiles on the island in spite of scepticism from Havana, opining that the possibility of “millions of atomic war victims” was a price well worth paying in the fight to resist “imperialist aggression”. When the time came and the weapons remained un-deployed, Guevara concluded – with good reason – that Cuba had merely been used as a ‘pawn’ in the two-way struggle between Washington and the Kremlin. Castro, whose own view was that the survival of his government in Havana was of far superior importance to the question of Soviet fidelity, maintained – although he would never admit this publicly – that the United States could not be repulsed except with Soviet assistance. The two men fell out, and Guevara broke from the government – initially attempting to rally an independent force against the Exiles, but soon making an alliance of convenience with the Syndicalist Red Brigade, admiring Guillén’s bold resistance if not fully sharing his ideological sympathies.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara, formerly Fidel Castro's most important ally, pictured among volunteers of the Syndicalist Red Brigade.
Thus it fell to Khrushchev to defend a divided government, and one which he did not altogether care for too highly. Privately, Castro’s reputation was not highly-valued by officials in Moscow, and the Cuban leader was often thought to be reckless, and furthermore nothing more than an opportunistic adherent of the Marxist-Leninist creed, which he only embraced publicly for the first time in 1962. Khrushchev, I am certain, regretted the extent to which he had pushed for Soviet involvement with the Cuban regime, and at the lowest moment of the Missile Crisis, I believe that the question in his mind was not one of Castro’s survival, but rather of saving face in the wake of American interference. Havana, he bargained, was a reasonable enough concession to make, the alternative being the likely deaths of one third of the global human population. This he admitted, if not in these words, for the world to hear on the evening of December 25, where at Plas Penrhyn Christmas festivities were greatly overshadowed by the coming of the Six O’Clock News.
Khrushchev formulated his address in his Black Sea dacha on the evening of December 24. While he had consulted with foreign minister Andrei Gromyko earlier that day, Khrushchev wrote the statement without involving the Politburo, and had it relayed directly to Radio Moscow, which he believed leaders in Washington and elsewhere would hear. As reported on the CBC on Christmas evening, this is what the Soviet leader had to say:
The Soviet Union refuses to follow the United States and her allies in their attempts to hold the world population hostage by threat of nuclear annihilation. So long as rocket nuclear weapons are not put into play, it remains possible to secure a general peace. The Soviet Union remains preoccupied by the matter of peace, which is so vital that we must consider a top-level meeting to discuss all of the problem that have arisen, expanding upon our productive meetings earlier this year with the representatives of the European Syndicate, to do everything to avert the danger of unleashing thermonuclear war.
The world having anticipated an official pronouncement from the Soviet government, to hear this offer for peaceful resolution from Khrushchev himself was nothing short of electrifying. The following morning, a response came from Chairman Faure, who reiterated his earlier offer, on behalf of the European Syndicate, to facilitate a meeting between the embattled world powers. In Washington, President Kennedy met his Soviet counterpart’s statement with …
- 1
- 1
More bluster presumably. It's worked well so far. They'll keep at it now till the world ends.
Yes, quite possibly. Or he might exercise a bit of keenness of mind, realise that he's got what he wanted and Khrushchev isn't going to blow up the world for Castro's sake, and that now would be a good time to climb down.
I'm picturing a sad Chairman Faure, sat sitting by a telephone that will never ring.
Then again, this has been a massive triumph for Kennedy yet his term has been described in previous chapters as "disastrous". He must cock things up spectacularly to outweigh this success, so maybe he fumbles it at the end and snatches defeat from the jaws of victory?
This would make more sense. Depends what "climb down" means though. Less blustery rhetoric and some nice words about free and fair elections in Cuba and a transition back to peace, that all seems fine. But no actual concessions, because there's no reason to.
Then again, this has been a massive triumph for Kennedy yet his term has been described in previous chapters as "disastrous". He must cock things up spectacularly to outweigh this success, so maybe he fumbles it at the end and snatches defeat from the jaws of victory?
Something like this, perhaps?
.jpg "1965 LYON SUMMIT (_Faure by the phone_).jpg")
I'm also quite interested to see just what exactly Kennedy comes back with (I don't know in specific terms), because you're right: Khrushchev has shown that the Soviets won't necessarily resort to nuclear warfare if their interests are threatened (as in Cuba OTL) and he's also revealed that Soviet protection doesn't mean much if the Americans actually invade (in the Western Hemisphere at least). The question, I think, will be whether Kennedy can be persuaded to make a few concessions in kind about the extent of American influence in the Old World, or whether he ignores that advice and tries to press home the advantage. If he does this, he probably jeopardises the whole 'peace' process.
As for his disastrous term to come… bear in mind that we have still not actually reached his 'proper' inauguration, so it's still very early days indeed. My understanding is that it's a case of "pride goeth before the fall". He also has an incredibly fractious domestic situation to contend with, of course, which will need more than just a sticking plaster.
- 1
Hmm… maybe it's time for a saucy Echoes spin-off where the US, the USSR and the ES are locked in a deadly love triangle? Something like "Faure's A Crowd: An Enemies-to-Lovers Cold War AU"
One really old crotchy old man. One slightly younger and constantly drunk old man who never got out of his Hitchin's phase. One barely legal wacko who botches to people about restraint and temperance whilst slamming hookers at home and doing lines of anything rolled down.
They all live next to each other. They all hate each other. The really old man and the young fuckup are father and son. Extremly estranged but they have super awkward investments together and no one else really likes them so they end up hanging out a lot.
The super old man dreams of taking over the whole street, like he used to before the other two showed up. The other two have bigger houses either side of him, but both get secretly annoyed that his is somehow better than theirs and he knows it.
All of them are heavily armed and tend to kill anyone they don't like, especially if they say no to something. And every so often, they'll team up to burn down someone else's neighbourhood. And they all despise the neighbours across the channel...er, street. They all want to murder the super old guy directly across from their super old guy, but one of them is always defending him in one of their schemes. They all want to fuck the one in the house next door to that. Hell, pretty much everyone wants to get in bed with them.
For some reason, it never seems to end well.
- 1
Fantastic.
Maybe this should be the recurring sitcom for Volume 2. A sort of deranged version of Till Death do Us Part…
Seeing as it’s getting to that time where we all start reminding each other of the various votes going on at the moment, I’ll just take a moment and exhort any and all readers/lurkers/passer-by to go and fill out ballots for the community awAARds currently ongoing. These are:
This AAR is eligible to be voted for in both competitions. Obviously this isn’t mandatory – although I’ve sent Boothby round to engage the organisers on this subject and he says talks so far have been pretty positive.
—
AAR-wise, @99KingHigh is hoping to get some time to write up the next bit from Kennedy towards the end of the week.
In the meantime, I’ve been going back editing the stuff I have for the rest of the decade to reflect a few changes I made to the plot while my laptop was out of action. Once the crisis is out the way, things will return to the usual service of political drama and cultural shenanigans. So hopefully that’s something to look forward to.
- The Q4 2020 AARland Choice AwAARds (or ACAs), which this year are being run by @Nikolai. The ACAs are where AARland gathers to elect its favourite AARs from the last quarter, which in this case means those to have been updated between October 1 and December 31 2020. Voting is open until January 31.
- The 2020 Year-end Yearly AwAARds (or YAYAs), run by @coz1. The YAYAs differ from the ACAs in that all AARs updated between December 1 2019 and November 30 2020 are eligible. A little more prestigious than the ACAs as a result, this is where AARland gathers to elect the best work to be found on the boards over the past year. Voting is open until February 1.
This AAR is eligible to be voted for in both competitions. Obviously this isn’t mandatory – although I’ve sent Boothby round to engage the organisers on this subject and he says talks so far have been pretty positive.
—
AAR-wise, @99KingHigh is hoping to get some time to write up the next bit from Kennedy towards the end of the week.
In the meantime, I’ve been going back editing the stuff I have for the rest of the decade to reflect a few changes I made to the plot while my laptop was out of action. Once the crisis is out the way, things will return to the usual service of political drama and cultural shenanigans. So hopefully that’s something to look forward to.